Remote Viewing - Discussions

[newyorklily]

This thread is now for discussions on remote viewing. For Practice, please go here http://www.theoutpostforum.com/tof/showthread.php?1297-Remote-Viewing-PRACTICE-ONLY

This is a really cool RV practice site. It is easy to use, no registration required and you can save your results by using a screen snip.



Just one word of caution: It can become addictive.

[A99]

Since we have so many people here talking about remote viewing all the time, I think we should set up our own practice location here on this forum!

[CasperParks]

Since we have so many people here talking about remote viewing all the time, I think we should set up our own practice location here on this forum!

As a teenager, I experimented with Astral Projection.

[southerncross]

This did not work on an iPad. Does it require Mac ?

I'm interested in trying this. I've done some long distance healing work but have never tried RV like this.
Sounds like it would be a great way to help develop concentration as well.

[A99]

Shouldn't RV sessions be set up as closely as possible to Ingo Swann's protocol's? For example, targets are assigned numerical coordinate's, right? And there should be a monitor for each session too so without those 2 componants is it still RV or is it just an exercise in ESP?

[Garuda]

By now there are many different types of Remote Viewing, and each uses their own protocols.

Apart from the 'coordinate' RV that Ingo Swann did, there are, e.g., 'controlled' RV, 'scientific' RV, 'technical' RV, 'associative' RV, 'extended' RV, 'neurosensing', to name the most common ones.

[newyorklily]

This did not work on an iPad. Does it require Mac ?

I'm interested in trying this. I've done some long distance healing work but have never tried RV like this.
Sounds like it would be a great way to help develop concentration as well.

I'm using Windows. The way I do it is I activate the "snipping tool" which will give me a pencil to use to draw the pictures on the screen. Unfortunately, I don't know what the equivalent is on a Mac or iPad.

[A99]

By now there are many different types of Remote Viewing, and each uses their own protocols.

Apart from the 'coordinate' RV that Ingo Swann did, there are, e.g., 'controlled' RV, 'scientific' RV, 'technical' RV, 'associative' RV, 'extended' RV, 'neurosensing', to name the most common ones.

So if someone gives you a personal belonging of someone who went missing where by simply holding that object you were able to correctly locate where that missing person was, what kind of Remote Viewing is that?

Seems like some are calling any kind of psychic exercise Remote Viewing these days or at least on the internet and I'm all for that because the older terms like clairvoyance and so on sound too archaic. Best to sound more scientific! :biggrin2:

[calikid]

So if someone gives you a personal belonging of someone who went missing where by simply holding that object you were able to correctly locate where that missing person was, what kind of Remote Viewing is that?



Bloodhound RV?

Sorry... couldn't resist :D

Many years ago I saw Peter Herkos (sp?) Perform live at a local theater. Did something similar. Amazing performance.

[Garuda]

So if someone gives you a personal belonging of someone who went missing where by simply holding that object you were able to correctly locate where that missing person was, what kind of Remote Viewing is that?

That would fall under psychometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometry_(paranormal)) and technically speaking not be considered remote viewing. Though no doubt there will be people labeling it 'Remote Viewing' because it sounds better...

[newyorklily]

I thought some of you might want to see how a remote viewing project is done from the viewers POV. These two projects was requested by Linda Moulton Howe and I think many of you will recognize what they are. The findings of the viewers were interesting and disturbing.

http://www.debrakatz.com/#!linda-moulton-howe-rv-projects/c12f2

[A99]

That would fall under psychometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometry_(paranormal)) and technically speaking not be considered remote viewing. Though no doubt there will be people labeling it 'Remote Viewing' because it sounds better...

So there you have it! "Psychometry", a dusty old term that reeks of "old time Spiritualism" and hokey stage magic. It's just one of a few such terms in that genre that I don't dare utter in forums like this one because of that.

But give it some shiny new cloths by revamping and updating its 'process' and changing the name of that term to some type of specialized Remote Viewing and just watch how this formerly mocked and negated phenomenon is embraced whole-heartedly by the same one's who had an aversion to it; including yours truly (but for me, it's for the term itself but not the phenomenon which I know on a first hand basis is a very real one). :angel_not:

[Doc]

"Psychometry" is also an old name for psychological testing. I have not heard it used in a long time. Psychometry was a a field within psychology that involved administering and scoring tests exclusively. They did not do therapy. Psychometry was performed by a "Psychometrist" who was a Masters level, usually State licensed, individual who typically worked for a school system, a hospital, or a large counseling center. Where the job still exists, it is now usually called "Licensed Psychologist" to differentiate from a "Clinical Psychologist" who is a Doctoral level person who performs a wide range of functions, including psychological testing.

That is probably more than you wanted to know but I thought it might be important in some way to people interested in remote viewing. :cool:

[newyorklily]

So there you have it! "Psychometry", a dusty old term that reeks of "old time Spiritualism" and hokey stage magic. It's just one of a few such terms in that genre that I don't dare utter in forums like this one because of that.

