firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 036

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 thirty-sixth archive.

October 1997

Hi all,

I've been reading and learning. Thanks so much (especially you veteran viewers) for sharing your knowledge. I have a question about the monitor's role. What should the mindset of the monitor be? It would seem that subconscious intent would influence the viewer even in a "I want you to succeed...I want you to fail" type of way. Also, any good tips for improving our performance as a monitor?

Thanks again.


Vic, you wrote, <<WOW! The Paradox, MRV- "mystical" RV. I can see "it" George, I just can't "view" "it" (.....yet)>>

Seriously, folks, I loved this post by Vic. This forum (again, PJ, deeply heartfelt thanks) IS truly the upward spiral for our thinking and experience, by spreading around the breakthroughs to the whole RV community. You know, I even think that since we have one another to talk to all the time, our abilities are increasing faster. I truly think our job is to holdon, although I'm sure they were/are important (as I said before, no one will convince me that the Co isn't still using RV).

And apropos of that, I finally have a question. When all you military folks were getting trained, was there ever any focus on controlling the ability to "see" so that you could turn it off? I think this is a question about disconnecting from the target. As you know, I use the ability in my practice, and there are times when, even having done my formal 'disconnect' routine, I keep going back and getting more info, or more accurately, more info comes in. For example, when I "looked" at my partner's very sick father, there kept being more info, which would pop up at odd times later, for a couple of days. I recently did a session on a supposedly autistic boy of 5 who turns out to be conscious like us, and now he keeps showing up and visiting me, just to smile, wink, and fade. The first time he came it was disconcerting. Now I just smile back, offer a mental wave, and go back to what I was doing.

Any thoughts on this? (But please, save the nets for somebody else!!)


Mary wrote: (snip) >..... I seem to be following the Nike path.

"NRV"! I love it!

>I was thrilled to get the people caught in the Titanic event, and the >sketch suggesting its sinking. However, unless the ship is haunted, I >didn't get the Titanic or current. If the target is Titanic current, am I >meant to have RV'd the rusting hulk at the bottom of the sea, If so, what >I got could be interpreted as a complete failure. Building an internal >rapport is not going to be easy on that basis. > >All advice is welcome.

Dear Mary, It is not at all unusual for people to "slide" back and forth in time. There is something about sites which have had a traumatic event which causes the viewer to be drawn to that event. This is natural. You're right on track. Dr. Ed May calls this "shannon entropy", and has done a good bit of research on it. Well worth reading.

The way to keep yourself from such sliding is to include the time in the tasking:

"Target is 971016/000001. Describe the target in present time."

It's as simple as that. Personally, though, when doing practice targets, I like to go ahead and let things slide. If the descriptors begin coming out as powerful, exciting, etc., then you pretty well know you are at an event of some type. When that happens, you can then cue yourself in session with:

"Move to the target at present time and describe."

If you have been in present time all along, then the descriptors won't change. If you have been sliding in time, a return to the present can give you additional information which can be used to verify the session.


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

>>..... I seem to be following the Nike path. > "NRV"! I love it!

Sorry, that's taken. A bunch of us are using that methodology right now! <G>

I have a question about the following:

> The way to keep yourself from such sliding is to include the time in the >tasking: > >"Target is 971016/000001. Describe the target in present time."

If the tasker set up the target to view an event that has already occured, they wouldn't say, for instance Target is 971016/000001 Aug 6 1945, because that may give away the target, or if it doesn't, it will set up some pretty powerful AOLs.

And if the tasker has assigned the date, blind to the viewer in the tasking, then moving yourself to the present may miss the whole point of the session.

Any comments? I'm curious about this, since I have assigned and worked past targets blind to the date.

Mike CT

Lyn/Paul/Liam/Gene/Joe or any other Local Experts, I'd rather you answered this at whatever length you can. But until you get to it -- Mike -- what I call "private tasking" is something that, say, is "written down by the tasker" but the Viewer never sees that. In other words, the tasker may say, "Describe the location in this photo as it was November 14, 1492." But all the Viewer should be told is, "Describe the target." Now, if you're doing your own targets, like photos people send you for example, it's probably best to "describe the target at the time the photo was taken." Then, your feedback will (hopefully) match your session. -- PJ

>If the tasker set up the target to view an event that has already occured, >they wouldn't say, for instance, "Target is 971016/000001 Aug 6 1945", because >that may give away the target, or if it doesn't, it will set up some >pretty powerful AOLs.

