firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 039

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-ninth archive.

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

October 1997

To All,

Here's an interesting quote I took out my newspaper in an article about consumer behavior.

"When you're contacting directly with the subconcious, there's no ego filter, and that has a lot to do with the quality of the information." - Hal Goldberg consumer behavior specialist

Is "perfect" or "near-perfect RV" possible in some "in the zone" occassions? Is this sort of total "ego filter BYPASS" condition possible? Or is the constant awareness of the "ego filter/AOL" the key? Or maybe the're the same? I know it probably doesn't matter from a results perspective.

Finally would "data" that was "viewed" while in a "ego-suppressed" state of consciousness similiar to classical "mystical" experiences be expected to be of high quality. I realize that the results/feedback are an overriding determiner, but theoretically? Thoughts?

Blessings from ViewbieLand,


Last night I was listening to the Art Bell radio show and he was talking with Merl Haggert about many subjects. One of the subjects that came up was about the future of the earth and what is happening now (weather,earthquakes,violence,area 51 ect.). Art had said he had interviewed many Remote Viewers and most of them said that could not view anything past the Year 2005. I found this quite alarming and was wondering if anyone could elaborate on this.

Another nubie with open ears and mind.......
D. Jones

Moderator's Note: My estimation of Art Bell goes down more every time he gets on the topic of RV. In fact, he has interviewed Ed Dames and Courtney Brown a number of times; and one time, jointly interviewed Lyn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle and Paul Smith. (You can find the transcript of this very good interview on the Firedocs site RV Transcripts page.) I don't remember what Courtney said... but fresh from the influence of Dames as his instructor he said a lot of things he might not say now. Dames says he can't View past some given year (I think it changes from 2005 to 2012). Joe and Lyn have clearly said they have no problem with it at all. -- PJ

Hi Skye, PJ, all,

> this is where "The Wall" came from

A book published in 1989 describes "The Wall." It is "Mass Dreams of the Future" by Chet B. Snow, using future-life progressions by Helen Wambach, Deep Forest Press, ISBN 1-882530-10-1.

In the book, Snow describes future progressions of groups of people made by Helen Wambach, Leo Sprinkle and others. One common characteristic of these progressions is that far fewer people reported a future life in 2100 or 2200 than would be expected by statistical chance (numbers given in the book).

Even though most people in the groups wanted to get this information, most either jumped farther ahead in time, or reported on a past life.

Statistically, the numbers showed that, assuming reporting a future life is equally likely for 2100, 2200, 2300, etc., and that these future lives needed a body to inhabit, then only 5% of the current human population was alive in 2100, rising to 7-10% in 2200.

This caused the main investigator, Helen Wambach (who died in 1985), to work with progressions of individuals, from 1985 onward, in jumps of 5 years. The results of this investigation showed that in every case but one, the subjects reported a 'floating' feeling for the year 2000. This floating indicated to Helen that the subjects had died some time prior to 2000.

When a detailed year-by-year progression was used, the subjects reported dying in various ways (and exhibited the symptoms in their bodies, such as choking sensations -- so she discontinued that line of research). This occurred when the subjects were progressed to 1998 or 1999.

This may be the origin of this story -- unless you want to count Edgar Cayce's predictions of massive upheavals beginning in 1998.

-- Dean -- from Des Moines (KB0ZDF)

Moderator's Note: Dean to the rescue (again), you're a walking encyclopedia on this stuff. I just found your "map" on my hard drive the other day. Are you still willing to have me show up on your Iowa doorstep if Seattle's about to go underwater? ;-) -- PJ

>interviewed many Remote Viewers and most of them said that could not >view anything past the year 2005. I found this quite alarming and was >wondering if anyone could elaborate on this.


Sorry, Knee Jerk reaction. I profusely apologize.

In fact, you do have a tendency to run into some interesting problems. Going too far into time usually divorces the information (which can be 100% accurate) from the Conceptulization that makes it understandable. However, there are ways of addressing this as well.

Being fair to Art Bell, I believe he probably misinterpreted what was said by many of the viewers (except perhaps Dames).

Speaking only for MYSELF...

When asked by him, or anyone else, if I would make predictions about earthquakes, volcanoes, pestilence, diseases, plagues, orbit shifts, death & destruction, etc., etc., I have historically refused. Not because it can't be done, simply because I am not interested in prophesy for the sake of sales or sensationalism.

