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 forty-eighth archive.
BEGIN ARCHIVE 48
>> results were nailing the next target to be run. In other words, my >> session one results recorded target #2, #2 session results identified #3, >> etc. <snip>
Just to reek added confusion in my life, at present, I drew fd007 in a corner of fd005. A downward spiral line, with small circles (like beads) all along. Yet I am doing 007, today, 2 days later. In fd007, I got a two word description "cascade falls". This is the name of an arcade machine, which has artwork consisting of falling gold coins. Pictures & AOLing all over the place, again. Sigh. Still, I think it fits.
But for the rest of fd007 I now have a drawing and description unrelated to the 007 target. Tomorrows target maybe. So I don't know where I am. Apart from up the creek AGAIN. My only thought on this, is that I wrote out about 6 targets, on separate sheets of paper, with the intention of working my way through them, and I have a kind of bleedthrough, or cross contamination, although as I began, I specifically wrote "Go to target and perceive....fd007"
Do other newbies get in such a mess? The padded cell draws closer.
Uh, sorry Lyn [he says with a malevolent grin <g>]! "AOL-peacocking" IS an Ingo term. It was right there in my Stage III notes from our excursions to NYC for training. It is also in the CRV manual under AOL drive. But you're right. We didn't actually use the term much (though peacocking nevertheless occurred frequently), since it is only a sub-class of AOL drive, and you don't actually declare it--you only declare "AOL-D Brk" instead.
[Archive Note: Paul Smith, former U.S. Intell RV]
Moderator's Note: Gee, maybe we should put Ingo terms in red letters, like Jesus and the New Testament. (I'm feeling feisty tonight.) -- PJ
>wrote it down followed by its discriptors. (snip) The VERY NEXT TARGET I >worked WAS (Via feedback Photo) the structure I had AOLed in the previous >session...(snip) Would that be considered crosswiring ? :) PaulF
"Crosswiring" is probably the best description I have heard for it. I think that the best example I ever saw of this was one of my students who had started working as a subject for the PEAR Labs at Princeton. He was doing a series of targets for an "outbounder" who was traveling through Europe. He got a good run of sessions with high scores, then one which was the total pits. In it, he had described an ampitheater setup with seats like risers. He made a sketch of the location and then probed around the parts of it to find more detailed data. Up on the stage area were large paper flip chart-looking "things". In the area which appeared to be circular risers or seats, he got impressions of "black" (color), "grey" (color), and "stone" (texture). I forget what location the outbounder was at, but his session was a total bust.
About a month later, he was at the Edgar Casey Institute, at a seminar, and suddenly got that "deja vu" feeling. He looked around and realized that this was exactly the place he had viewed in that failed session. He got his camera out and took pictures. When he got home and compared the pictures to the session, he found that he had had a near perfect session, even down to the members of the audience. He had correctly described the seat location of people who he knew to have the last names, "Black", "Grey", and "Stone".
He called and asked me what happened, and when I said that we had never been able to figure out why, but that it just happens now and then to all viewers, he was very disappointed in me for not knowing, and I haven't heard from him since. Oh, well... the gods have feet of clay. The fact is that there hasn't been enough study in this to accurately determine why it happens. I suspect that it is a factor of "CRV time". That is, the shock of realizing that the feedback for one session was what you were accessing in a previous session is an attractor, which is attractive enough to lure you away from the target in the previous session, thereby causing the thing to happen - thereby creating its own surprise when you find out what happened, thereby influencing your own past to lure you away from the other target, etc., etc., etc. I suspect that you just accidently steped into a mental time loop and that there is little other explanation than that. Once in a while, we all "step in it". It's part of a CRVer's life.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
>AI means "aesthetic impression." <snip> Knowing Paul as a stickler for literal >Swann theory I shoulda dug out my class notes and quoted him verbatim to make sure >I got it down here correctly... ;-) -- PJ
Eeeyup, you shoulda! Just to be clear, AI actually translates out as "aesthetic impact"--and from your discussion in the original post, you will realize that "impact" does in fact often fit better than "impression," though AIs can often be quite tame.