Yes. Here, we get back to the fact that CRV was always meant to be a team effort. I would never give tasking to a viewer which said, "Target is 971016/000001 Aug 6 1945". It is another thing altogether, however, to give the monitor/viewer team the coordinates of 971016/000001, and slip the monitor the instructions to get the viewer on target and take him/her to Aug 6 1945 time-wise. If the viewer is working without a monitor, I could also say,

"Target is 971016/000001. The target is an event. Describe the event."

Now, a lot of people don't like that much "frontloading". However, those same people will expect a monitor, in the session, to later (usually Stage 4) say something like, "Move to the event and describe." (This would occur >>only<< after the viewer has found that there is an event at the site - possibly an hour or two into the session.)

I, however, find it very useful to let the viewer know up front that they are not there to describe the location, a person, place, or thing. Therefore, they know where to put the most work during their sessions. Purists will say that frontloading is giving information, but it is not giving information >>about the target<<. It is giving the viewer information about what aspect is of particular interest to the tasker, and therefore, where to put the most effort.

"Frontloading" is a formalized method in CRV, not purely Ingo in nature, but it has been used over the years to let the viewers spend their time viewing what the customer wants without having to look through the entire universe to finally hit on it, thereby cutting potential 10 hour sessions down to 1 hour. Being formalized, it has a set of accepted "neutral" words which can be used, and which should not be exceeded, except under certain circumstances. For example, it is OK to say: The target is a location. The target is an event. The target is an activity. The target is a situation. The target is a person.

These don't give you any information about the target, but do let you know what type of information you're looking for.

You could NOT, however, say: The target is a murderer. The target is a poor little girl who was abducted by an evil biker gang. The target is a wild party on a yacht which exploded last April in Singapore. etc.

By the same token, time-wise, the monitor (or tasker) can say, "Move to the time of the event." but would never say, "Move to Aug 6 1945."

>And if the tasker has assigned the date, blind to the viewer in the >tasking, then moving yourself to the present may miss the whole point of >the session.

Possibly, but by working the target at both times, you gain extra information. When I said that I would give myself the command to move to present time if I were getting indicators that there had been a major event, I didn't mean that I would pass up the information about that event. I meant that I would exhaust the information about the location at the time of the event, and >>then<< move to the present time. This is always a good way to get more information about any site.


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

Moderator's Note: Frontloading! Joe is probably sneezing. ;-) Working without a monitor so skews the team-designed process, though, that there's gotta be something to give somewhere, and that's one area. (Your can't-use target cue examples made me realize that there is some humor waiting to happen in "example no-no target cues..." -- PJ)

>Any comments? I'm curious about this, since I have assigned and worked >past targets blind to the date.

Hi Mike and all;

Liam here, excellent answer PJ, at least IMO. I do not know if I can add anything other than some personal experience. I was a viewer with the military unit when we switched from using geographical coordinates to coded coordinates. I believe this was the brainchild of Skip, Gene, and maybe Ed. They never explained to the viewers how this worked, they just told us it worked, we believed them, and it did. As PJ said, I believe they incorporated the time right into the tasking and then made it into a coded coordinate.

Two other options, if you are working with a monitor, are: first have the viewer acquire the target in present time and then do a movement exercise, such as. Move in time to target time. This may put a little generalized AOL in (watch for it) but it gives the viewer no specific hints. An other option is to use approximate time. The emotional gestalt or the tasker's intent will normally pull the viewer to the desired time. There is still the danger of AOL but once again it is generalized. "Approximately 50 years earlier, something is visible" is a lot better than saying, report on what happened on 6 June 1944. Both of the movement options will work, however the best way, IMHO, is to incorporate the time in to the coordinates as PJ recommended in her post.

As to the earlier question as to what type of Irish Wiskey the "wee folk" like best? I normally use Paddys, Tulmore Dew, or John Jameson. However the little people are not real finicky. When I was heavily involved into exploring alternate realities through the use of grain derivatives, they drank what I drank. One halloween, during a period of severe economic challenge, we shared a bottle of cheap wine. They seemed to appreciate the sincerity of my gift. Hard luck was at a minimum for the next year, and we were able to celebrate the next Hallo's eve with a more appropriate potable.