But give it some shiny new cloths by revamping and updating its 'process' and changing the name of that term to some type of specialized Remote Viewing and just watch how this formerly mocked and negated phenomenon is embraced whole-heartedly by the same one's who had an aversion to it; including yours truly (but for me, it's for the term itself but not the phenomenon which I know on a first hand basis is a very real one). :angel_not:

Actually, I don't find the word "psychometry" outdated at all and I still use it. I've been interested in archaeology since I was 7 years old so psychometry was the psi ability I've always wanted to have. :) If you haven't seen it already, rent a movie called "Vibes" with Jeff Goldblum, Cindy Lauper and Peter Falk. There are some very funny uses for psychometry in there. :biggrin2:

[Fore]

A couple observations after reading through the threads posts.

RV is ESP.

RV = Remote Viewing
ESP = Extra Sensory - Perception
RP = Remote Perception/Presence
OOBE = Out Of Body Experience

Technically , if ESP is considered extra sensory...then in an OOBE the person is not experiencing ESP as it would be their primary sense. Only in a body would it probably be considered ESP.

-------------------

Another comment of mine, Ingo Swanns remote coordinate system wouldn't work unless a person is acquainted (at some upper level of their consciousness) with a coordinate system based on numerical approximation.

Most psychics I have talked to seem to target nearby and remote objects by some sense of "approximation". Either they use a known reference point in spacetime such as a building or room [or their own body] where they have been to or marked with their personal field. Or they use non-physical traces and identifiers...such as a persons unique psychic signature to "approximate" a specific targets location. Be it a few inches or a few thousand miles.

With Ingo Swanns convention(s) used for targeting (a number system or a coordinate for example). A psychic would have to memorize what a geographical plot system generally "approximates" in a coherent sense.

They would then be able to pull up other types of identifiers and "approximate" the location to a target when resolved as a coordinate on a map or a globe.

Coordinate systems are just a mental invention.

-----------------------------

Two different spots in the Atlantic are pretty much the same without a series of unique identifiers. Psychic forms of "Ranging" (an ET technique) is one way to determine which direction and approximate distance to a target when you don't have a physical "line of sight" to a target or find enough identifiers at the location to determine what is unique about a destination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranging

"Ranging" 2 distant spots in the Atlantic is easier if you apply a logical methodology and the right techniques. Then that "determined approximation" can be converted to a mental-sense of a specific geography, a numeric-sense of a metric of distance, a specific coordinate system, or left as a non-ambiguous sense of approximate distance and direction.

-----------------------------

I have noted that people try RV techniques all the time over the years but they seemingly rarely give any thought to "why" (or even "how") they expect to turn one piece of information about a "target" into something coherent enough for them to actually track. Psychics seem to like blanking out their mind and hoping for the best...

I have often noticed ETs using the psychic "Ranging" techniques all the time (with many different methods applied) when they are "out of phase" (out of sync) with their craft. For example, they typically seem to psychically target the ~metals~ their crafts are made of within a specific (confined) search radius.

Different types of ET use different methods but they keep a sense of where it is in relation to themselves when they are out about on the ground and when (for whatever reason) readjust their phase settings while walking the ground.

---------------

It is from observing (and talking/pestering) them that I later figured out how to perform similar techniques or incorporate those techniques into my own former versions of psychic ESP.

Edit: It is just different forms of Psychometry. Though the way Psych-ometry is used could use a definition change or two.

[Fore]

By now there are many different types of Remote Viewing, and each uses their own protocols.

Apart from the 'coordinate' RV that Ingo Swann did, there are, e.g., 'controlled' RV, 'scientific' RV, 'technical' RV, 'associative' RV, 'extended' RV, 'neurosensing', to name the most common ones.

'coordinate' RV
'controlled' RV
'scientific' RV
'technical' RV
'associative' RV
'extended' RV
'neurosensing'

Could anyone provide a few back links to the various types? So far I am only aware of the first two.


That would fall under psychometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychometry_(paranormal)) and technically speaking not be considered remote viewing. Though no doubt there will be people labeling it 'Remote Viewing' because it sounds better...

That is kinda strange. In my mind I don't see the real difference.

Like in Wikipedia, the definition seems extremely convoluted. I consider Psychometry the act of sensing/locating something via ESP.

Why the wikipedia article somehow refers to psychometry as also including spirit contact is a mystery...

I mean you could (and do) use ESP features (well in most cases) to effectively communicate with some non-living entity. Perhaps even notice the presence of a non-physical object/individual. Beyond that though, the definition seems to be a tad too inclusive.

The spiritualist have really done a number on the words used? (Perhaps it is just a bad Wiki edit?)

[atmjjc]

Another comment of mine, Ingo Swanns remote coordinate system wouldn't work unless a person is acquainted (at some upper level of their consciousness) with a coordinate system based on numerical approximation.


Well it worked well enough for the CIA and though the plug was pulled to the general public it is now hidden among black projects. Have fun trying to pin RV down in Government use. The name has been changed at least a half a dozen times and if you do not know what you’re looking for you will led down so many blind alleys you will not know which way is up or down.

Warning: If you do know what you are looking for and create waves than you and/or your loved ones might be singled out or worst case scenario you might probably be terminated. They usually make it look like an accident or suicide.

