firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 056

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 fifty-sixth archive.

November 1997

>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. (snip - see below) >I can't believe it. I am actually explaining ways to cheat the >system. (I always find *something* to rebel against!)


I couldn't resist jumping in on this one. It didn't take me long, way back in the dark ages, to realize that Skip wouldn't let me get away with saying, for example, "Wall". That was an AOL. He wouldn't even let me say something like, "wall-like" or "like a wall". Those were AOLs (see below). However, if I said something like "wall-ish", he didn't object. Pretty soon, it became almost second nature to think in descriptives and not in nouns. I thought I was getting away with something. In actual fact, he had just done what was necessary to cause me to train myself in to a new way of thinking. I have always been amazed at Skip's talent as a trainer and monitor, and now and then I realize some small subtlty and get amazed all over again. The "cheating" you mention may, in fact, be cheating, but in the process of doing it, you train yourself to think differently - in such a way that your subconscious mind can actually get things through to you. That's what CRV training is all about. Great going. Good advice.

>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.

Uh... not quite. There is a better way. "A wall-like structure composed of brick" in strict Ingo methodology would consist of 3 parts: 1. "A .... structure" (which is a noun, but one of the first ideograms you earn (I use "manmade") and therefore would not need to be set aside as an AOL). 2. "...wall-like..." telling what it is >>like<< - This is, in itself, a logical deduction - and therefore an AOL. 3. "composed of brick" - telling what it is composed of - This also requires a logical deduction - and is therefore an AOL. Even worse, you are giving complex perceptions ("composed of") in Stage 2, instead of keeping it to sensories and dimensionals. ("composition descriptives" are something a little bit different.)

So what is the way around this?

If you get that it is like a wall, DESCRIBE HOW it is like a wall in sensory and dimensional terms: "vertical", "flat", "patterned", "hard", "doesn't give", etc. It you get that it is composed of brick, DESCRIBE what sensories and dimensionals made you come to that consclusion: "rough texture", "hard", "brick-red", "scrapes my skin", etc. In this way, you are giving sensories and dimensional >>>descriptors<<< of the AOL, and staying completely away from logic, identifications, etc.

This may seem like a circumventing of the methods, and may require thinking about it as you go, and that is true. However, when you repeatedly practice doing this, what happens is that you start thinking in sensory and dimensional terms. One day, you don't have to go back and tell yourself, "Describe HOW it is like..." or "Describe what sensories & dimensionals made me come to that conclusion". One day, you automatically start thinking that way to begin with. In other words, >>>with time and practice<<< you change your way of thinking in such a way that you can consciously start communicating with your subconscious mind. Until you can change your mental patterns, you are going to have trouble with AOLs, with sessions, with targets, with frontloading, and with almost every aspect of CRV.

THAT is one of the reasons why a person can't learn CRV in 3 days, 7 days, 9 days, etc., no matter how much or how little he/she pays for the course, who the instructor is, how "simplified" it is made, how strictly the course sticks to this guru or that, or whatever else is considered.

As you said to Lori in your comment to her earlier post:

"The whole point of learning is learning how you process stuff inside."


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

Hi all,

I just called up and read all the messages in this thread, and it seems like Mark's question was not answered (except in three cases - and I don't think they address Mark's original question).

Mark wrote: (snip) >But in a recent session, I did a deep mind probe on a subject for >data and viewing an object he (the target) was carrying. It was the >way I felt afterwards that was unusual. I felt dazed and exterior. >My writing was nearly illegible. My thinking was muddled, I couldn't >think of my next step, and I sat staring at the papers in front of >me. I wasn't much for conversation either. These sensations >continued for roughly an hour after session. Could someone offer >feedback on what occurred? I have experienced bi-location, but this >seemed so much more intense.

Dear Mark, Your instructor and I have a strong disagreement on this point - a very heated one, in fact. I was visiting at your instructor's institute one day when I was in that city on other business. During the conversation, he mentioned his "deep mind probes", which he was teachng on the 3rd day of class. I'm afraid that I went sort of ballistic. This, in my opinion, is very dangerous to the student. For one thing, by day 3, the student is not ready for something like this. I asked him if he taught them how to "detox" afterwards, and he asked, "Detox? What's that?" I went ballistic again.