Thank you all for being there. Thank you PJ for the time and effort

warmest wishes

May the Force be with you,


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

Thanks, all for the input and advice!! This list is well worth the money!

(PJ, I almost missed yours, because I forgot to check for the Moderator's note on my own note. I usually don't read the notes I send! But I will check them from now on.)

The answers are pretty much as I expected, when it comes to tasking the past, from the tasker's point of view. And if I had the luxury of having a monitor, I can definitely see how useful that would be!! A good working relationship with a monitor sounds like a really good thing!

I assume the answers are the same for tasking future events. Is that true?

Mike CT

Moderator's Note: Kinda like my own email version of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, eh. ;-) -- PJ

>If the tasker set up the target to view an event that has already occured, >they wouldn't say, for instance Target is 971016/000001 Aug 6 1945, >because that may give away the target, or if it doesn't, it will set up >some pretty powerful AOLs. >And if the tasker has assigned the date, blind to the viewer in the >tasking, then moving yourself to the present may miss the whole point of >the session.

If the target was an event which ocurred Aug 6th, 1945; then the following would be enclosed within the envelope:

"Describe the event that ocurred on August 6th, 1945." Or "Describe the scene at 0700 hrs on 6th August 1945." Anything that specifically identifies the parameters of interest or intent.

The outside of the envelope would simply read something like:

"Target 12", or "Number 12", or "Bingo".



[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]

Is this front loading, or what? The moral seems to be, we're all in this together. Or, in politically correct terms, RV is a subset of a broader connectivity.


"A second series of experiments used the sacrifice of clones as a distant stimulus. The data appear to show that the marine alga Tetraselmis suecica reacts dramatically to the sacrifice of cells in a physically isolated aliquot of the same culture if the experimenters are aware of the moment of sacrifice, and excited by the novelty of the experiment. In sharp contrast, only marginally significant results were obtained when the same experiment was run entirely automatically, with the time of the sacrifice defined by random number selection, and the experiment activated by computer command in an empty laboratory."

(Pleass, C.M., and Dey, N. Dean; "Conditions That Appear to Favor Extrasensory Interactions between Homo Sapiens and Microbes," Journal of Sci entific Exploration, 4:213, 1990.) >From Science Frontiers #76, JUL-AUG 1991. 1997 William R. Corliss

Home Page "Science Frontiers"



You maybe already know the >>very<< interesting experiments results on remote intra- and inter-species perceptions/connections in "The secret life of plants" by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird. Cleve Backster's work on "plants telepathic links" (he was a former CIA "lying detector" expert) is especially astonishing.

These works underline also -in a certain extent- your own statement.



I have a question I hope any of the seasoned remote viewers can answer.

In the book PSYCHIC WARRIOR, it mentions that they were allowed to go on open searches.

I can understand how this is possible whilst using ERV, but am confused how it can be done using CRV methodology, can anyone explain?

Is open searches a standard prctice/procedure?

Thanks in advance...


Re open searches:

One thing that strikes me, having listened to the intell guys talk about this for a couple years now, is that the so-called "open searches" they did were seldom, by my own definition, actually "open." So I think the term may be causing some confusion.

For instance, one Viewer who did a bang-up precog session during one of the "open searches" (see the Firedocs site media page for an article on this - that was Paul Smith) said he was surprised at the target data at the time, because he was sure it was going to be one of [the monitor's] [favorite kind of] targets. [PJ, the editorially-politically-correct.]

So, simply using THAT tasker/monitor created its own form of frontloading, which can certainly be seen as cueing in an 'open search' situation. Potential frontloading can come from many sources, including just knowing the source of your tasking, and this was a good example.

Ironically, the military Viewer, who was/is specifically NOT of the same interest in the same types of targets as the tasker in that case, went to a target that (a) was the biggest thing to military people in the news within a few days; and (b) was by coincidence related to an area of the world, via military, that was his own specialty (middle east).

Also, in the so-called "open searches" the specification has actually been, in many cases I've heard recounted, to describe the most important thing in the newspaper in the next week, or the most important thing that will happen in regards to a certain topic, or whatever... which is also NOT "open," it is merely "not well defined compared to the normal way of tasking."