[A99]

Why the wikipedia article somehow refers to psychometry as also including spirit contact is a mystery...
　
Perhaps I can help.
You see, the only difference between someone calling themselves a medium and another person calling himself a psychic is that the medium KNOWS who and what is giving the information to them be it the other person’s spirit guide or any other-dimensional being that’s connected to that other person. These communications from those in those other realms are facilitated by either the medium’s own spirit guide or their “higher self”. Edgar Cayce, for example, worked through his ’higher-self’ that was able to access non-physical entities to whatever kind of information he was seeking where he was always able to identify who those entities were. Other times he accessed information directly via the Akashic Records via OBE’s.

On the other hand though, the person who calls himself only a ‘psychic’ doesn’t know where the information is coming from because they are not able to sense and identify the source of their information. For them, all they ‘sense’ is a thought popping into their mind out of nowhere that they know is not their own. They may suspect that it is their higher-self that gives them that information but they are unable to trace the communication trail that leads to entities out there who are providing that information to his higher-self. This goes for any kind of psi abilities too that the 'psychic' has too, like psychokinesis, for example.

In the case of psychometry, objects, especially objects where the previous owner of it was emotionally attached to it in some way carry identifiers within them where one’s spirit guide or higher self is able to tap into that component of the object and trace it to those spirit guides of the former owner of it to get information about it. Or they can track down the previous owner’s higher self to get information too if that previous owner operates more that way than through a spirit guide.

In short, all information that we get of this nature is through communication with entities that dwell in those other realms. Some are able identify and communicate with those entities who facilitate in the information gathering process where others are completely oblivious of them where they are outside of the loop of that communication stream process. All they know is that they get the information but they don’t know where it’s coming from except that they may suspect it’s got something to do with their ‘higher-self’. But in the vast majority of those case's, it's their own spirit guide who is accessing that information for them but because they are not in communication with their spirit guide where they may not even be aware that they have one, they simply are clueless about how they are getting that information in the first place.

We live in a universe chock full of entities in other realms that are the providers of the information we receive. Some are aware of the source of any information they receive -- others are not. The one's who call themselves medium's KNOW where they get their information from but I hate that term as it too is an antiquated one. Probably calling ourselves "channel's" or "receivers" instead sound better.

[newyorklily]

'coordinate' RV
'controlled' RV
'scientific' RV
'technical' RV
'associative' RV
'extended' RV
'neurosensing'

Could anyone provide a few back links to the various types? So far I am only aware of the first two.

Here are two of the ones you are asking about.




From: http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/faq003.cfm


"Associative"
Associative remote viewing is a protocol based on a revised tasking for a given RV project. It is used for binary targets (where there is a choice of two outcomes (plus ‘other’), and these types of targets are usually also a form of precognitive psi. The tasker "associates" three specific targets with the outcomes in question. When tasked, the Viewer's description will (it is hoped) match one of those targets clearly enough for the tasker to conclude an answer. For example, if the target is the rise or fall of the price of sugar on the commodities market tomorrow, the tasker may assign "Niagara Falls" to a "fall" answer, "the Eiffel Tower" to a "rise" answer, and "the grand canyon" to "other" (such as, stays the same, the stock market is closed that day, or any other potential).
The viewer is tasked with, "Describe the target." If the Viewer's description can be correlated with one of the predefined associated targets, that is what the analyst or tasker would take as the psi-derived "answer." When the outcome is learned, the viewer is given the feedback of the target correlated with the actual outcome. They are not given feedback on the other options or on what they may have described, even if it is clearly one of the other selected targets.


"Extended" remote viewing (ERV)
One of the more common means of "getting in touch with a target" is similar to the Ganzfeld approach, but without the technology. In this instance, usually the psychic reclines or lies down comfortably in a dim or darkened room, and another individual (an 'interviewer' or 'monitor') asks them questions and records the data they verbally provide, or they use a tape recorder. Prior to finishing their session they generally attempt to sketch their impressions. This has probably been a method used by psychics throughout time. In the later years of the DIA intelligence unit that utilized remote viewing, once CRV (above) had become a standard methodology, the "natural psychic" way of going about things was coined the term ERV, mostly to separate it from CRV (and as such, it encompassed most anything CRV was not). Over time, as the viewers had been bred into the concept of ‘methods’, various methods were imposed upon this approach as well, until it was a slightly different creature.
At this point, there is no legitimate claim by anybody to know ‘what ERV really is’, but there are a variety of people who have done something like this, at some time, some of them in the intell unit, some initially and some after CRV came along and caused the ERV-term to be coined-- and they are probably all doing something different-yet-similar. There are people who ‘teach’ ERV methods in the public now, based on what they think they know about the intell Unit’s use of ERV. It probably doesn’t matter. In the end, methods are just methods -- if you work within protocol and get accurate data, you’re doing alright.

Courtney Brown's Farsight Institute teaches Scientific Remote viewing (SRV). Here is a link for free materials on it.http://www.farsight.org/srv/

Here is some info on Technical Remote Viewing http://www.technicalremoteviewing.com/

I can't find any good articles on neurosensing but the little bit I did see gives me the impression it is RV enhanced by technology.