A little history: One day in the project, after I had been tasked for a month or so with accessing Idi Amin, Sadam Hussein, Khadafi, drug lords, etc., I was on the way home (70 mile trip from the office), and realized that I was going home to kill my wife. The realization shook me up so much that I pulled over and got out of the car to walk around, "ground" myself, and work out whatever it was that was wrong. It only took me a few minutes of logical thought to realize that I wasn't mad at her for anything, had no reason to even be upset about anything. There was nothing she had done to cause it, and no reason I could think of for feeling that way. I finally realized that it was Idi Amin who was going home to my family that night. That day's tasking had been to access Amin and get his plans and intentions. Apparently, I had gotten a whole lot more. I came up with the process of "detoxification". Simply stated, the "toxins" you pick up when accessing another person must be gotten rid of. The way to do that is simple: you go back through your session, asking at EVERY PERCEPTION along the way, "Is that me or is that the target person?" You logically and calmly separate yourself from the target in the same way you attached to the target. The term is "detoxification". It is not an Ingoism - it is a Buchananism. I make no apology for adding it to the standard protocols. I teach it to each of my students as a part of the INTERMEDIATE course.

My fear is that in learning "deep mind probes" on the 3rd day of training, as people do in THAT course (not in mine), one day a person who is a natural psychic - and doesn't know it - will actually make that deep mind probe and will get up and start killing people in the class, or whatever. I do know that that course targets people with such individuals as the Unibomber, OJ Simpson (no judgment intended), the killer of JonBenet, etc. If this seems like I'm putting that course down, please forgive me - I'm not. I'm just saying that the teacher of that course and I have a strong disagreement on the teaching of this - especially at such an early stage in a person's development, and I will forever remain unwavering in my opinion on the matter.

Next item:

In response to your question, Liam said: >After writing the summary, I had a need to get out into the open. >There was a small lake close to the project. I would walk around the >lake and gradually come back to this reality.

And Robert said: >Only the Reader has to back away, as the Monitor endeavors to not >make the link in the first place. There are several ways of ensuring >this. One is to create a well grounded distraction, where the Reader >must focus all of their attention on something else. Usually this >would mean multi-sensory stimulation is some well grounded activity >where the person is forced to disconnect, move completely out of

(Or in a lot less wordy English - go get "grounded")

And Paul Smith said: >This sounds like me after ANY reasonably good session.

I think it is important to realize that first of all, this probably was a good session - one in which you got good access. However, the after-session problems you had were not just those of someone who has been in deep RV practice. The problems you were having appear to have been caused by the fact that you were still in contact with another person, and couldn't get rid of that contact. While the above methods (I guess that "reader" means "viewer", so have included that, too) are good for "grounding" yourself after a session, they don't always get rid of the "toxins" of having another mind sharing yours. You have to be VERY careful in this respect. My general warning to beginning students is, that if they have a person as a target, describe anything and everything they want to ABOUT the person - even so far as to going into the EI (SS, SI, etc.) column and DESCRIBING what that person's emotions are - but unless they have a well experienced and well trained person there, don't ever try to >>>get into<<< that person's mind. The consequences can be very dangerous, and it can take weeks or even months for you to finally get rid of the last vestiges of the problem by just letting it wear off. My advice to your instructor was to not teach it. My advice to students is to not do it - unless under proper supervision.

Again - the detox method is to go back through your session, perception by perception, and logically determine with each one whether it was YOUR feelings/thoughts/etc. or the target person's. Separate yourself from that person the same slow, methodical way you joined with them.

This is not something to play with. My best advice is that you forget about "deep mind probes". There are other ways to get information than putting your self and your psyche at such risk.


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

I would be interested in learning how others deal with unwanted frontloading. Once you have it, how do you get it back in the bottle?

This is probably very uncommon in a situation where there is the trained monitor. However, people think they are helping by giving you a starting point.


> I would be interested in learning how others deal with unwanted > frontloading. Once you have it, how do you get it back in the > bottle?

I've had this happen to me when friends want to give me a nifty target. In nothing flat they've told me exactly what the target is and what they think about the entire surrounding circumstances. The only thing to do is dump it. Tell them if they ever want you to do a target for them, they'll need to get someone to act as intermediary who knows something about RVing.


>That sounded to me rather similar to one of the Stage 5 >analytic techniques Paul >teaches in his Advanced Course. No doubt Lyn was using with PJ a bit >of the same kind of thing that he probably teaches in a similar >course, as I think it >came from Ingo as part of the CRV method.

