[VWR]-Digest: V2 #84

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 16:33:40 +0200
From: "Liam " <liam@zmatrix.com>
Subject: [VWR] VWR AOLs in ERV

Hi Joe and all;

Liam here. Good to see you back Joe. I was getting worried about
you. When a person reaches your age, Joe, he ought to check in with
his friends every now and then to let then know he is OK.


>Come on guys! Your comments imply that someone can't avoid AOL in an
>ERV mode of operation. If I'm supposed to be doing ERV (at least
>that's what everyone has been calling it but me) then, that is just
>not true. Also, are you guys implying that AOL "almost never
>happens" in the CRV mode? That would be just a wee bit over the top
>for me. (You must have been hitting the sauce again, Liam? Of course
>Gene, being Irish has an excuse.) Such statements also imply that
>there is some unique method of determining AOL in CRV which works
>far better, or more times than not, which does not agree with any of
>the research--post 1986.


Liam again. As far as I know Joe, I have not been cavorting with the
demon rum recently. Of course at my age it is hard to tell the
difference between a blackout and Alzheimer's. I did check around the
house. There is nothing broken and I found no bail bonds receipts,
so I guess I am still sober. I do not think I implied that you cannot
avoid AOLs in ERV (I have watched you work and know you are an expert
at this, and I do not think I do a bad job of it myself). I also did
not mean to imply that AOL does not happen in CRV. I believe that
AOL takes place in each style about equally. The difference is the
para visual aspect of CRV. Plus, Ingo developed a way in CRV to
identify and deal with AOL. He went further and developed a method
where in stage four and five AOL is used to obtain information about
the site. I agree that AOL is no greater problem in ERV for an
experienced, good, viewer than it is in CRV. But for most of the
people on the list who are new; AOL will be a greater danger in ERV
than it is in CRV. The basic difference you and I have in this Joe,
is that you are carrying the baggage of over 20 years experience and
research in this field. This causes you to make objective decisions
based on empirical evidence. I, on the other hand, carry no such
baggage. This gives me the freedom to make subjective comments based
on personal experience and "gut feeling." The bottom line is RV is
magic, and Magic is by definition not definable.


>In argument, I would say that many of your statements may be very
>appropriate within a training scenario, but hardly apply within a
>non-training scenario.
>This is sort of like saying because someone only drives a certain
>kind or make of car all one's life, all other cars suck.


It is Liam, back again. I am afraid I missed the point here Joe.
Gene has monitored both ERV and CRV. I have worked both CRV and ERV
(I think it safe to say we both prefer ERV). So we have driven both
kinds of cars. All cars have certain strengths. A Camaro is great
for driving down the autobahn (freeway) at 100 mph. If you need to
go to the store to pick up a lot of food and booze, than a van is
better. If you want to go courting in Georgia, you need a pick up
truck. ERV is better for certain sites and CRV is better for certain
sites. The ideal is for the operations officer to have the ability to
work each target using both styles of RV.


>Facts are; AOL is probably going to be a permanent and significant
>problem with any method of remote viewing. Evidence produced within
>labs suggests that no one methodology is capable of identifying and
>extinguishing AOL any better than another over the long haul. There
>have been significant runs of very low AOL or displays of almost no
>AOL which have been done by individual remote viewers. So, there are
>indications that some people might have a talent for producing less
>AOL than others. But it does not appear to be method driven since it
>doesn't hold up in testing across all remote viewers using the same
>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?


Liam again; Joe, I will tell the story one more time. At the
project we worked sites two ways. One way was CRV. We called the
other way ; "Joe Style." On a Tuesday, Skip Atwater told me we had
received a new tasking from some organization. He intended to work
two viewers against it CRV and one viewer "Joe style." On Wednesday
morning Skip told me that Paul and somebody would be the CRVers and I
would be the ERVer. I said great. Good Plan.. What the hell is ERV?
Skip said he was using the term ERV in place of the term Joe style.
This was the first time I ever heard the term ERV. I guess that means
Skip coined the word and you invented the process. That makes you
the father of ERV. It is not necessary to support it (it is no
longer a minor) but you should at least acknowledge your parenthood.
We do not need a DNA test, because it has your characteristics all
over it. ERV is really "Little Joe."