[atmjjc]

Here is an interesting RV site. It has a membership the last time I looked at over 8000. I am sure somewhere in their forum they have debated terms on what they label it now. It is called Ten Thousand Roads or TKR for short it is the Remote Viewing and Dowsing Project.

http://www.dojopsi.info/forum/index.php

[A99]

Has there ever been a Remote Viewer who was able to locate a missing person?

[atmjjc]

Has there ever been a Remote Viewer who was able to locate a missing person?

Great question A99, to my knowledge there has only been a few cases to public knowledge. What I have noticed is RV person/s have a hard time locating people but most of the time I noticed they are viewing objects to find people rather than seeing the people themselves.

An example of the above would be let’s say the RV person/s is looking for where a POW is being held which could be in 5 different areas. What the RV would pick up is objects like houses and structures which when reviewed by a third party who is familiar with the terrain and the objective etc. is where they would concentrate their priorities for retrieval.

[A99]

My guess is that there are no documented cases of an RV practitioners successfully locating any missing persons of which there are hundreds of them all over the U.S. Of course, part of that entail's identifying things in the missing person's immediate environment to be able to locate them but they would also need to see the missing person or his or her body too.

I've never heard of any RV people locating any missing persons.

Just in my city alone, at last count, there are a good handful of children and young females missing over the past few years who have not been found yet, dead or alive.

Seems to me that places like the Farsight Institute would be much more productive if they focused on helping to locate missing children. I'm surprised they've never set up any projects like that.

[A99]

Below is the current Missing Person map of my city. Most of the missing are teenage girls, females in their 20's and children. The map covers those who went missing between 2011 and 2013.

http://i932.photobucket.com/albums/ad164/A99_x/map_zps0d16cc69.jpg (http://s932.photobucket.com/user/A99_x/media/map_zps0d16cc69.jpg.html)

This is what, IMHO, RV practitioners should be focusing on. Every city across the US is like this. Children and young females who disappear out of nowhere and are never seen again -- in most cases. It's an epidemic.

[atmjjc]

Most of the cases have been in different countries. They have been televised in those parts of the world which made big news there. They are in a foreign language which needs Interpreting. This is the direction google pointed me in.

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v6559404G29K8qtg

I had a hard time finding that one. I ran across a few more but all were in different languages also. If you look hard enough you will find them somewhere out there in internet land.

It appears to be Ed Dames.

[A99]

Great question A99, to my knowledge there has only been a few cases to public knowledge. What I have noticed is RV person/s have a hard time locating people but most of the time I noticed they are viewing objects to find people rather than seeing the people themselves.

An example of the above would be let’s say the RV person/s is looking for where a POW is being held which could be in 5 different areas. What the RV would pick up is objects like houses and structures which when reviewed by a third party who is familiar with the terrain and the objective etc. is where they would concentrate their priorities for retrieval.

Thanks for the info. I'm sure as more time goes by, the RV community will improve in this area of locating missing people. It sounds like they need to work on some of their techniques for doing that.

[A99]

Most of the cases have been in different countries. They have been televised in those parts of the world which made big news there. They are in a foreign language which needs Interpreting. This is the direction google pointed me in.

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v6559404G29K8qtg

I had a hard time finding that one. I ran across a few more but all were in different languages also. If you look hard enough you will find them somewhere out there in internet land.

It appears to be Ed Dames.

Thanks! I'll look that over.

I would like to join an RV group that focuses on Missing Persons.

[newyorklily]

My guess is that there are no documented cases of an RV practitioners successfully locating any missing persons of which there are hundreds of them all over the U.S. Of course, part of that entail's identifying things in the missing person's immediate environment to be able to locate them but they would also need to see the missing person or his or her body too.

I've never heard of any RV people locating any missing persons.

Just in my city alone, at last count, there are a good handful of children and young females missing over the past few years who have not been found yet, dead or alive.

Seems to me that places like the Farsight Institute would be much more productive if they focused on helping to locate missing children. I'm surprised they've never set up any projects like that.

A99, you might want to read this http://rense.com/general20/joemcmoneagle.htm There are videos about this on YouTube as well but they are in Japanese. I haven't located any with subtitles yet.

There are probably many more missing person cases that have been solved by remote viewers but, let's face it, no law enforcement agency is going to admit to a case being solved by a remote viewer. Also, there are confidentiality agreements between the remote viewer and the person, persons or agency he / she was hired by. That confidentiality agreement can't be broken unless the client gives permission in writing.

[A99]

Thanks Lilly, I'll check out that link! Also, I agree with you about those confidential contracts and so on. Too bad it's that way though.

There needs to be more public awareness on the effectiveness of remote viewing in solving crimes and locating missing persons. Confidentiality statements keep that from happening and that's unfortunate.

[Fore]

@ Lily

I am looking through the links. It is bringing up a lot of interesting references. Some of them are quite interesting on how they got around certain types of problems.


　
[SIZE=2]Perhaps I can help.
You see, the only difference between someone calling themselves a medium and another person calling himself a psychic is that the medium KNOWS who and what is giving the information to them be it the other person’s spirit guide or any other-dimensional being that’s connected to that other person. These communications from those in those other realms are facilitated by either the medium’s own spirit guide or their “higher self”. Edgar Cayce, for example, worked through his ’higher-self’ that was able to access non-physical entities to whatever kind of information he was seeking where he was always able to identify who those entities were. Other times he accessed information directly via the Akashic Records via OBE’s.