Even taking good RV data from a specific tasking and analyzing it, figuring out exactly how it all fits together, is enough of a job. Allowing yourself to tune into anything in the cosmos and then trying to figure out what it is might be fun, but couldn't be taken seriously as RV. IMO 'open search' data matching is to RV what 'word association' might be to a police officer asking for details on an event. There might be something valid there at the root, but it's probably heavily encoded in what interests the tasker/monitor/viewer, viewer symbology, etc. (As if much RV isn't...) It just wouldn't be worth the time. "Open," in this case, is the term that really needs better definition...

Just my opinion....


Please explain what AOL stands for... So many messages with acronyms, there must be lots of as-yet-untrained readers who are trying to understand something of this RV'g game, and feel frustrated as i do with the constant use of mysterious initials... Come on, guys and gals, there's too much inside stuff, initials, procedures referred to without explanation... Why not spread around, open to the layman, a little of the brilliance this list includes, so that others may learn?

Paul D

Moderator's Note:

AOL stands for "Analytical Overlay." It is a concept which infers that the "processing" which one's brain does to pure data after receiving it, particularly that processing which is linear or logical, is inclined to alter one's perception of (and communication of) that original data.

In other words, you can screw up your data by thinking about it. Even before you're aware you've done so.

Example: You may have raw data which says something is red, metallic, and in motion. By the time it filters out to your conscious mind and gets put into words, you may say, "red car." That would be an example of analytical overlay. Components of that AOL might be based in valid data, but the 'conclusion' your mind came to, the 'pattern it found', may not be correct.

Until they really start doing RV, most people aren't aware of just how much "assuming" their brain actually does to data, either leaving it out or adding things to it.

Part of remote viewing methods training is learning to recognize your communications, to recognize what you are doing in your head, during "processing," to the original data. The goal is to get the original data recorded with as little warping influence on it as possible.

So, in some methodologies, AOL is to be "avoided." In others it's simply recognized for what it is. Either way, most formal methodologies force one to acknowledge that kind of thought by writing it down.

-- PJ

Moderator; Thank you so much. I truly appreciate this note and feel certain any new members would be as thankful as I if it came their way when they signed on.

Rex Harrill

BTW, AOL is a big problem in dowsing circles as well, but I've never heard the term there.

Moderator's Note: You can call me PJ. I tried to get everyone to call me "Oh Mighty One" but nobody went for it. -- PJ

charles d wrote: >shows that memory is the product of a process and this process has >several levels and "parts". Now, Ingo makes the same point in his >writings. So, unless you want to take on Ingo, Joe and everyone else >who happens to believe that brain research is a fairly good idea, I >don't see much of a point here.

I've always felt that responsible brain research is as good place to start as any with regard to RV research. But, I've also always stated that I have not yet been convinced that Brain and Mind are the same or even similar. Nor have I been convinced that they either share or not share significant functions. While it is true that damaging the brain seemingly interrupts the function of Mind, I do not automatically prescribe to the belief that Mind is therefore a function of brain. Hence, memory may have many facets and lie within both as a function more dependent on use. What can be said is that you can probably destroy the connection to Mind by destroying the brain--but given what I've experienced in ESP over the past 19 years, this may even be doubtful. I'd like to think the jury is going to be out a long time on this issue.

>Need I point out that brain research in no way limits anyone to 5 >senses model. In fact, research in a variety of areas can be sited as >useful to people interested in remote viewing. I should also point out >that Ed May (who has done some research on remote viewing) thinks Paul >Churchland's work is worth reading. Now how he squares Chruchland's work >with remote viewing is a interesting question but I think May's point >about looking to see if there is a physical correlation between brain >activity and remote viewing seems reasonable. Also, Skip Atwater has done >work in this direction. Once again, whatever they find is what they > won't change the fact that some remote viewers can be very >accurate and fairly consistent.

It may also prove to be the smoke and not the gun. (did I say that right). Again, a good and probably appropriate place to start, if you have to pick a point from which to begin.