This brings me to the meat of this post. I have received two
requests "off line" to explain what ERV is. My intent was to post
back on-line so everyone else could jump in too. This way the new
people would not only be getting the Bible according to Liam. the
problem was; I had a real hard time coming up with a detailed
definition I was comfortable with. Every definition I came up with
left me with more questions than answers. I suggest we all post on
what we believe ERV is. Maybe by comparing and relating we can come
up with a definition we can all live with, if not for the world, than
at least for this group. Is anyone else willing to join in the
endeavor? Will you play Joe?

>I'll have a few sips of Cragganmore, and chase them with a bottle of
>Guiness, just to show you I hold no ill towards the wee lads across
>the strait; while I await your elogant response. (Sept Stewart of
>Love you guys,

Joe, you always had good taste in booze. I found that a pint of
guinness would wash the taste of anything else out of my mouth.<g>
Only kidding. I have said on many occasions that you Scots make the
second best whiskey in the world. When I was drinking I was never
known to turn down an offer of a bit of the stuff. Maybe you could
do me a favor and have one for me. I like my Cragganmore with no ice
and just a splash of water. It is always good to hear from one of
the old timers. Keep in touch

May the force be with you

>(AOL= "Analytical Overlay." The process of adding, omitting or
>altering data received via psi means based upon logical assumptions,
>memories, associations, et al. -- Moderator)

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 15:51:12 -1000
From: Yaana Allen <yaana@aloha.net>
Subject: Re: [VWR]-Digest: V2 #83

HI everyone, just wanted to let you know that the Hawai'i Remote Viewers' Guild
has finally put up our web site. It is stillin progress but there are alot of
interesting things to see. This may look very different to work done by others
you have seen , so take a look and let us know what you think.

Aloha Yaana

- ----------------
Congratulations to you guys, and Aloha! -- PJ

Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 22:19:12 -0400
From: Prudence Calabrese <prudence@largeruniverse.com>
Subject: [VWR] Does Sexual Energy Enhance Psi?

We have a group of around 25 viewers who are viewing at least 6 times a
week on all kinds of verifiable objectives (targets). These viewers have
all been practicing for over a year. I have noticed that the viewers with
the most consistent results as well as the most reliable data are those who
are young men (in their early 20s) and women who are at least 40. Since
both of these age/gender groups are at their sexual peak, could it be that
sexual energy enhances remote viewing?

(Now, this is a general observation based on working with relatively new
remote viewers over the past two years. It's not a study or definitive


- ------
Moderator's Note: Well Kundalini is associated with psi, and that
ties into it all of course. But hey, this brings up an interesting
monitor-Viewer experiment that I might really like being part of!
LOL! (Send my husband out of the room...) -- PJ


And see, no longer blinded by our eyes. - Rupert Brooke
Prudence Calabrese
TransDimensional Systems
tel: (770) 814-9410
fax: (770) 497-1129

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:45:49 +1000
From: Mark <bud@sphynxlinks.com.au>
Subject: Re: [VWR] AOLs in CRV

Hi Liam, I`m very surprised that Ingo Swann`s rule no 1. should be so be
so inflexible coming from a man i believe to be quite the opposite.
have a nice day

Liam wrote:
> Liam here. As I recall Ingo had three rules for identifying AOLs
> (Paul, you have the manual, so please feel free to jump in here and
> clarify if I get off base.)
> Ingo's rules:
> 1. If it is a visual it is AOL
> 2. If the information contains the word like it is AOL (i.e. it is
> rough like a mountain)
> 3. Information that is out of structure, or is not justified by
> previous information (i.e.; Stage 1. flat, across, flowing,
> B. AOL Break mountain)

- --------------
Moderator's Note: Mark, I think you are taking all this a tad too
seriously. :-) Swann is notorious for insisting his students stick
precisely to rules and so forth. Whether that makes him inflexible
personally I have no idea, but I wouldn't dare speculate....