I never thought of distinguishing mediums and psychics in that way.

I think it is....iffy....to make the distinction in that certain way. Here is why:

A psychic (or medium) can never be 100% positive on someones ID...100% of the time due to "known problems" that occur in a psychics observations via ESP. A skilled psychic entity can deceive.

You can compensate with various rigorous routines to lessen the probability that you will be wrong about someones ID. But you can never really bring it down to a 0% error rate. (If someone can, please contact me immediately)

Unlike using ones eyes for identifying characteristics and features, it is harder to distinguish what it is right next to you. It depends on what levels of observations you can make to cross reference an Entity mental depiction in your mind. A trusted partner such as a guardian is a good start to verify things. But what if any number of psychics call upon a trusted guide and that guide gives them inaccurate information as noted by external observers?

Does that invalidate the trusted party verifications? If so, to what extent?

--------------------------

(Almost) any element that can be rendered in your mind and within your chest can be artificially rendered in real time to a convincing degree. If this is the case, then it is possible to counterfeit or create an imposter ID that fools the psychic or "medium" as an observer.

Even a trusted party can be emulated and impersonated to a certain (convincing) extent. Having more advanced ESP techniques just makes it alot harder to successfully falsify an ID.

For example, if a psychic uses ESP to read the materials and composition of an entity (living or not) it can verify the mental ID with that of the body. This is a bit harder (but not impossible) to falsify. There are always advanced methods for anything.

For example, there are circumstances where an unknown entity can approach a person, paralyze them during a night time encounter and emulate the (mental/verbal) speech of a loved one or even a trust party. Asking them to keep their eyes closed while inducing calming and receptive feelings within the mind of the victim.

ID Impersonation is only effective (seemingly) if the other party is unable to carefully observe what is standing next to them.

Edit: "Mediums" fall for these types of tricks all of the time. "Mediums" are reknown for a bad reputation in many circles because of it. Channellers are also known for being duped all of the time with incredible frequency.

[Fore]

One technique to lock unto a location is to use a ~simple~ psychic trick of (well rather invasive) "Ranging".

If you don't know where something or someone is relative to your body, but you can remotely visit or perceive their location. You can always embed a part of your field into the person or object then:

If it is an object: change it's properties to a slightly unstable form to cause a unique descriptive resonance at a distance.

If it is a person: embed a part of your psychic field into the body of that person and take a slight bit of control over their field. The resonance is then induced and causes their field to emit as a remotely distant "beacon" that emits a unique type of pattern that you can sense when you aren't RVing or using Remote Presence. RP

It may take a few days or be immediate, but your abilities will eventually sense the unique emission from a distance.

-------------------------------

The more advanced methods of "Ranging" is simply reading the cues from your structures and how they target phenomena at a distance. That is harder than it sounds.

As Influence Space is not like physical SpaceTime, you can be facing and emitting to the south and lock on to a target in the north. As long as you can access the structures themselves and apply a few techniques you can identify the direction and range by reading the "low level raw details" of what your structures are focusing on remotely.

The higher level translations that result in a mental approximation or understanding is translated several times at different point(s) in the higher loop of consciousness. Then finally introduced at the lower loop of consciousness. (and hopefully calibrated for specific conventions used by the lower mind!)

Which basically means it is like your car sideview mirror:

"Things in the mirror may appear to be farther than they actually are. Or in a different direction than percieved."

Different methods are good for certain applications. But not for others.

ET's use non-physical structures embedded into their body to cure/correct for certain "brain mapping" and "sensory issues" to make things coherently accurate. The devices allegedly sits between certain portions of the upper and lower loop to adjust information. Even to inject coherent information back into an ET's (or human) sensory system.

Makes psychic calibration(s) necessary though. (Don't worry if no one understood anything I just mentioned.)

[newyorklily]

@Fore - Did you read the cases at this link that I posted? http://www.debrakatz.com/#!linda-moulton-howe-rv-projects/c12f2 In both cases, the viewers sense something that is "alien". I was wondering what you think about it.

[newyorklily]

Back to the RV Practice page, http://davisanddavis.org/rv/ here is one I just did.

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/RVPractice.jpg (http://s525.photobucket.com/user/nylily/media/RVPractice.jpg.html)

I thought it was a Ferris wheel.

[A99]

(Almost) any element that can be rendered in your mind and within your chest can be artificially rendered in real time to a convincing degree. If this is the case, then it is possible to counterfeit or create an imposter ID that fools the psychic or "medium" as an observer.

Fore, according to what you were saying in that post, the ET that is communicating to you and giving you information via mediumship/channeling is only in your imagination? Are you saying that those ET's that you communicate to or were communicating to like Advisor and so on could be imposters and for all you know, Advisor might not be an ET at all but is just saying that that is what she is?

Or do feel that you are immune to those same issues that you claim mediums/channelers have?

But you did bring up that we can never be 100% sure that what the entity says it is is true and that the being could be lying to you where it is really some other kind of entity. That's true because no one can be 100% sure on anything especially when it come to interdimensional communications.


