[VWR]-Digest: V2 #83

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 22:29:19 -0000
From: "John Krimes" <aaaaa@ptdprolog.net>
Subject: Re: [VWR]-Digest: V2 #74

> From: Joseph W. McMoneagle
> Also--I still don't understand what ERV is anyway?! I have never
> heard an agreed upon definition for it. Who invented it? What is it
> based on? And/or what does it mean?

My understanding of ERV is RV done in a altered(meditated) state. Then
there are those who are in an altered(other than beta) state more than not,
that is why I added meditated.


Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 09:24:54 +1000 (GMT+1000)
From: jfrancis@pegasus.com.au (Jim Francis)
Subject: Re: [VWR] AOLs in CRV

>>I'm not that familiar with the protocols for CRV, but, if I'm
>>understanding you correctly, are you saying that CRV is not meant to
>>produce visuals?

>>>>>In CRV you know that if you get a visual it is AOL.

Just read Liams email re the above.
Have I got the whole process back to front? I always thought the
process was visual with possible emotional overtones.
The first RV experience I ever recall was a full-on visual with
stunning accuracy as it later transpired.
Then all the targets I've done in Angela and Paul Smiths seminars
were visual. Out of all the targets I did for Paul during his seminar
and by mail since then...I've only had one that was a total miss. All
the rest seemed to be reasonably correct and they were visual.
Paul's ones seem to be getting easier....probably because of the
amount of red ink he has used to correct my earlier targets.
(Understand he has gone thru 3 red pens just on my stuff :-) Had some
emotional overtones in a couple of Paul's seminar targets....one was
where I perceived a Red Indian on a horse fire an arrow in my
direction (I got suddenly emotional about that!!!) and the other was
the same target which was a desert scene with lots of flowering
cactii....I detected pollen in the air and promptly had a vicious
sinus attack....which had Paul howling with laughter (or maybe just

After 3 years of this visual practice I'd hate to think I was doing
it all wrong. When I relax to do an RV the first thing I do is drop
into alpha or theta. Theta gives me better visuals. I've been
practicing these states for years so theta normally only takes 2-3
minutes to access. Then I go thru the process as Paul taught me and
wait for a visual. I fully expect a visual and it normally arrives.
Sometimes it is very strong and basically takes over my "mental
screen" (Almost like a bilocation). But mostly it is a whispy
"impression" ...but always visual. The other process I use regularly
as practice when I'm in bed at night is a free-form type of ERV (as
Angela taught me) whereby I instruct my mind to produce "A target
that would be of serious interest to me" and wait to see what pops up
visually. This quite often doesn't work but when it does I am usually
overawed by the magic of it all. The reason for doing this latter
exercise is merely to get my mind used to the concept of remote
viewing. Anyway....I've got nothing better to do in bed at
night...I'm a single:-)

OK...I'm now thoroughly confused. Would some of the experts like to
give me a few pointed directions here?

Thanks people.

Jim Francis
Australian lateral Thinking Newsletter

- ---------------
Moderator's note: Leave it to you Jim, to do ERV while in a CRV
structure, just to totally confuse everybody. <g> -- PJ

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 22:22:18 -0000
From: "John Krimes" <aaaaa@ptdprolog.net>
Subject: Re: [VWR] RV and personal aptitude

> From: MaryD
> Subject: [VWR] RV and personal aptitude
> How should we handle this? Is it better to focus on one's own aptitude, or
> strive to gain a broad working ability of all the various aspects.
> What advice do you have?

Hi all

How about a state of grace? I've only experienced once but If one
tries one might get *more relevant* info.

Just guessing

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 00:53:12
From: "Paul H. Smith" <phsmith@rviewer.com>
Subject: Re: [VWR]-Digest: V2 #74


At 10:14 AM 4/23/98 -0400, you wrote:

>Also--I still don't understand what ERV is anyway?! I have never
>heard an agreed upon definition for it. Who invented it? What is it
>based on? And/or what does it mean?

In response to this plaintive cry, I'm pasting in a description/discussion
of ERV (with some minor editing) that I posted awhile back to PJ's bulletin
board, upon which at the time there was quite a spirited discussion of ERV.
Perhaps this will "clear the air" on the ERV question (though I'm not
getting my hopes up...;-)

E(xtended) R(emote) V(iewing) was understood in the following way:
The viewer would go over to the operations building and make
him/herself comfortable on the bed in the ERV room. The monitor would
equip the viewer with a lapel mike, would turn off all lights in the
room, and would wait for the viewer to become deeply relaxed
(sometimes Monroe Inst. Focus 10 tapes would be used). When the
monitor determined by the breathing pattern of the viewer that he/she
was asleep or close to it, a few quiet questions were asked to
ascertain the level of relaxation and approximation of hypnogogic
state. If the monitor was satisfied, he/she would turn on a dim red
desk light to allow questions to be read (if some had been written
down before) and notes to be taken. The monitor would direct the
viewer to go to the target (usually by reading the coordinates
aloud), and then would talk the viewer through whatever intel
questions needed to be answered. At the end of the session, the
viewer would be coaxed back to body-and-mind-awake state, and if
appropriate would be further debriefed on what he/she remembered.
Sketches might also be executed at this point.