Now a further note in response to an earlier VWR e-mail about being "zonked" after a session (and I hope someone didn't already mention this--if so, sorry for the repeat). It was strongly suggested at the unit that one go out and do some sort of physical exercise to bring one back to "reality." I would sometimes swim laps; Mel Riley would usually go for a stroll through the woods. Skip Atwater would often tell us to "go hug a tree" (and it had nothing to do with the Sierra Club)--essentially just go out and get some fresh air. Stay away from busy streets, though! <g> Such practices do indeed tend to help bring one out of the sometimes spaced-out state that can result from a particularly extensive session.
[Archive Note: Paul Smith, former U.S. Intell RV]
Moderator's Note: See? I knew there was something wrong.... -- PJ
Paul noted the old unit had some "suggestions" for de-zonking...Paul did in fact go swim laps but he might just as easily have decided to put on some earphones and turn up the volumn to Iron Butterfly, Chicago..or some other spaced out hard rock music...He would always do this before a session and sometimes did the same after a session...Paul is a large gentleman (well over six feet)and getting in his way after a session could be hazardous to one's health and from personal experience, I can tell you he was the least "visibly" zonked person in the unit but looks were deceiving I soon found out...he could hit the walls in a 15 foot hallway no less than 10 times on the way out of our session rooms. It was great to watch...Ha Ha... Regards..Gene...
[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]
>get some fresh air. Stay away from busy streets, though! <g> Such practices >do indeed tend to help bring one out of the sometimes spaced-out state >that can result from a particularly extensive session.
And not only in remote viewing. Deep theta or delta sessions leave me "zonked". I wouldn't want to drive a car immediately afterwards. Also when I finished the Gateway course at the Monroe Institute they told us on the last day not to drive for more than 2 hours, as we would not be "earthed". In actual fact it took me several weeks to settle down afterwards. I've concluded that any form of strenuous mental bungy-jumping can cause temporary disconnectivity effects in the real world.
I good way to ground other than those mentioned is to listen to one of several TMI (Monroe Institute ) tapes, which I will List. After I came out of Lifelines I could barely get my car door open (after barely being able to even find my car) and had a 3-4 hour drive home. I put "Remembrance" on the tape player on auto-reverse and made it to my door without a mishap.
There is also" Concentration" (pink noise-type," Baroque Gardens"(new Metamusic selection with Concentration embedded in it). These do hemisphere balancing and have a good proportion of beta frequencies." Cable Car" is similar to these, but a bit jarring. These are all very good focussing (grounding )aids...too much beta for RV sessions.
A good shower works well too, or walking barefoot in the grass.
>And *if* that is happening then doesn't it make sense for the other >interested parties to be prepared to defend/protect themselves?
Oh sure. Did I say it wasn't or wouldn't be prudent. That's why the American government did all the investing in the RV research--and probably a good reason it was released to the street.
I don't remember saying that remote influencing "wasn't possible," I distinctly remember saying that I've never seen it demonstrated (appropriately and within controls.) I know and have said the Russians and Chinese have been exploring the area for twenty-five years. The fact that they haven't been able to demonstrate anything in that arena for those twenty-five years speaks volumes with regard to the probability of it being possible doesn't it?
>Oh gosh... I know I'm just being silly... us newbies come up with some >pretty stupid questions... :-) (sorry)
Not a stupid question at all. Certainly a righteous one considering the fear remote influencing might engender in the average human being. Which is precisely my point. I'm just a tad bothered by irresponsible statements that emphatically state remote influencing has been proven, when that is not the case at all. There are lots of wonderful anecdotal statements and examples floating around, but that doesn't constitute proof. It only makes the subject tantalizing, and raise the "fear factor" within people who are unable to descern between what is fact and fiction. As far as remote influencing goes, I think we should always be paying attention to what is being done in that area and jump anyone or anything that might be misusing it were it to be proven to exist. I don't remember ever saying anything other than that.