Here's what I said again:

Perhaps I can help.
You see, the only difference between someone calling themselves a medium and another person calling himself a psychic is that the medium KNOWS who and what is giving the information to them be it the other person’s spirit guide or any other-dimensional being that’s connected to that other person. These communications from those in those other realms are facilitated by either the medium’s own spirit guide or their “higher self”. Edgar Cayce, for example, worked through his ’higher-self’ that was able to access non-physical entities to whatever kind of information he was seeking where he was always able to identify who those entities were. Other times he accessed information directly via the Akashic Records via OBE’s.

On the other hand though, the person who calls himself only a ‘psychic’ doesn’t know where the information is coming from because they are not able to sense and identify the source of their information. For them, all they ‘sense’ is a thought popping into their mind out of nowhere that they know is not their own. They may suspect that it is their higher-self that gives them that information but they are unable to trace the communication trail that leads to entities out there who are providing that information to his higher-self. This goes for any kind of psi abilities too that the 'psychic' has too, like psychokinesis, for example.

[Fore]

@Fore - Did you read the cases at this link that I posted? http://www.debrakatz.com/#!linda-moulton-howe-rv-projects/c12f2 In both cases, the viewers sense something that is "alien". I was wondering what you think about it.

First impressions are that the descriptions sound more like RP for most of the members at the beginning then turning into some form of RV towards the end of the paper. They are describing materials and solids (and some liquids) of different kinds. A good portion of the viewers seemed/appeared to be using field interference techniques to measure the aspects of the environment. A good portion of the viewers were seemingly running it through their internal experience.

I didn't really notice much of anyone describe sights and views as a visual until towards the end. (some described people in hats and such) So they probably weren't doing pure RV/OBE types of bi-location.

Still reading through it.

One thing that hit me at the start of reading the feedback was that they might have known "of each other" and are bouncing field data off each other. Just a suspicion since there seemed to be two to three groups of similar descriptives.

--------------------

The entity they felt could be an ET. What struck me was they don't describe anything significant in terms of intelligence or some kind of shielding that would have prevented that entity from "reaching out". Though the RVer never mentioned any trouble getting into that area. So I will assume the walls are just thick without any special properties. (?)

Edit for an afterthought: I wonder if the entity has already undergone normalization to our reality and successfully survived. Might explain why the protection is so lax. Perhaps I infer a bit too much though...

The walls and isolation cell seemed to be rather thick if you take into account the descriptions. No real mentions of being observed during their remote Presence or RV sessions. They only seemed to sense the mentality operated abnormally of whatever they were focusing on in that isolation cell. Possibly a standard EBE without psychic extensions? The references to being trapped are the most interesting aspect of the descriptions.

Being fine with confined spaces was not unexpected. What I found unexpected was a reference to being trapped in more ways than simply being in a cell. I wonder if that was a passing thought by the entity on Earths predicament of circumstances rather than purely about itself.

--------------------

The apparent specimen they were experimenting on (if the RVers interpreted things right) seems to be an inert sample. (dead)

I wonder if the cloth that they described is some kind of sampling device for trapping tissue samples? The light above the chamber (experienced) by the RVers seems to indicate some kind of perpetual sterilization. Also seems to possibly indicate a human lab with mostly human technology.

--------------------

The pipes in the ground are probably some kind of cooling chamber or venting system that uses water. Sounds like the site is still being excavated or they are gathering resources from rock formations under ground.

There was some mention of buzzing sounds and other descriptions which might indicate a reactor nearby that is giving off lots of ambient noise.

The device that seemed to infuse energy into rock samples is a mystery. Probably some kind of experiment? The etching device seemed to also be another experiment.

---------------------

It is implied that the sounds may have been from the tubes releasing steam and from some kind of subterranean instability that lead to a release...?

I just wonder if the various psychics are bumping into each other in their RV sessions. Or whether they remotely link and share information unconsciously.

[A99]

Could I get the link to the results of the Remote Viewing project of that LMH project that Fore is giving his opinion on? I'm not seeing that from the first page of that site.
http://www.debrakatz.com/#!linda-mou...projects/c12f2 (http://www.debrakatz.com/#!linda-mou...projects/c12f2)

[A99]

One technique to lock unto a location is to use a ~simple~ psychic trick of (well rather invasive) "Ranging".

If you don't know where something or someone is relative to your body, but you can remotely visit or perceive their location. You can always embed a part of your field into the person or object then:

If it is an object: change it's properties to a slightly unstable form to cause a unique descriptive resonance at a distance.

If it is a person: embed a part of your psychic field into the body of that person and take a slight bit of control over their field. The resonance is then induced and causes their field to emit as a remotely distant "beacon" that emits a unique type of pattern that you can sense when you aren't RVing or using Remote Presence. RP

It may take a few days or be immediate, but your abilities will eventually sense the unique emission from a distance.

Without a doubt, non-physical entities of any type can merge/embed themselves into the body of the physical person they are presenting themselves to (with permission from that person) but here you are saying that we, as physical beings, can do the same thing and merge into any non-physical entities just like they can do to us?

So if you are RVing an ET on the moon, you can merge/embed with that ET body? Are you also merging with their minds too or is it just their bodies?