That's ALL there was to it as far as format was concerned. It did
require a great deal of experience and skill on the part of the
monitor to avoid inadvertant cuing, AOL generation, etc.

And, though Joe doesn't seem to use this style of RV anymore, he did
indeed use it extensively while at Ft. Meade. I know this because a) I
observed and/or listened in on a number of operational sessions he did
this way in 1983-84; and b) at the direction of the boss, I listened to
and in some cases re-transcribed a number of tapes of other such
sessions Joe did previously. Now, as I said, Joe has apparently gone
beyond this style, but he did indeed spend a lot of his operational
RVing time flat on his back in a dark room on the verge of sleep
talking like he had a mouthful of mush. Ask Skip Atwater--I borrowed
the mush remark from HIS description back then of how Joe worked. [I
should emphasize here that Joe wasn't the only viewer to use this
approach; near as I can tell--and further data from those that
were there then could prove me wrong on this--it was more or less standard
for the other viewers during that time as well.]

At the time Joe was at the unit, this process wasn't called ERV.
There was no other name than "RV" because there really was only this
process, with perhaps a few individual variations from it. It
therefore didn't need a name until CRV came along. [CRVers didn't
become operational until after Joe had left the unit.] At that
point it became necessary to differentiate the two, so "ERV" was
coined for the more "altered"-state approach. We viewers were never
quite sure what "Extended" referred to. Most of us decided it just
meant we were extended out on the bed [that's a joke, Liam! ;-]
Also, no one is quite sure who coined the term. Skip says he doesn't
remember using it. I myself am now pretty sure it was the unit's
division chief at one point--Fern G. But it may even have been our
good buddy Liam. At any rate, this term was coined AT the Ft.
Meade unit WHILE I was there [and after Joe had left].

Most/all of the viewers at Ft. Meade at least tried ERV, so we all
have some experience in it. I myself may have done a dozen or so such
sessions. They were not my favorite type of viewing, since (as I've
said before elsewhere) it ruined a perfectly good nap to have to
answer annoying requests like "describe the contents of the grey room
you mentioned a few minutes ago..." (<snore> "Hmmm? Whuh? Uh,
dthere's uh philing cab'nut... ......huh? ...uh, oh, uh,
yeah...mmmm...pennnncil sharp'ner..." <snore>)



Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 14:33:12 -0700
From: webmaster@cariboo-net.com
Subject: Re: [VWR] Pictures without wrinkles

toxic solvents and when inhaled can cause eventual kidney, liver,
and/or central nervous system damage. Use only in a well ventilated
area, not around kids, and don't hang around breathing in the fumes.
>From one who learned the hard way.
Pass it on.

>I found a spray adhesive at an artist supply store. The brand I have is
>"DURO" All-Purpose Spray Adhesive. I'm sure there are several
brands. I >was not sure MaryD would find it in England. It is not
expensive and >one can lasted for about 600 pages.
>This adhesive makes it possible to reposition the photo, if you get
it >in the wrong place. You also need to put down papers because it
tends to >float around. My kitchen floor got pretty sticky until I
started working >on newspaper
>How this helps.

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 09:08:57 -0500
From: "Craig Hogan" <rchogan@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu>
Subject: [VWR] AOLs

To All,
This is a message from a neophyte to other neophytes. I'd like to see =
more such because I'm just learning the art and need some basics, such =
as definitions of the alphabet soup.
I haven't seen a definition of AOL, but I know it is not a popular =
bulletin-board system. It seems to be assigning an identity from the =
viewer's memory to the disparate psi signals the viewer has received to =
make a whole out of all of the parts--a natural human inclination. I've =
discovered why that is a problem, now, and am learning to avoid it. It =
results in superimposing signals from one source over signals from =
another source. They clash, and since the psi signal has so much more =
noise associated with it, the memory signal predominates. From what =
I've seen, it seems appropriate to use the same terminology, "signal," =
for both because even though the memory signal so much stronger, both =
come from a source and must be interpreted based on the data that come =
through. Both can be contaminated by suggestion and conflicting =
Here's the learning experience I had. I did one of the RVs on the =
skeptics page and found out later that I was right on with most of my =
impressions: a long, stretching thing, light colored, a tall, massive =
thing in the back, light colored top, with light blue/white across, on =
left some things sticking up, on right the same, and bent lines in the =
foreground. OK, that's all non-AOL. But I didn't write it all down =
because my memory superimposed a picture over the psi signal very early =
on. I ended up with a stream going toward a mountain in the background =
and trees on either side. Plausible? Sure, but that's not what it was. =
It was the Brooklyn Bridge. The long, stretching thing was the bridge. =
The massive thing in the back was a building complex. On either side =
were other buildings. In front were people and a fence. =20