I think there may be some misunderstanding of AOL. People who
haven't had a teacher pounding it out to them in detail are
probably understandably missing a few pieces of info.

An AOL ("analytical overlay") is any piece of data that is -- OR is
likely to be -- affected by assumptions, associations, imagination,
et al. Data may come to you as one thing but is affected by YOU,
when processed by your mind, and by the time you write it down, that
data may be something else.

Many AOL's have certain commonalities. These are just types of
datas found over time to have a higher incidence of analytic (or
other) overlay than others. Static visuals are one. Comparators are
another. In CRV, you are taught to recognize data that has been, or
MAY be, "affected data," ala AOL.

The common response to this, since AOLs are avoided, is to assume
that AOL's are wrong. That's not necessarily true.

It is true that they are avoided, because one of the points of
teaching somebody CRV is to help make them aware of how they are
processing data. Obviously the point is to learn to avoid
interfering with (messing up) your info as much as possible.

But AOLs are not necessarily wrong. For instance, something which in
an early stage is a label and not a descriptor (e.g., "The Eiffel
Tower," or LIKE the...) would be considered an AOL. But it may be
totally accurate as far as the data goes.

Categorizing something as AOL does not mean that you are saying "It
is wrong." You are simply saying, "I have this information, and
based on the structure I'm working in, there is a high probability
that this information has been affected by me in some way and may be
inaccurate in part or in whole."

That is first and foremost to cause the student to recognize their
own processing and to pay attention to how things are working
internally to them. It makes them recognize that they have deviated
from the planned structure of the session. That may not be a BAD
thing; it is simply something that needs to be recognized.

It is second to train them into a more fundamental way of processing,
where they tend to allow components rather than complete 'things',
something that is a learning curve for all viewers (e.g., students
finally begin to say, "flat, flowing, glistening, wet" rather than "a
river," which is good, since it may be all the former but may not be
the latter). The mind tends to want to package data into a labeled
thing and hand it to us, providing us a label rather than detail, and
it takes some work to train your mind into simply presenting the
literal components of data it receives, instead. This is part of
that training.

Thirdly, it is to point out to the monitor and later analyst what is
going on with the Viewer. If you say "green garden" because you had
a static flash of that, like someone just hung a picture in front of
you for a split second, that may not have the same probability of
being accurate as if you received that data via a 'sensed
impression.' (Or, it may; it might depend on the person; but we are
working on usually and generally's here.) If you make it an AOL
because of how you received the data, that is telling both the
monitor and the analyst something about that data which may be

In CRV, the first real rule is that you have to write down EVERYTHING
that you are able to consciously access or notice. That means
everything, even stupid stray thoughts, even conclusions, whether
right or wrong, in structure or out of it, you MUST write it down.
And if it doesn't fit in the structure for whatever reason, it is an
AOL generally. That doesn't mean it's wrong or even bad necessarily.
Just that it is out of the planned structure of data acquisition.

The rules of CRV aren't there to beat people into psychic submission
(though some may disagree <g>) but to work as a support for the
Viewer. In training (and some of this depends on your instructor),
there is "right and wrong" -- but that is concerning the structure
itself. Once you're into regular RV, there is only accurate vs.
inaccurate -- and you don't know that till the feedback. Once you've
demonstrated, as a student, that you work well in the structure (have
learned to process and communicate according to those rules), from
then on, YOU are the Viewer, and YOU are in charge. If you want to
list 17 AOLs in each stage of your session, fine -- but in that case,
you'd just better be RIGHT. ;-)

- -- 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 #84

[VWR] Archives Menu


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