Paul and I are both teaching the same CRV Ingo Swann created. I try to inform my students of that, and would think that Paul does, as well. Possibly he didn't make it as clear as possible. At the time I started training, there were two others who were claiming to teach Ingo's technique, and Ingo was most upset about the whole thing. He put out a blanket request that anyone who teaches his technique not use his terminology. Out of respect for Ingo's request, I changed to some other terms - but I still continue to tell people what their "Ingo" equivalents are. Paul's training began much later, and he teaches INgo's terminology. However, his training and my training are basically interchangeable.

There are, naturally, small differences between us. Our teaching methods are different, because we are different people, but the protocols and methods of performing CRV are as close to Ingo's as we can make it. True, each adds our own twist. The only person who teaches "pure Ingo" is Ingo. But in essence, we are both teaching the method used in the military project, as developed by Ingo Swann.

The differences cause the appearance of competition or disagreement. Actually, there is none between Paul and me. It is just an artifact of the whole confused history of the CRV story, declassification, abuse and misuse, kooks jumping onto the bandwagon, wannabe's making false claims that they were in the project, people selling tapes, programs, etc. of "how to remote view", and all you get is something about visualization, meditation, or whatever their pet method is, etc., etc., etc.

Paul and I have talked about getting together and standardizing our training methods, terminology (getting Ingo's OK to use his, or agreeing on new terms), sharing databases, using each other's students for the Assigned Witness Program and other police cases, etc. That will probably happen within the coming year.

Just trying to clear up some possible misperceptions.


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

>That is interesting. I always thought that my problem with this was >personal and due to my being ambidextrous. The only way I have been >able to work around it is to imagine a clock - 12 o'clock ahead and >six o'clock behind me. That generally works but not always. How do >you cope with this problem?

Like most RVers, I have learned to live with it. I have tried all kinds of things like the clock image, etc., but the problem is that that throws you into analytic mode. You can tell left from right now, but can't get any perceptions - just AOLs (Stray Cats).

There is no problem with up/down or north/south, but right/left and east/west have always been a problem - for most people.


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

>>I've lurked for quite a while and didn't dare join in, but Liams' >>comment about "First Time Effect" came at the right time.I have read >>all the "wrong" books and am now half way through Joe McMoneagle's >>Mind Trek.

As far as RV books go...they don't come much better than Mind Trek. For those interested in teaching yourself PK (psychokinetics).....I have just finished a highly enlightewned and instructive very recent book called "Mind over Matter" by Loyd Auerbach. Has a complete instructional course on developing PK effects and some interesting theories on how the mind accesses information. Along with Mind Trek and The Conscious of the better reads I've had this year. Got it from on the net.


>It was most definately a rarity NOT A NORM for a >monitor to have any knowledge of the target..Skip and Fern saw to >that....

Dear Gene, I remember that [during your time in the unit], there were a lot of good habits being practiced. We finally had enough personnel. I also remember that most of the time, .>>>practice<<< sessions were selected from the safe by the person who would be the monitor for the session.

>Lyn functioned as a viewer in the unit and probably >believed the monitor knew more than we knew...

I also acted as a monitor, a trainer, an Ops Officer, and wore a bunch of other hats over the 8.5 years I was there. As for most of those years, I will stand by my original statement. The monitors almost always knew the target. It was very rare to have the monitor blind.

PJ added: >Moderator's Note: Now, now, boys! <holding them at arm's length> >Keep in mind Gene you did predominantly ERV and Lyn CRV, from >comments from both of you.

The same situation was true for most ERV >>>practice<<< sessions held over most of those years.

PJ continues: >..... From talking with Lyn over time I'd >say what he remembers (painfully) is Ed D. (large snip)

No, I am talking about all throughout the whole time I was there. Ed was also only there for a short time (2+ years), and was certainly the epitome of non-blind monitoring. However, when it was time for a viewer to go over to the ops building for a >>>practice<<< session, the person who would be monitoring would normally go to the safe and pick a target. That was standard practice over most of the time I was there. This is not selective memory. It is the result of seeing it happen day after day after day.

I am not saying that we didn't do any "double-blind" targets. We did lots of them. I am saying, though, that percentage-wise, they were rare.

>....Anyway, if there is a question brought up by Lyn's response, for >me, it is mostly, "Does this indicate that the monitor should not be >the tasker?" (In direct teaching that's one thing; in ongoing >practice sessions that's another.) Seems clear to me...