Some Mediums/Channelers allow entities from those other realms to merge/embed with them where the entity then speaks through them. In those cases though the medium's brain is taken over too and Spiritualists call that temporary spirit possession. But the medium also can only allow the entity to merge/embed themselves into their body but not their mind.

So you are saying that you, Fore, have the power to actually merge/embed yourself into a non-physical entity just like they can do with us?

That's amazing. But you call that Ranging right? Is this a term that you created for this merging/embed ability that non-physical beings have that you say we have too where we can do the same thing too to them? IOW, possess them?

Is there any written documentation of any RVer's doing that in any of their sessions when they encounter non-physical or even physical beings at the location they are RVing?

But don't you think that those non-physical beings that you are attempting to embed yourself into will resist that from happening just like we can dis-allow and prevent them from doing that to us?

We can give them permission to do that though, but if they attempt to do that without our permission, we can automatically block that from happening.

On the other hand, mediumistic individual's who are intoxicated or are on drugs may not even be aware that a non-phyiscal being has merged/embedded themselves into them uninvited.

Fore, don't you think that a non-physical intelligence would sense right away that you are trying to merge/embed yourself into them? And that it would be their choice to allow you to do that to them?

But don't you think that they would be very annoyed if you attempted such a thing without asking them for their permission to do that ahead of time?

Most likely, because you would not ask for permission ahead of time to do that with them, they would not allow you to merge/embed yourself into them for that reason just like we have the ability to block such intrusions when they try to do that with us?

Benevolent entities always first ask for the person's permission to do that (embed/merge).... unfriendly and malevolent and low level entities don't ask for permission ahead of time but the medium/channeler can fortunately prevent them from doing that.

[A99]

Back to the RV Practice page, http://davisanddavis.org/rv/ here is one I just did.

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/RVPractice.jpg (http://s525.photobucket.com/user/nylily/media/RVPractice.jpg.html)

I thought it was a Ferris wheel.



Good hit! You can't get much closer than that!

Question: Do machines like computers have a consciousness?

I think it would be easier for the participant/viewer of this kind of RV exercise to zero in on the target if there was someone, a human being, IOW's, an intelligence with a consciousness, pick out the target for each session and then ask you to describe to him and/or draw out the target than having a computer randomly bring up a target from its database of images instead.

I think consciousness plays a big role in Remote Viewing. Computers, at least as far as I know, do not possess a consciousness.

[Fore]

Fore, you said:

Without a doubt, non-physical entities of any type can merge into the body of the physical person they are presenting themselves to but here you are saying that we, as physical beings, can do the same thing and merge into any non-physical entities just like they can do to us? Yes, of course.

There is only some slight differences in methodology when doing things remotely vs in person.

For example, about 3~4 days ago my mother had flu-like symptoms. I told her to lay down and placed my left hand on her back. I accessed the properties of her field and identified it was (as the physical symptoms indicated) a fever. I told her I didn't want to use my abilities anymore but it is hard to ignore someone when they are in pain. (stiff neck, high temperature, dizzyness etc)

I told her I wouldn't be giving her any energy, simply turning on her field so it cycles and expels the patterns that dictate a fever. I don't look forward to any kind of psychic activity anymore. I avoid it 98% of the time. I am aiming for 100%.

Anyway, Took less than 15 minutes. Probably not even that much time just to control her structures to cause the cycling of her field to begin. 45mins later her symptoms dropped to 20% according to her. 3 hours and it was negligible according to her. The cycling of her field lasted about 3 days. Today she has had some mild symptoms again, but nothing noteworthy. (stiff neck but not any of the other symptoms.

She has the ring of intensity above her head just like mine. Unfortunately, unlike me, she can't control her ability to the same degree. It is not something she had before until I gave it to her through repeated influence transfusions.

Sometimes I have to force her structures to cycle so the influence can clean and discharge from her body. Like me, she is building up and charging in excess and not releasing it.

-------------------
Anyway,

The next day, after the first day, I noticed my abilities were slightly turned on. I noticed it because my head fields were emitting and reforming again. My brother was around at the time and heard me "speak" inside his head.

Shortly thereafter Pontif came up with the idea to ask me about the telepathy phenomena and telepathy. Purely by coincidence of course. (?)

Anyway, It has become disturbingly apparent at this point that I have given 3 of 5 members of my family similar psychic structures by injecting them with my influence in the past years. For whatever reason, the influence pattern re-creates the structures in them over time.

I suspect/know this is not "just them" as I have noticed over the years of testing that even remotely accessing people for prolonged periods of time causes their structures to form. So strangers seem to develop the same symptoms over time of being repeatedly exposed to my influence fields.

--------------------

To answer your question, it is "easy enough" to merge and control someone elses field. The problem isn't whether they are physical or non-physical. The main issue is that they have compatible structures and a compatible influence field (and few other small tidbits). That is all that is required.

When an entity bonds it's field to yours so you can hear it's voice in your head, it is a form of merging fields. The same is true if you do the same to an entity who is disembodied. As long as they still retain a sufficient number of functional structures and have enough influence to keep them conscious, they can experience telepathy just the same as a living person.

A ghost/demon/phantom can be mind read just as you would a living person. There is very little distinction in the ET models taught to me.