>I think Skye's response was >prompted by the tendency of 'brain researchers' (e.g., Persinger) to use >their research to "discount" the evidence for some form of "contact or >abduction" by suggesting that it's mass hallucination biochemically >created, or what have you. Eventually, people involved in the UFOlogy or >MC fields get something of a knee-jerk reaction to scientists doing that >stuff, since the ones they hear about often seem to be designing research >to fit political agendas rather than science. -- PJ

I think you are absolutely right here, Palyne. I also understand the reason behind Skye's response. Just because one can use an electromagnetic device to "fool" the Mind, does not imply that the Mind is being fooled by an experience (implying such is called flim-flam). :)

The contact or abduction experience can be a lot of things--ONE of which MIGHT be Persinger's explaination--but just because he has duplicated some of the elements of such an experience through the use of electromagnetics, does not in any way suggest he has found the cause for it.

In all honesty, the only thing that I've ever heard him say is that he has created something "similar" to the experience, so it "might be" the cause. A far cry from stating it emphatically.

The knee jerk reaction that many respond with is a direct result of the experience itself. That is because many of the experiences are about as subtle as being run down with a Mack Truck and they have about the same effect. They (experiences) irrevocably alter a persons life and dramatically change their viewpoint within reality. I would react negatively to anyone trivializing my experience(s) as well. Although, over the years, I've grown somewhat accustomed to it and understand it for what it is—fear of the unknown.

Hope this was constructive and didn't dwell too far into the forbidden zone.



[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]

Joe, Thanks for commmenting on the subject. It's a small point but my use of the word correlation (between brain states and experience) leaves open the question of how the two relate. There is an odd essay by William James entitled "Human Immorality" which addresses this question. The essay was written near the turn of the century so perhaps James was ahead of his time. Thanks again.

Charles D

PJ wrote: (big snip) >.......Btw, while you're chomping on the >False Memory Syndrome group and their Evil Minions, you might want to >consider that some of our dearly beloved intell Viewers, including Lyn >Buchanan, are or have been associated with that. -- PJ, the completely >unparanoid

While I know that false memory syndrome is a real and present danger to everyone, CRVers included, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, is, as far as I am concerned, well=== PJ won't let me get into politics, especially when combined with flaming.

Sufice it to say that the syndrome is valid, while the foundation and the whole twisted (excuse me) set of goals they espouse - well.......


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

>Moderator's Note: Ha! Interesting concept, comparing it to web >downloads. An RV memory cache. There's probably a Swannism for >that, somewhere.

Not so novel as a function, is it? Seems to me like there's a direct parallel to Cayce's readings -- set in today's idiom of course. (Didn't I hear somebody say "The truth is out there..."?)

Tom C

Any chance of the moderator posting a weekly (or monthly) jargon/acronym report so a dummy like me can follow the thread a little better?

>In less than 5 minutes I did a quick flurry of S4s and then declared a >strong AOL/S that turned out to be the event itself.

Thanks Rex H

Moderator's Note: What I need to do is get off my duff and make a Swann terminology list, to go with the Buchanan terminology list. Then you would have pages and pages of terms which you will read, forget, and still wonder about when you hear them. Hmmmn. There has to be a solution.... S/P refer to stages (in Swann-ese) or Phases (in Buchanan-ese) of the structure. AOL/S refers to AOL-Signal, which is to say, somebody got an AOL (as described in a previous post), but was certain that although it was a mental construct in verbal terms, it had a high potential for accuracy within it or about it, meaning, "it was from the signal line."

>In less than 5 minutes I did a quick flurry of S4s and then declared a >strong AOL/S that turned out to be the event itself.

Translation: "I received a bunch of impressions, quickly, that were 'conceptual' in nature, and then I had the impression of a certain specific named event, which I wrote down recognizing that it was technically an AOL (because it was a "name" instead of a 'descriptive'), but I believed the AOL had some validity to it. As it turned out, the target was exactly what I named."

Sorry for the confusion. Please continue to ask when this stuff goes by. I'll try to remember to translate some of this at the bottom when I send out the messages. -- PJ

My apologies to Rex, PaulD et al. for using the "S4 - AOL/S" jargon -- I know better and am suitably chastised. And my thanks to PJ (as ever) for her clear and succinct explanation of the concepts. PJ, you should finish the training yourself one of these days soon so you can "officially" teach this stuff!! (as if you weren't doing exactly that already.) You do better than anyone else I've seen at laying out the concepts.