[Archive Note: Paul Smith, former U.S. Intell RV]
I came across an interesting model while reading VOYAGES INTO THE UNKNOWN by Bruce Moen, his first book in a planned trilogy about his experiences with The Monroe Institute(TMI).
On p.135-139 he talks about "The Perceiver" and "The Interpreter", two aspects of his mind that he had to learn to identify and balance in order to "download" from the "Collective Consciousness Web". This model struck me as exactly the same paradox of sensing/AOL in CRV.
Listen to these quotes:
"the Perceiver"... supply(s) impressions- images, sounds, feelings, senstions and communication- to my awareness"
"The Interpreter takes whatever impression is within my awareness and relates it to information previously stored in my memory"
"I began to be able to move back and forth between the Interpreter and the Perceiver in shorter and shorter periods of time. This moving back and forth between perceiving the images, sounds and feelings of my impressions and then making associations to preexisting memory was like riding a bicycle on a high wire"
"Continued practice made it easier and easier to ride that bicycle without falling off the high wire. The path of Balance on that high wire led to Knowing"
"It was as if, while watching a television program, I opened and closed my eyes. Opening my eyes would be like perceiving. Closing them would be like interpreting."
"As I learned to open and close my eyes faster and faster, I saw enough to see the whole story and made enough association to preexisting memory to be able to remember it"
"I always know that balance on the high wire leads to Knowing."
Does this "model" have application in describing CRV? BTW- the book is VEERRY interesting.
Blessings, Vic -Viewless in TX
<<"The Perceiver" and "The Interpreter">>
This reminds me of Robert Anton Wilson's treatment of the Thinker and the Prover, in his book Prometheus Rising. The Thinker can think whatever it likes. It has a choice. We might say it was the conscious mind. The Prover does not have a choice. It would be the subconscious. Its only job, indeed its only option, is to gather the evidence for what the Thinker thinks. Naturally. If it did otherwise, the system would be incongruent with itself and insanity would result.
The two-step models of the mind all have something to offer us in our path toward understanding how it REALLY works (none of the above). The electronic on/off nature of our nervous system is actually pretty simple. I like the noise/signal distinction in RV. Because I am not much more than a simple Irish peasant with a few extra doors into the vastness, I would be incapable of inventing a two-step model, and can only study and wonder at the brains it takes to come up with these fascinating ideas, all of which expand my understandings. Since the process of CRV and whatever my own spontaneous practice is called are so natural to me, it never occurs to me to dissect them. I just accept what I get and try to keep the noise down (interpretation, Vic?) so I can get the true signal. It's when the signal doesn't seem to make any sense that my mind will try to leap in and explain it, which I think may be Thinker/Prover stuff, trying to maintain balance. (?)
Do we have noise-muffling methods?
Happy Halloween, y'all.
Just a quick note to say thanks for the moral support. Linda and I just drove into Texas about 10 minutes ago. Feels like home. We are both native Texans, but neither of us would ever want to live here again. It still has a good feel to it, just to be in Texas again.
We were just wondering what the "needlepoint" method is. Quick war story: I think the maddest our director ever got at me was one time when we were all doing an on-going study in dowsing for him. It was just something to keep us busy between actual taskings, and nobody took it seriously. Anyway, I was keeping the data on everyone and turning in weekly reports to Fern, our director at the time. I turned in one report, and he came back and asked, "Who is viewer number 23? That viewer is second best this week." I told him that I had been running a "control" test by standing across the room and throwing a dart at the day's map, and logging in the results under viewer #23. He went ballistic. Oh, well. Hey, if you can't take a joke.....
Thought I'd cc this to the viewer mail list, as well. Hope you don't mind.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
Just wanted to add a few comments or remarks to the weekend chat. Regarding scoring sheets. I have a copy of the scoring sheets that PEAR uses for outbounder experiments. These are available as part of a Remote Perception kit sold by Pear, Inc.(look them up on the internet). The sheets aren't bad and have a grading scale type set up. May not be perfect, but until someone else bothers to publish such things!
Pear<Inc also sells a very nice random image generator program for the PK/Remote influence types.