I don't think it means that. It do, however, believe that the monitor should not ALWAYS be the tasker. There is as great a need for the monitor to learn how to do a session while blind to the target as there is for the viewer to work a double-blind target. As you say below: >...I kinda see this (non-blind monitors) as damaging to monitor skills >-- when you don't know the target, you REALLY have to WATCH the Viewer Exactly. If the monitor always knows what the target is, then the monitor never watches the viewer's micromovements, and never learns how to understand what is going on in the PROCESS of the viewer's work.

In early training, the monitor needs to know what the target is. When that viewer and monitor get to know each other, though, it is most important that they start working double-blind. After all, the monitor needs training, too. How will he/she get any training in the monitoring skills, if he/she always knows the target? Not just for scientific or research purposes, but for the sake of the whole process, the monitor needs to begin working the sessions blind.

PJ continues: >All my attempts to convince students (of either instructor) they >should work practice targets blind have failed, since far as they're >concerned, frontloaded is how the teacher does it. I quit trying to >convince people this was a good thing since it seems to be at odds >with what is taught. I kinda see this as damaging to monitor skills >-- when you don't know the target, you REALLY have to WATCH the >Viewer -- but I am not experienced in this so what do I know.

The teaching process these days is a lot different from what it used to be. In the military, we had the luxury of saying to the viewer student, "Time to work!" The present method of teaching someone the principles and sending them home to work on their own doesn't allow for the gradual process of teaching the monitor to understand every little micromovement of the viewer, to teach the viewer how to take advantage of the monitor's leading without losing control of the session, to teach the pair how to work together as a unified team. When people leave the training, they are not even beginning to understand the extreme subtleties of the monitor/viewer interaction. They are understanding only that the monitor must not give information or lead. That in itself is a huge assignment which is going to require a lot of practice.

But let me repeat... the monitor and viewer should >>>at some point<<< start working sessions double-blind. It is a painful process for both viewer and monitor, but it really provides a huge amount of growth for them both.

>I guess what I'm saying is, this is both a theory and a practice >difference. Theory and formal practice would say, it must be double >blind. Yet casual practice as done by most modern students is not -- (snip) >It kinda seems like, working non-blind could train a person to 'read >the monitor' as much as train them to 'sheer RV psi.' But then, >probably only documented lab studies would have an answer to that, or

It isn't a difference between theory and practice - at least it shouldn't be. It should be more a process of gradually obtaining the right way to do things. I have heard people say that ALL sessions, from the very start, should be double blind. Yeah! And ALL sessions, from the very start, should be perfect, too. The reality of life is that you start simply and progress. This is what needs to take place in the monitor/viewer relationship. They need to start with the monitor knowing the target so he/she can see and learn what is going on inside the viewer. But what of the purity of "getting the target?" Hey, it's just a target! The important thing in the beginning is that both the viewer and monitor learn what is going on. When the monitor knows the target, he can see what is going on in the viewer's mind, and learns what to do, how to do it, etc. You don't have to start off as professionals!! The point of beginning sessions is to have a beginning!!! It is like it says on the cover page that I use when sending out al practice targets:

"Remember that the purpose of a practice target is not to learn something about the target. The purpose of a practice target is to learn something about yourself."


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

Hello, Shelia here -

Lyn wrote: " If the monitor always knows what the target is, then the monitor never watches the viewer's micromovements, and never learns how to understand what is going on in the PROCESS of the viewer's work."

Following our training with Paul, my sister and I are in the happy situation of living in close proximity and being able monitor one another. I think you have presented the why of the monitor being blind for us... as we are training for both sides of the session: viewer and monitor.

After all, the monitor needs training, too. How will he/she get any training in the monitoring skills, if he/she always knows the target? Not just for scientific or research purposes, but for the sake of the whole process, the monitor needs to begin working the sessions blind.

Hope you are enjoying the journey,


PJ wrote: (snip) >Directed tasking is where you take something a psychic has described >such as "a wood structure" and say, "describe that structure." Of >course, it would take somebody who knew the target or situation to >determine what, in a Viewer's session, should be focused upon in >future sessions, to narrow down the answer they're looking for.