Secondarily, I happen to believe that we are the ultimate designers of our future. Which is a testable by the way, e.g., if you want to live in a deep dark funk for the next six months--invest your energy in pursuing funky feelings and see what happens. So, rather than chasing that sort of stuff, I'd rather spend my time being a bit more creative or constructive with my visions.

As for reality. When someone eventually publishes my next book (A Journey Through Time) which is now finished, what you will see contained is; about 120+ predictions for the years present through 2075, as well as about two hundred fifty pages of descriptions re; the year 3000 and what it will look like. Not an easy task over four years, but an interesting one.

Hope this helps. Regards,


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

>Dames says he can't View past some given year (I think it changes from >2005 to 2012). Joe and Lyn have clearly said they have no problem with >it at all. -- PJ

Then there's me who doesn't believe in the future--er, viewing the future, I mean... Not because it's not sometimes successful, but because it IS only sometimes successful. As I've said before, I think a lot of people get wound up unneccesarily over future predictions that turn out to be either alternate futures that will ultimately not be realized, or just some real wild blue-yonder AOL mental constructs that get the viewer's heart beating, but not much else. Oh, and by the way, bah humbug Bob Cratchit and all that other stuff too!

Paul the grouch

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

Moderator's Note: Notice I hadn't mentioned you. Ah yes. I saw your response coming... in the future.... ;-) -- PJ

>Then there's me who doesn't believe in the future--er, viewing the future, >I mean... Not because it's not sometimes successful, but because it IS >only sometimes successful.

Hi Paul and all; Liam again. I seem to be making a habit of agreeing with you. IMO all this RVing of the future is little more than intellectual self stimulation. Did I tell you, I rved the future last night, and on 2 november, there is going to be a huge earthquake in North America and everything east of california is going to fall into the alantic ocean.

There may be exceptions to rving the future. If you are only going a short period ahead, say a week, and there is a critical target that cannot be resolved in present time or in the past, and you have four or five good viewers available, and a good monitor/analyst, and you are feeling lucky, and and and.

> Oh, and by the way, bah humbug Bob Cratchit >and all that other stuff too! > >Paul the grouch > >------- >Moderator's Note: Notice I hadn't mentioned you. Ah yes. I saw your >response coming... in the future.... ;-) -- PJ

PJ; I knew you were going to say that. :-)

Best to all and

May the Force be with you,


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

I strongely disagree with Joe about the not being able to view past 2005 being "crap"...Nope, it's not "crap" ...its unadultered bullshit...sorry Joe...didn't mean to steal your thunder...I have done it, and there is a world after me... Gene...

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

>>Re: McKenna's TimeWave Zero, RVrs not seeing the future:

I have some checking on this right after Bell said this during the McKenna interview. The reason I did this, is that I too ran into an interesting wall during a session I did under a rather deep level (barely above hypnotic coma) stage of hypnotic induced shift. In this session, I ran through the time line and wanted to see where it ended, if it did. The reason was the try and put to rest much of the Bull that has been proported by many of the Doomsday profits. During the session, I ran into a personality that stopped my like a rock and put me back where I started from, effortlessly and with a smile. But, wasn't going to let me get by. So, I asked around and even asked Dames about it. He indicated that he has been able to look beyond those dates. He acknowledged that he did find some event around that date that he had not yet indetified, but could get around it and could look beyond that date. I asked the same thing of Joe, Lyn and Paul. So who Bell is referencing, I don't know. I E-Mail Bell to ask him about it and never got an answer. I told him what I had found when I check with the RV's and Readers that I know and asked who was having difficulty. He never answered that either.

So, my conclusion is that I ran into an anomoly that had nothing to do with any date, I could find no one who felt 2012 was an ending to anything (based on Reading experience) and I have summarily ignored the profetic doomsayers who are purporting this as a part of regurjitated New Age Dogma, with no form of qualified second or third level validation.

Bottom line, couldn't validate it ... don't buy it.

Rob A

I did a training target the other day. I did it blind but the monitor knew the target. The target was "TWA Flight 800/cause of crash/event".

In my viewing, I do not "see" things. Instead, data comes as faint thought/word pulses. (Don't know how else to describe that.)