Anyone familiar with technology enhanced rv or psi. There has been some speculation about Shumann resonance entrainment or other alpha/theta by light sound devices. Any experience out there?
I was wondering whether dowsing can't be used in a spell check sort of fashion to review rv collected data. At this point y/n answers wouldn't be bad or even % correct. I was just thinking about it as an after session procedure to perhaps improve quality of information.
Moderator's Note: Thanks for the tip Bill. I should have the CRV Session Profile Sheet online in a few days. Actually the sheet itself is done, it's the instructions I'm still working on.... -- PJ
<<I printed, rather than write. This made the information more readable and also served to slow the signal line down >>
I think one of the hardest things in CRV to me is having to write stuff while you are at a target. I know we have to make drawings etc, but everything else I use a hand-held tape recorder and transcribe later. Going back and forth is pretty exhausting to me. What do you all think of the recorder idea?
<<trying to solve the search problem in RV, and it seemed that dowsing held the most promise. >>
I just inadvertently deleted 250 emails most of which were unread VWR posts (sob) so if this has been discussed before, please forgive me.
In CRV, doesn't the coordinate give the --um-- search function of the mind a sort of energy signature to follow? Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by the search problem. I know that in my spontaneous work with clients who aren't physically present, I find them by following what I call their energy signature, which may, I suppose, be a kind of mental dowsing. I never thought of it that way. Haven't done any water dowsing. In my CRV practice, it seems that the feeling of the process of going to the coordinates is very similar to the spontaneous style that I do, but it is much faster, so at first I didn't realize (or believe) I was "there" because I wasn't used to the speed. But the feeling of recognition, if you will, of the "right" terrain, is similar.
I would be interested in your comments. Thank you for all your interesting posts. I appreciate so much the willingness of all the unit folks to share their experience and knowledge, and can only wish I had been there. In fact, at the time that Joe was starting at Stanford, I was living in Palo Alto. But the Army would never have taken me. Such twists of fate.....
Moderator's Note: I'm sure Paul will address this in more depth when he has some time to get back online. A brief note though: the Search Problem does not refer to making contact with the target. You're right -- that's the point of RV and intent and coordinates. It instead refers to being able to nail down on a physical map where that target IS. (Or in some cases, draw a map surrounding the target.) -- PJ
<<Perhaps you need to go over some of this again in your own mind and address why you have a need to be empathic to pain and not the rest. You might find the answer there, Nancy. I know you can learn to control it, but you have to want to first...and...you have to learn to see the rest of it as well.>>
Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my questions and your encouragement. Yes, being an empath cuts two ways. I was only complaining about the agony. I do feel all of it, and the comfy part I don't mind at all. The softness and beauty is warm fuzzies. I addressed you with the questions because I related so much to your book, taking the risk to spill it all in the book, that before training you were bewildered, and you also treat of the doubt that we all feel from time to time.
I do want to be able to turn it off whether it's uncomfortable or not. I do not wish to be at the effect of somebody else's feelings no matter what they are. Somehow, distance seems a good word here. The only actual technique I know of is to simply declare to the Universe that I am not available to feel anyone's stuff but my own (and maybe the times when my own stuff is uncomfortable is when that of others is too much overload?). In terms of RV, this is an important point too. If I do a CRV session, and properly disconnect as I've been taught, go for a walk and stuff, and then later some more information comes in, other than writing it down, do I need to disconnect again, or just turn away? It also applies in the session itself, when you are targeting difficult matters and it impacts you because you are --what-- mentally present? I think that's called EI, emotional impact. Haven't seen that much about it on this list. Is everybody but me in their head? I don't think so. Do others have what I might call separation techniques?
Also I appreciate your comments re: RV/notRV, front-loading, etc. I don't call my work RV, but since I do remote work, otherwise known as working with persons who aren't physically present with me, I do have to be more careful to point out to my client that what I'm doing is not CRV, just a form of remote work. I sometimes forget to say that, and thank you for the stickle. Also, another thought -- since I work with people in physical pain, I'm used to going right to that and getting to work on it to ease it, so it's just a mental habit which can be broken. I feel better now.