That holds true for deciding what should be tasked in future sessions, but the "directed tasking" method doesn't really require that the monitor knows what the target is. In fact, if you are using the "directed tasking" method, I would prefer the monitor to be blind to the target. That way, the monitor waits for the viewer to say something and then tasks on that. If the monitor knows what the target is during "directed tasking", the monitor has one H... of a time not leading the viewer.

>Frontloading is when you give the psychic information >about the target, vs. telling them nothing but 'go find the target.'

If frontloading is done correctly, that's absolutely not the case. In all of this, everyone has been assuming that when frontloading is provided to the viewer by the monitor, that the monitor knows what the target is. That's not true. It is entirely possible (and usually preferable) that the Project Officer (if you have the luxury of having one) can give an envelope to the monitor, tell the monitor, "The target is a person.", and not tell the monitor anything else about the target. The monitor then gives the coordinates and tells the viewer "The target is a person". Frontloading has been given, the session time is narrowed down, because the viewer doesn't have the entire universe to search through, and yet, a double-blind situation still exists.

Proper frontloading doesn't tell either the monitor or the viewer anything at all about the target. It tells both the monitor and the viewer >>>where to put their efforts<<< during the session. For example, if they both know that the target is a person, then when descriptors of buildings, etc. come up, they will be noted, but the team can concentrate their work on any perceptions gained which relate to people. If I tell you that the target is a person, all I have done is narrowed the target pool down to about 50 gazillion targets (past, present, future people).

HOWEVER: Done improperly (that is, if you actually do provide the viewer some information about the target), frontloading can be the worst thing you could do to a viewer and his/her session. The same for the monitor. Don't every tell either of them anything about the target!!! That's not what is meant by frontloading, and has to be religiously avoided.


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

Moderator's Note: As you say, sensei. But I think some of this is semantics. If you tell somebody "the target is a person," you are telling them something about the target in my opinion. If you want to say, "Well the REAL target was the color of their hair, or what their personality was like," then okay, I guess *technically* you can say "you didn't tell the person anything about the target." (Though just the standard *phrasing* of 'the target is a person' infers you are saying something 'about the target.')

But I would still say that the definition of 'frontloading' as 'when you tell the Viewer something about the target in advance' would not be totally inaccurate. I accept your greater definition as 'when you tell the Viewer something about where to put their efforts.' (Marking that down [again] in my book.)

In my opinion however, that is not a "double blind" situation by any fair definition of that control, and the direction to focus on the person should be reserved until the Viewer has actually said, THERE IS A PERSON in the session, or something along those lines, and then the monitor could direct the Viewer to describe the person. As opposed to telling the *Viewer* what it is right out of the gate.

As for the subject of monitor blinding, I didn't mean to suggest that any frontloading of the Viewer inferred the monitor was non-blind to the target overall, I must've said it wrong. I made up the term 'directed tasking' (I think) to mean in my head "when the tasker directs the Viewer toward a specific thing," and didn't mean to include in the phrase the basic direction that a monitor can give a Viewer throughout the session (which technically could be called tasking I guess). My own lack of clarity, sorry about that.

-- PJ

>isn't going by the SRV book, as far as I can tell. Yet, the 3 ovals, >_are_ there, as >if traced, but... via porridge!?!?..... and how on earth, can I >possibly present that kind of info, to Lyn, for one of his targets?

Dear Mary, 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.

Or, in the words of Lucy Van Pelt, "You're no different from anyone else. That'll be five cents, please." :-]

Welcome to the wonderful world of remote viewing.


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

PJ wrote to Rick: (big, huge, gargantuan snip) >First, when you query a group of students in an RV class, nearly all >of them will tell you that they began having "interesting >experiences" after they started THINKING of RV -- hadn't even gone >near training yet. Many of might be called "spontaneous RV" which is > really not RV at all since it isn't controlled, but sounds great.

This has come up many times with students, and a part of it appears to be caused by --- ready for this one --- the subconscious mind's relationship to time. As has been shown, time is not the linear thing we would like it to be. This phenomenon appears to be, at least partially, caused by the fact that, on the subconscious level, "effect" can come before "cause". I won't get into CRVer's understanding of time here, but don't forget that it plays a part in many aspects of CRV work.

Please forgive the intrusion of getting this thread back onto CRV.