Interestingly, for the very first time, I actually "visualized" the environment. The monitor moved me to five minutes before the event and I immediately visualized the inside of a plane's cabin. My perspective was standing up from a passenger seat and looking backward down the cabin. It was even in colour (those bland colours on aircraft bulkheads). There was a feeling of calmness and a sense of routine at that moment.

My initial reaction was that my conscious mind was constructing a story line (AOL in CRV speak?). In my experience, that level of visualizing has, in the past, been imagination. By "that level", I mean as vivid as if came from memory. You try visualizing this scene now, and that is the clarity I experienced. Anyway, I deducted "inside of an aircraft" and moved on in the session.

It brings to mind a question. How do experienced viewers determine if an image is actually an image of the target or imagination? Is there a feel to it? Some kind of quality? After doing about 40 targets, I still have no sense of a "signal line" and I hope that that comes with time.

Your reactions?

BTW, I got "fuel expulsion" "pump", "malfunction", "violent", "trajectory", "aiming", and "accidental" as related to the cause of this event. Mysterious, huh?

Rick S

>It brings to mind a question. How do experienced viewers determine if an >image is actually an image of the target or imagination? [snip] >Your reactions?

You can' long as the monitor or anyone else in the room with you knows what the target is. It can be almost anything to include body language.

The way experienced viewers determine if it is an image versus imagination, is they first make sure the target is totally blind during the viewing (to everyone).

Then in hindsight (after finishing the RV), if some of their information seems to match well with what is already known, then an assumption can be made that the rest of what they said might also be accurate.

Otherwise there will always be doubt.



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

In response to Joes just now post on Visualizing. By the way, you're up awefully early Joe, jeez.

Many time in doing reading sessions on a more freeform basis, my specialty as I get more lazy by the day, I have been noticing that the less discipline I use in my structure the more my mind tends tends to wander. Without the ability to remain focused, random visuals come to mind, that are 1) unrelated to the target and 2) are obviously AOL or other thought process related subject (even the tall blond). The point is that even in most psychic reading work, a modicome of discipline and staying within a predictable structure is necessary to get good information. To ensure credability the Blind structrure is best. I find even in my undisciplined mind, the more I know about the subject the worse my results. I get patterned to easily. Good Morning Joe.

Rob A


I've just finished the following, which I intend to put on my updated webpage, whenever I get around to finishing the rest of it. I wouldn't normally post something intended for the page to the VWR group as well, but I thought it might spark some interesting reactions. I wrote it as an answer to the title question, which I have heard numerous times from all sorts of people. I'm posting this as MY answer to the question, and encourage anyone out there who would like to, to express THEIR reasons for being interested and/or learning remote viewing. I think it would be instructive for all of us.



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

> Like skydiving, RV has its practical >applications. Within its inherent limitations remote viewing has >been used in intelligence collection, crime-solving, finding >missing persons, and--more controversially--space exploration.

Hi Paul and all;

Great article Paul. BTW I am still going to write that article on 50 miles of horse pucky.

Two more practical applications I would like to suggest is first; Historical research. I do not mean going back and trying to prove Custer really won the Battle of the Little Big Horn, but it may be helpful in discovering the motives that caused people,leaders, and countries to do what they did :Why didn't Napoleon attack earlier in the day at Waterloo." Or what really happened on the grassy hill in Dallas in Nov 63? It could provide a good starting point for deceiding where and how to do more research.

The second area is pyschic archeology. You can get a fealing of what life was like in a Roman outpost, or in the pre-columbian new world. You could locate where ancient cities are, or how certain structures were built and maybe why they were built. Once again by itself it is science fiction (Joe's words) But it may provide clues and starting points.

Once again, thanks Paul for writing an excellent article.

Warmest regards

May the Force be with you,


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

> The second area is pyschic archeology. You can get a fealing of > what life was like in a Roman outpost, or in the pre-columbian new > world. You could locate where ancient cities are, or how certain > structures were built and maybe why they were built.

Psychics have been trying to detect how Stonehenge was erected for years, and few agree. I think it takes a long induction starting from the building of ancient structures in general to get this working right.

I recently had to write an article about the dismantling of a small mineral tramway in Tasmania, about which I had only some key dates in a local history book. It was, I felt, removed piecemeal as it fell derelict, but a substantial section was retained for many years in the hope it could be reopened as a tourist attraction. By visualising the main workshop (I had no photo, but regarded the view I got as symbolic rather than actual, so wasn't too concerned about physical accuracy) at every five years from 1930 to 1950, I got a very good idea of the decay of the operation, which provided the clues to what was scrapped when. Slowly I moved in on the actual gangs from the state railway and when they were seconded for what work. Usually the older men were used, who seem to have been regarded as supernumeries by the permanent way boss.