BTW, I don't like the buzzword "psychic" since Dionne and her gang ruined it, so I try not to use it in connection with myself when talking to others. It's such a damn ego trip anyway. All I am is a natural intuitive with a little ability and not ever enough training even if I live to be 100.
Dear Lyn & Viewers,
Here's my "newbie" question:
In working with Phases 1 - 3 alone, I find that I usually get 3 to 4 gestalts in P1, then move into P2 with a lot of descriptors coming very fast. Once the session is over and I've completed my summary and then looked at the target, usually 2 out of 3 gestalts are accurate, and a high percentage of descriptors are correct (as well as several "Stray Cats") but often I find that I have associated one or more descriptors with the wrong gestalt, or perhaps even a gestalt that wasn't part of the target; but the descriptor itself is correct. For example, I may have written "B1: water" during P1, but there is actually no water at all in the picture. I don't realize that I am wrong, and when doing my summary, I list "sparkly, reflective" under "water." When I look at the target, I see that there is indeed something sparkly and reflective, but it is a manmade ornament instead of water. How did the military viewers score this? What happened when you put "green" under "organic" when the green was actually the "manmade"? And, if you have no monitor, how does this kind of error affect P4 - 6? Thanks for your time.
Moderator's Note: Hiya Lori. Reading the above, I may be confused. Why would you list any data as related to any other data unless you had data saying "this is related to that?" For example, "Sparkly" "Water" "Sparkly Water" are THREE different pieces of data. The "association" of the sparkly and water is itself a piece of data. Are you saying that you *create* -- not obtain via psi -- data while doing your summary, based on what analytically seems appropriate?
Far as I know, there is no (nada zip zero) rule that you have to "explain or make sense of" ANY data in a CRV session. There is most certainly NO requirement that later-phase data be forced to 'describe' your early phase data. One of the reasons for going down the page, not going back in a session, etc. is that all data in a CRV session stands on its own. (Heck, the earlier stuff could be wrong. If you make later data match earlier data, you force your entire session to be wrong.) The Viewer is not supposed to "make it make sense" in retrospect. (That's what an analyst is for.) By writing your summary and associating things logically, 'making it make sense,' you are creating data that does not exist. (This is a another form of AOL, obviously.)
For Profiling, data simply is what it is. It would be, "There is sparkly." "There is reflective." If your perception is that these were a "surface," you could add "there is a sparkly surface." Keep in mind that your mind tends to be attracted to neat things... all that glitters, in some cases... you could be viewing anything, and an earring of someone at the site could be the sparkly/reflective. Or a window in the distance. Or.... You don't have enough data as a Viewer, and are not in the space, to determine logically what is what. You have psi data, period. What you describe is actually AOL *_in process._*
It's okay. This is a great lesson actually. The whole point of learning is learning how you process stuff inside. This shows you some internal assumptions you made that affected your data. One thing learned, 9 million to go. :-) -- PJ
Thanks for your response! I don't think I was very clear in my question. Lyn taught us to organize our summaries with the data already listed in P1 - 3. So when I said that I listed "sparkly" and "reflective" under "water", that is because I had originally gotten "water" as one of the gestalts in P1, as the "guess" of what my ideogram was. Then, when I went into P2, I got descriptors, two of which were "sparkly" and "reflective". When doing the summary, Lyn describes "How to Score a Session" on his web page. Based on that, I would have: "The target is ---- water" "which is ----- sparkly reflective"
In other words, I am not adding to my descriptors while doing the summary, I am merely scoring the session after it is over, in my summary, before looking at the target. Then, when I look at the target, I see that I was correct about there being something sparkly and reflective, but I associated those descriptors with the wrong gestalt. (Gestalt being the term we were taught for the "guess" one gives after the ideogram in P1.) Am I still being confusing? Sorry about that! Thanks for your patience!