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

Moderator's Note: That's a pretty cosmic theory. Sounds like a lot more fun! To me, just focusing on the concept of personal psi opens doorways inside the psyche. RV training at some point in the future, so it can then come back in time and effect you in the past, seems quantumly possible... but an awfully long reach into the esoteric to explain something that seems pretty basic otherwise. I like it though -- this theory alone could qualify you for the Cozmik RV membership (associate status). Now if you can only tie this to (a) it only happens because the students were destined to find YOU as an instructor; or (b) it happens because aliens have been planning the student's cosmic RV destiny for them since before their birth; and/or (c) these were early indications of secret government mind control beams which are now focused on the student because they are personally the biggest threat to the government since Marilyn Monroe -- well then, you could qualify for full-fledged membership. -- PJ

>First, when you query a group of students in an RV class, nearly all >of them will tell you that they began having "interesting >experiences" after they started THINKING of RV -- hadn't even gone >near training yet.>>

This proves what Werner Erhard said, once removed: When you sign up for the seminar, IT STARTS! Of course, now we know that when you THINK about signing up for the seminar....I think it's just the mind jumping up and down with the previously mentioned suppression of abilities that our society imposes, trying to give you the message that, yes, indeed, you are ready to go exploring. RV represents the last frontier: Mind.

This, I believe, is the primary reason for the cautions that Lyn and others including myself keep presenting. NO DABBLING. This stuff is very interesting, compelling, etc. AND needs to be approached with respect. At least. No Mickey Mouse targets.


>In military training, did you have to deep probe each other? >How do you know it when its being done to you?

When I first got there, Skip Atwater one day had DL (you don't know that one - hasn't "come out" yet) to go over to the ops building and to access me. I was to spend time looking at a target. The target was the flight deck of a carrier ship. In the picture, the crew was lounging around, and the day was sunny. There was no flight activity. I therefore started putting myself into the picture, imagining myself sunning on the deck, looking out at the endless sea, etc. When DL was finished and returned with DL's (won't use the pronoun, either) summary, it was of me at the beach, sunning myself with the sea in the background. There was no mention of the ship, the planes, or any of the military aspects of the target.

There were a few other times when we tried brief experiments in "mental message sending", presumably for the purpose of testing the viability of training a field agent to communicate with trained CRVers for message/information transfer purposes. It was also suggested several times that we should train State Department people for the same purposes, in case they became hostages. A few trial runs were done, found to be fairly successful, but the logistics of training people in those fields was too cumbersome, I guess. Anyway, nothing ever came of any of the times it was tried.


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

>can "read" >a document...The only person who has a record or doing that with any >measure of success was Joe McMoneagle and nobody knew how he did it >and nobody could copy it...and, BTW even he was about 50% accurate on >his best days of trying to actually read documents...We tried and >tried...numbers and words were very important to us...but were very >very very hard to discern.

...There were several times when this was tried at the project, not just when Gene was there (although it was tried then, too). It had varying results - not all were failures, as he indicates - I know - I kept the database on them.

There was one time when ChSh (hasn't "come out" yet, so won't use the real name) was tasked with a Russian phrase written on a sheet of paper, sealed in an envelope and locked in the front safe. ChSh (won't use the pronoun, either) turned in a sheet of paper with the phrase on it in Russian. ChSh had no idea what the thing said, since ChSh doesn't speak Russian. However, the session summary was the Russian phrase on the slip of paper hidden in the safe.

There have been other times when some success has been obtained along this line, but the difference has been that the viewer has taken the time to do the work correctly. The problem with the series which was done during the time period Gene mentioned is that we were sent over to the ops building tasked to spend 45 minutes to an hour, and come back with the contents of a document. Guess what, folks - that won't happen. It is a very high stage, and takes a lot longer than just sitting and giving descriptors of a location.

Ingo calls this type of work "analytics", and has had a good measure of success at it, as well. One of his first proven targets at SRI included reading the letters on the label of a hidden object.

HOWEVER -- this kind of work is not something taught in the SRV or TRV courses, and is not something that either Paul or I could possibly have time to teach in our CRV courses. In fact, the work, time and training requirements necessary for doing this kind of work really make it impractical, unless the document in question is of the absolute utmost importance. The amount of other work which could be done in the same time it takes to do a document makes the whole task an impractical one in actual practice.


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

Stephen wrote: >How do we know if the data we are obtaining from our RV session is >true or false data. How can we tell if our imagination is running >wild and just filling in us with inaccurate data in order to have >something to write?

How about, "Use real targets"?


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

November 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.