Once I had settled on the image of a stream and mountain, all the =
signals I received were interpreted in that context. I couldn't get =
back to the uncontaminated psi signals.
That was a valuable lesson in not mixing the memory signal with the psi =
signal. I would counsel other neophytes to avoid counting the money =
until the game is done. Reserve AOLs until the psi signal has been =
exhausted, and regard them as curiosities, not data.
I also have the impression that assigning AOL to an "impression" is a =
little like cheating and it will eventually interfere with the psi =
signal. OK, so we know we shouldn't assign a memory identity to the psi =
signals, but it's OK if we write AOL in front of it. I think the end =
result is the same and it will contaminate results regardless of whether =
we write letters before the memory identities or simply write them =
without letters. Allowing us to mix the two, regardless of how we =
designate them, will permit our learned routine or practice to allow =
memory signals to intrude.
Craig Hogan

- ---------
Moderator's Note: Craig there were three versions of the above email,
an HTML in the middle and a version like the above on either side.
Any UNIX junkies out there know why the =20 stuff is getting into his
email before it reaches me?? -- PJ

Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 19:07:18 +0100
From: MaryD <Ladyley@innerlightuk.u-net.com>
Subject: [VWR] Silva on RV

I came upon this reference from Jose Silva. The complete text can be found at


Thoughts anyone?

Regards as always,

I quote parts of it.

What do you think the United States government thinks of psychic
ability? The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was willing to spend
$11 million (some say it was actually $20 million) to see if psychics
could help in the espionage game.

We could have told them that 30 years ago. As a matter of fact, we did!

On August 11, 1965, my birthday, I decided to give the U.S.
government a gift worth millions of dollars.

I wrote a letter to President Lyndon Johnson offering to give the
government all of my research, free of charge.

I had invested more than $500,000 of my own money and time, so it was
not exactly a small gift that I was offering.

At least they were polite enough to answer me. But they gave the
wrong answer!

"There is much yet to be learned about the activities of the human
mind, " the letter from Randal M. Robertson, Associate Director of
the National Science Foundation said, "and there are many unsettled
questions about hypnosis and about para-normal activities. There does
not seem to be any specific need at present for the assistance you
have offered."

Many benefits of right brain thinking

Can you imagine, if President Johnson had known how to use his mind
to get more information and make better decisions, he might have been
able to prevent the deaths of so many human beings in Vietnam, and
might not have had to give up the Presidency and return home a broken
man who died shortly after.


The CIA and the Pentagon got good results for their millions of
dollars. Some reports say the psychics were correct 15 percent of the
time, well above chance levels.

On Larry King Live one of the people involved in the project said
that in one instance the psychics located all 12 submarines that they
were asked to find.

As you know, Silva Method graduates are often 100 percent accurate on
the cases they work. But not always. Their overall accuracy is about
80 percent, much better than the CIA's remote viewers.

Instead of spending $20 million, they should pay us a few hundred
dollars each to train their own staff people to use their clairvoyant
ability. They are the experts in their own field, and they could do
amazing work...if they would.

Regardless of what the government does, we'll continue with our own

In this field, our track record is much better than the government's!

Remote viewing is just one of the many techniques taught in the Silva

In Friendship and Light. MaryD

- --------------
Moderator's Note: You're dangerously close to "invoking politics on
the list" with this message Mary. :-) In order to have any fair
response to that, one would have to have an equal 20 years in the
formal lab with Silva people, which we don't have for comparison --
only words and enthusiasm on the part of adherents or teachers, and
there's a lot of that in RV as well. A number of friends of mine are
well familiar with Silva methods as well. My impression from them
is that they have learned useful things from all the stuff they've
studied. Maybe one of 'em will speak up here. -- PJ

[VWR] Remote Viewing Discussion Group [closed and archived. see firedocs.com/remoteviewing/ home page for new list]
Moderated. Join-approval required. List Owner PJ Gaenir, palyne@sciencehorizon.com
VWR archives are at Firedocs: http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/
To Subscribe/Unsubscribe: This list is now closed. See firedocs home for current list.

End of [VWR]-Digest: V2 #83

[VWR] Archives Menu


All contents copyright © 1995-2002 by PJ Gaenir. All rights reserved.