Finally I had some firm dates and put them in the article prefaced by such cautionary phrases as "about" or "thought to be in ..." I didn't think anyone would question them.

As soon as the publication came out, we had a letter from Tasmania from a rail fan who had a newspaper cuttings collection. He put months to all my years !

This is obviously something which can be developed to a high degree of likelihood. But I do have a prejudice to express. New Agers should not on any account be permitted into the Egypt Room.

Dan W

> You should see some of the stuff presented to me! In fact, you > should see some of the stuff >>>my own mind<<< presents to me! It > is because our minds do this to us that we have an analyst's course. > What you have described happens to us all. That is the very nature > of AOL's.

Could a well conceived direction or command act as a filter to sort of increase the signal to noise ratio? Something like: "You will acknowledge and move past any information having nothing to do with the target".

Rick L

Moderator's Note: Hi Rick. 1- The most prominant drive of your session should be your focused *intent,* which should include that as part of it. 2- Also on that note, Lyn Buchanan has on his web site Q&A something about "seeing what you want to see" that's worth reading related to this. 3- I don't know how well a 'general' focus like the above works (since what your SC thinks relates to the target, and what you do, may be different), but I do know you can focus yourself to exclude any specific thing. If there is repetitive motion or something circular in a target, my first response is to just sit and draw circles like an autistic child or something, so whenever that hits me, I have to retask myself to describe the target "except for the motion or circle shapes" and then go on with the session, so I can get past that strong response. My guess is your SC will do what you tell it -- but you have to be specific and clear. Broad categorical statements like "Only show me what is accurate" (et al.) are probably only good for helping you focus your intent to where it should have been to begin with. My $.02. -- PJ

Has anyone had the luck(?) of tasking the A10 Pilot that had supposedly committed suicide by flying out of formation and crashing into some mountains? I would like some feedback if someone has because I doubt what the Air Force is saying about what happened.

Thanks........Just Curious.........

D. Jones (nimrod@...)

Actually, I was asked to descibe the whereabouts of this plane before it was found. At the time, the condition of the pilot and plane were unknown. I was in New York and a couple of the folks there thought it would make a good real-world session (not to mention demo...there are still people out there who sit want to be convinced). Remember, this was before the plane was found. Anyway, all that was needed for a quick description was stage 1-3. That's what I did and the site was fairly close to what it tourned out to be. However, I was not asked to do anything on the pilot and didn't because once it dawned on me that I was describing mountains, it's a fair guess what happened to the pilot. Since I did the session, I see little reason to imply that anyone (outside of some very bad luck) had anything to do with this tragic event. (And it was tragic and that is not something our Mr. Nimrod seem to want to bring up.) It just seems too easy to look for "shadow players" in this type of event. Perhaps someone should remind Mr. Nimrod that the military loses planes and pilots fairly often and it all goes back to the nature of the job. Each loss is tragic and should not be made light of. So, Gene if I'm off your nice guy list, can't be helped....however, there are people who do sessions on these events before they get resolved. These sessions are not fun or for the idle curious but then Mr. Nimrod does not seemed to have bothered to get himself trained either. Charles

Moderator's Note: RV is not for the faint of heart. Not because of the targets. Or the experience. Because of the people IN the field. ;-) -- PJ

> Has anyone had the luck(?) of tasking the A10 Pilot that had supposedly > committed suicide by flying out of formation and crashing into some > mountains? <snip>

It's very strange, isn't it.... has all the earmarks of a remote influencing event. Saw it coming... didn't like it then... don't like it now. Suggests to me that there are other players in these games..


RE: Tasking the A-10 crash incident..I find the thought to be total inappropriate and certainly outside the realm for which RV should be used....Mr. "Nimrod"...I don't know who you represent or why you think it is necessary to indict the Air Force version of what has happened but consider all the people you may hurt in the process...I would also ask all of the participants on this net to kindly ignore Mr. Nimrod...nothing can be gained by viewing the dead except stress, mental stress and confusion...the dead are especially hard to view and the results can really be taxing on one's mental state...As one of the old crew from the military unit...I respectfully ask each of you to weigh you own conscience on this one and take the appropriate action...I would also note, if I see anyone answering Mr. Nimrod, they will be removed from my nice guys lists and you can expect me to boycott any hints, advice, comments to you in the future (for whatever that is worth...) Regardzzz..Gene Kincaid....