Moderator's Note: Hi Lori. That's just what I thought you meant, and I understand you are not inventing descriptors -- that isn't what I said, if you read again closely. I said you were inventing the *relationship between the descriptors and what they applied to,* because you did not say at any point in your post that you received that data, you simply said you "assigned them to" that gestalt when doing your outline. As if it was a homework assignment, make P2 descriptors fit P1 gestalt or something. Maybe it was just the way it was worded and you didn't mean to say you were doing that.
YES. Lyn teaches Viewers to "outline" their data in such a way that data is specified -- for instance, "the target has green," "there is a structure which is green," and "there is a large flat space which is green" are 3 *different* pieces of data -- you can't judge their accuracy until you have some context for them. The outline gives you that context, allows you to determine each data point's accuracy separately, and then put it in your database profile.
But nowhere did he say -- and if he did I'm going to have to go through training all over again <g> -- that you were *supposed to assign* your P2 descriptives to P1 gestalts when doing your summary or outline. If you SENSE that there is "sparkly water," that is a piece of data. That is not at ALL the same as saying, "I sensed sparkly in P2, and I had guessed "water" in P1, so in my outline I will "assign the sparkly to the water." As I said in the last post, the *_relationship_ of sparkly to water* is itself a piece of data.
Attempting to obtain P2's for your gestalt is pretty doomed to AOL. How many descriptives are logically known to fit water, or a mountain, or land? My impression has been that P2 is merely an attempt to begin gathering impressions of the target -- period. That the Viewer flits about the target picking up impressions, and is really not at the information bandwidth point to describe any given thing in detail yet. Point being, descriptors stand on their own as descriptors. They don't necessarily have to be describing your gestalt. First, that assumes your gestalt is accurate, which it may not be. (If you make your P2 data fit your P1, there's no point in doing P2.) Your P2 data may, indeed, describe your gestalt finding. Often will. But targets seldom have only one gestalt....
You are making it sound like, at NO point in the session did you get the psi data that "there was sparkling water." Rather, you guessed (the B. in Stage 1 is an analytic btw, not necessarily psi) that there was water at one point, and then later in the session, you sensed that there was sparkly. When the session was over, you *analytically determined to associate the sparkly with the water because it seemed logical.* You in short just CHANGED the data you got. No longer are you saying, "The target has something sparkly. And, the target has water." (Two potentially unrelated data points.) Now you are saying, "The target has sparkly water." (Two related data points.) That is not the same thing. If one of those data components are wrong, now, they are BOTH wrong because you have assigned them to each other.
If you receive data of two things relating to each other, that is one thing; that is normal. But association of descriptives to gestalts based on some kind of formula or assumption that they're "probably" associated, rather than thinking so because you got sensory impressions that told you so, is ... in serious danger of being AOL.
AOL is not just a descriptive that is a noun or something. It is a way of thinking. It is a way of processing. ANY time that your mind alters data in *any way*, it is something along those lines. It is not a "thing" like a list of no-no words; AOL is _a symptom of an internal process._ It is not bad. It is simply an alert that you are processing.
Sparkly water is three pieces of data. Water, sparkly, and the relationship between water and sparkly. If that doesn't seem clear, think of it this way: say you sense a human, and you sense black. If that human is wearing black, or is black -- vs. merely standing next to a black car -- that is a pretty dramatic difference in data. If you hand an analyst the former relationship, that may dramatically alter their conclusions about the target based on your data. Much moreso than stating your two data components and letting the analysts do any associating that may need to be done.
If your comment that you assigned the data points was only phrasing, and you really meant that you truly sensed "sparkly water" at the site, I apologize for responding to an issue you're not facing. But, it sounded to me like when Lyn gave his examples of breaking data down, the rather "best case" examples may have given you some impression about how/why it's done that isn't complete. -- PJ
Yes, that's IT! You answered my question exactly. Hmmmm.... so I've been doing it wrong all this time! Grrr.... That's frustrating, in a way, because it means that I did misunderstand what I was supposed to be doing at the end of the sessions and alterating data, but by the same token, your answer has really cleared up a lot of questions in one fell swoop! (Come to think of it, where did "one fell swoop" come from?) Anyway, yes, I thought I had to assign (like homework) the descriptors to the gestalts, and it never occurred to me that I was altering data, or that I could even list "sparkly water" anywhere but under the AOL side, where it basically gets discarded until we can finally get trained in stages 4 - 6, which we are desperate to do. (I don't know how the military guys could stand working on stages 1-3 for interminably long periods of time before proceeding on to other stages, but we are really wanting to move on here...) So often, our AOLS are actually literally in the targets, and we know that in the later stages of CRV, there is SOMETHING that one does with AOLs.... and I'd sure like to know about that. What I've been doing, just by instinct, is to describe them, then set them aside. If I get a strong visual of a brick wall, I'll write it down as an AOL, but then I'll list "rectangular, rust-colored, multiple" etc. and set it aside. More often than not, there IS a correlation between the descriptive parts of the AOL & the target.