Listening to GeneK and Liam with their straight-forward, no-nonsense approach to RV makes me so enthused I just get carried away with enthusiasm sometimes. <BG> Besides, I was still pretty excited about "nailing" the target exactly (that's certainly a rarity for me, and is generally not to be expected based on the RV dictum of "describe, don't name"). When it does happen of its own accord, it's great fun, though!

Cheers, GeneT

Moderator's Note: Training and doing time aside, I will probably always feel like a student in wonder at this stuff... -- PJ

Newbie thoughts, comments, and question after reading the past week's threads.

1) In the "Dance" discussion, an analogy was made using a chess game as an illustration. Twenty years ago, I had a dream in which I was playing a rather complicated game with Death (soon to be up in detail on a new home page I'll list when ready). One of the main turning points in the game for me was when I realized that the game was like a chess game in which you move pieces around the board in prescribed rather than random ways...but after you make your move, you BECOME one of the pieces and MUST move in certain ways as your opponent moves the you-piece before you become the you-player again. I find a resonance in this dream scene with the process of remote viewing in the sense that there are times when you are in control (seeking data) and other times in which you must relinquish control (not analyzing the data as you receive it) and, pardon the cliche, go with the flow--because you must, to do it right. Anyone else see this or is this a stretch from a random thought for me?

2)Re: visualization and what type of data comes in. As an admitted novice at RV with only 3 sessions under my belt, all solo, I was stunned at the correct matches of visualized info in the first session, set straight by the conflicting info caused by the tendency to analyze in the second session, and surprised in the most recent session by a lack of visual impressions and the appearance of words popping into my head, particularly "windswept" as if someone was shouting it at me. The target was a picture of a snow-covered peak in the Himalayas. After just these few sessions, the importance of following a set methodlogy, at least at first, seems very obvious to this newbie.

3) For the pros: I sense that there's some relationship between lucid dreaming and RV'ing, but can't seem to put my finger on it, aside from the apparent fact that they're both similar, having conscious awareness of other places/times/events in common. I don't recall this being addressed in any of the literature I've seen. Comments?



I have subscribed to this list for a little while now and have spent many happy hours pouring ouer its contents . It has provided me with good and valuable insights into RV and I continue to enjoy its contents .

The motivation for this my first contribution comes by way of one of Lyn's students who wrote 'The ten top things about remote viewing' (SIGHTINGS home page) . Who ever you are ....thank you EXCELLENT.

In 1924, a Dr A S Raleigh wrote : The student must grasp the idea of the mind separate and apart from thought . Mind is the material out of which thoughts are formed . Mind is universally difussed throughout space in the same way as Ether, Prana and Astral Matter .It is a form of energy and not merely thought .

I have also to mention another contributor to this list who pointed to the work of Dr Shafica Karagulla ( neuro psychiatrist ) ..I have found that she displayed in her work the kind of illumined intelligence often missing in 20C science...

She suggested in one of her books.."Man must become aware of his superconscious and be able to tap into this creative level of awareness."

.........(with a view to counter the)..........

" Violent and power hungry individuals and nations who have sort to suppress and use man ." (she continues) .."This (new) truly creative society will seek to produce not the superman but the Supersane Humanity moving into new and higher dimensions of moral , mental , and spirtual perception and purpose .

My hope is that we may have a chance to strive towards such a society with tools such as RV .

A question for the RV ers who did operational targets ....

..I'd like to know if there were any casualties did any of the remote viewers become mentally unstable (in the long or short term) due to 'significant protocol violations'.. and /or.. operational targets which may have been badly defined ?


Moderator's Note: Rudy, I wrote "The Top Ten Things..." Imagine MY surprise to see it on the Sightings web site. Turns out Lyn Buchanan, who had posted it on his site long ago, had given Jeff Rense (of Sightings) permission, I just didn't know about it. -- PJ.... and:

Regarding RV making one instable... well... it's open to debate. From a practical perspective, one has to admit that there are a few people involved in RV, in high self-profile ways, that are clearly just a TAD into the .... er.... fringe. But others would say, they were left of center to begin with, and RV is just their tool for acting out symptoms. Kind of like, a person may go a little wacko thinking they live in Star-Trek land, but that doesn't mean Star Trek is the cause of their problem... it's just a very fascinating concept that allows their various psyche needs to be fulfilled and so forth. I'm sure, though, that other people will have their comments about this subject.... ;-) -- PJ

October 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.