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

Moderator's Note: These intell guys are all so relaxed, you notice? -- PJ

>It's very strange, isn't it.... has all the earmarks of a remote influencing event. Saw it >coming... didn't like it then... don't like it now. Suggests to me that there are other players in >these games..

Sorry to say, I don't get what the fuss is about. An otherwise typical fighter pilot (though none of them actually THINK they're typical) flying an obsolescent, low-tech aircraft wanders (probably intentionally) off flight path, and ends up crashed on a mountain when his fuel runs out a long ways away from where he's supposed to be. The Air Force's final conclusion of suicide makes the most sense of any that have been proposed. Now, I can't view this anymore because of all the front loading. But my intuition has told me all along that there is nothing otherwise peculiar about the case. His bombs are, of course, still unlocated, but he could have jettisoned them anywhere along his route to increase his range. And anyone who's spent any time out in that part of the country would be unsurprised that the bombs haven't been found yet... And all you conspiracy buffs out there, please remember--they were only boring old conventional bombs.


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

Everyday, I get qs from newbies asking ME for hints. Please stop!! Look, I'm a complete newbie too. I've just had the courage to have a go, and to write the list, with my own Qs, being quite prepared to look stupid. I suggest the rest of you newbies do the same.

PJ has done a tips for newbies, which I found extremely helpful. Also the Farsight Manual will be on line any time now, I gather.

It would be great though, if one of our experts, could put some general guidelines together for us newbies. Hint, hint, hint.

My last session was a complete washout. Not one thing right and no association, that I can understand. But it felt like a real signal, and I worked it. (I know I wasn't following a stray cat.)I am keeping it, in case I find a connection, or meaningful coincidence. Can that happen in RV?


Moderator's Note: Every time somebody asks a question and gets an answer, 200 people have a chance to get some experienced advice, and however many more from the permanent email archives. No information except the sign-off (however you choose to do that) goes into the archives. No email addresses except those of the main people in the field. There is no reason not to ask a question of the list, except shyness and fear of course. I can't help cure those unfortunately (being lacking in the extreme in both categories, in some ways). I do know that I get lots of personal email myself from the list and my web sites, and while I'm happy to answer it, every email I answer that could benefit others is just time of minimized value, and I don't have much time. I made this list so the RV experts, who have less time, could answer one person's question, and tons of people and 'for the record' would get to hear it. To maximize whatever time and effort investment they were willing to make. Personal emails don't help other people. Send questions to the list. Please. There are no stupid questions. (Only stupid answers. Ha! ... Just kidding....) -- PJ

Hi, I have viewed everyones input for about two months now. I find everything very interesting. I have always been interested in the mind and everything that people have achieved with it. To date I have not had the nerve to post any contributions. Well PJ, I think between you and Mary I have gotten up enough courage to reply to Marys request for more newbies to ask questions. I only hope that this is an appropiate question. If its does not relate to RVing, PSI, or other things associated with this e-mail list, please forgive me and do let me know as I am not quite sure what you would categorize this as. I believe it to be intuition, but is that a form of remote viewing?

Well about aweek ago I woke up and as always went about doing my morning chores. While I was working I was constantly singing a song by Laurie Morgan called "If my heart had windows" not a tune that I would normaly sing. But ,you know how a tune gets stuck in your head and you just keep singing it, well to make a long story short, I finished my work and went back up to the house. I went and put on the television and then went into the kitchen to make breakfast. As I was getting things ready I heard Rosie O'donnell say that Laurie Morgan would be on today to talk about the death of her husband , who had died of alcohol poisioning. She had written this song in his memory and her grief. Now I don't know what you call this, but I was really taken by it. There has been a couple of other similar incident's and I am starting to wonder what they mean if anything. Is it because I am so intriegued with this sight and would really love to be able to do the things you all talk about.

By the way I recorded that tape that you had on the list about affirmative thinking "Learning Alpha" and it really made quite a difference in my attitude on things. So even if none of this has anything to do with RVing, I have come out ahead as I really feel that this tape has made a difference. Thanks for your time and sorry this is so long.


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.