Moderator's Note: Hi Lori -- good, glad I wasn't totally out in space on my understanding of that one. Some comments about other stuff above.
1 - Water would not be AOL, despite that it is a thing. Why? Because you have (as you said) an ideogram for it. Anything you have an ideogram for can be used without calling it AOL.
2 - Just FYI, in stage 4, you still have AOLs, but you are allowed to list them as "AOL Signal" (those you think are probably right or have major components that are right) and "AOL" (those that are just inapplicable things). Stage 4 also allows a category for "things" which would likely include a brick wall.
3 - One way to get around "losing data to AOL" in the early phases is to consider whether changing the noun to an adjective or descriptive would work. E.g., instead of a brick wall, do you feel right saying it's brickish and wallish? Those are descriptives, not nouns.
4 - Another way to get around "losing data to AOL" in the early phases is to be specific about how that data is applied. For instance, if you say, "a brick wall" -- that's a noun. If you say, "a brick" -- that's a noun. But if you say, "a wall-like structure, composition of brick" -- that's descriptives. Not only that, but then you have a "composition" descriptive which is fairly rare to get many of in the early phases. :-)
I can't believe it. I am actually explaining ways to cheat the system. (I always find *something* to rebel against!) -- PJ
>....We use "L" rods, "Y" rods, Pendululms, and Aurameters. This way >we get... <snip> ..........I use my pendulum primarily to do health >readings on people all over the world, clear them of entity >attachments, and send my Angels to heal them from their sicknesses. >I know it works because of the word of mouth recommendations people >give out after they have been healed.
I'm glad that John said, "word of mouth recommendations". Word of mouth recommendations tend to be much more dependable than direct face-to-face reports. After all, the customers are usually relating to someone else what they honestly feel rather than saying to you what they feel is politically or socially correct. However, while this indicates that the sum total of what you are doing is having a positive effect, it should never be confused with an evaluation or judgement of the processes involved - and it should never be taken as a scientific evaluation. (I know that he did not say he was taking it as a scientific evaluation - I just think that his comment points out a very important point, and wanted to discuss it, since I have seen others on the list making such a mistake.)
One of the "protocols" of CRV is that feedback should be provable, and that if it cannot be proven, then it is listed as "can't feed back" and not scored. While there are many times that feedback is subjective, it is much more preferable to have it objective in nature. Subjective feedback is noted and listed as such. By "subjective" feedback, I mean where a customer says, "Hey! We solved the case from your information! Great session!". While that shows success in the overall results, the actual judging of the session must include feedback on individual perceptions. That is, the viewer reported that the car was red. Well... was it red or not? "You did great!" may be feedback of a kind, but it is not scientifically acceptable, nor is it database-able.
I have a favorite shirt which, I'll readily admit is a pushing the homlier side of "butt-ugly". I have never asked anyone what they thought of the shirt but what they haven't told me, "Uh... it's nice!" or "interesting" or "unusual". Sometimes, they even tell the outright lie, "It's beautiful!" while their eyes keep saying "butt-ugly". I have also noticed that when I fail in a session is when people are most complimentary about my work. They "waffle" for me unbelievably (pun intended).
Every practitioner of any "psi science" should be very careful about what they accept as "proof" that their particular method works.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
END ARCHIVE 48
A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.
Top of Page