So if you are RVing an ET on the moon, you can merge/embed with that ET body? Are you also merging with their minds too or is it just their bodies? You can do either or both at the same time.

A persons influence field is a complicated piece of a living entity. (well even dead ones)

As long as you know how to access it and merge properly you can control aspects of a person or full on body only control, sub-divided features of their mind, control cognitive operations to varying degrees etc.

You usually cannot control higher features in the same way though. You can induce/introduce information into their higher mind which will color other aspects of themselves.

There are even higher functions within a person beyond the higher mind complex. (spiritual features which are more mysterious even to me)

[Fore]

Some Mediums/Channelers allow entities from those other realms to merge/embed with them where the entity then speaks through them. In those cases though the medium's brain is taken over too and Spiritualists call that temporary spirit possession. But the medium also can only allow the entity to merge/embed themselves into their body but not their mind. Yeah, that is what I have understood.


So you are saying that you, Fore, have the power to actually merge/embed yourself into a non-physical entity just like they can do with us? Of course.

So do you. You might not realize you do it.

There are complicated points that don't have much to do with RV. So I will succinctly say that there are various modes of Telepathy where one part can be observed while not being an active emitter.

For example, a spiritual entity can tap into your field and access field data on what you are thinking or have recently thought about. From that, it can influence you in real time by injecting field data that your normal body processes resolve as "Sound" or "Thought Process".

In such a scenario, the entity (in this case a spiritual one) does not require that you are an active psychic in the sense of you emitting telepathy around your head. It simply has to observe the info circulating through your field as you actively think. From there is can pick up all (well most) thoughts that transpire.

It can also alter what it sees in your field data as it is part of your body and is bonded to your field. Change a value here or there in your field data, and you feel light headed, your vascular system constricts etc. Change another value in your field data and thoughts of a foreign presence permeate through your conscious awareness. Alter another set of values, and your hand constricts without your conscious intent. Alter another set of values in an intelligently controlled manner and your ability to imagine can be used by a foreign entity to create an experience you do not directly control.

The whole thing about channelers with automatic writing, voice boxes and speech making utterances are nothing too fancy. If you know the technical aspects it isn't all that surprising.

The whole thing about mediums seeing things in dreams or while awake in their imagination as it is controlled and formed through their neurology is also less mysterious...isn't it?

Even emotions can be fabricated. Even...specific mental impressions.

It is a range of tightly interrelated topics. Telepathy works for a specific reason. As does RVing.
There is a design behind every ability. None of it is all that mysterious as long as you know certain things about it.


That's amazing. But you call that Ranging right? No.

"Ranging" is an umbrella for a series of technique used by the ET for various purposes. Merging with fields is simply a step in a series of steps. At the ET level of psychic activity they use many simultaneous abilities and skills at the same time.

"Ranging" can be used for anything from tracking living signatures in a household to locating a specific patterns direction and distance. It covers a very wide variety of uses. Even up to identifying the approximate location of a distant person or object.


Is this a term that you created for this merging/embed ability that non-physical beings have that you say we have too where we can do the same thing too to them? IOW, possess them? I am kinda surprised you are asking.

Of course you can.

If you abilities are intense enough (psychically speaking) you can control and influence other conscious beings. Living or dead. Mind reading a ghost is almost the same as accessing field data from a living person. The only difference is there is no living tissue attached (and a ghost might have psychic (influence) structures that are more significantly deteriorated).


Is there any written documentation of any RVer's doing that in any of their sessions when they encounter non-physical or even physical beings at the location they are RVing? I have never really heard of human beings using "Ranging" techniques. Though I imagine eventually there must be.


But don't you think that those non-physical beings that you are attempting to embed yourself into will resist that from happening just like we can dis-allow and prevent them from doing that to us? Can a conscious entity (living or dead) resist it? Yes.

Can a conscious entity (living or dead) detect it? No, not always.

Can a conscious entity (living or dead) be overwhelmed by a strong psychic? Yes.

See various abductions and contact cases where experiencers are often overpowered non-physically and lose consciousness against their will and intent. Or experience altered mind states while making decision or communicating with ET's. etc...


We can give them permission to do that though, but if they attempt to do that without our permission, we can automatically block that from happening.
Unless there is something supernatural in play...a persons permission is not necessary.

Ethically and morally it is wrong. But permission is not as an important factor. Unless someone has an incredible level of self control at many levels...then that would be the exception.

[A99]

Thanks! Let me chew on this awhile. Very interesting!


To answer your question, it is "easy enough" to merge and control someone elses field.

When one is controlling someone elses field, what do you mean by that? What are the things they are controlling in that person they have embedded themselves into?

What do you mean by field?

Your semantics are different than what I use.

When someone is merging/embedding their mind into somebody else's mind, that's called possession.

So you are saying that you can possess anyone out there Fore?

--------------------------
note: Fore commented on my above queries in his post before this one.

[Fore]

Fore, don't you think that a non-physical intelligence would sense right away that you are trying to merge/embed yourself into them?



And that it would be their choice to allow you to do that to them? Choice?

That is a tricky topic.

Does anyone ever have the chance to give an ET a choice to merge into your fields and knock you out? Or induce paralysis? Nah.

Same story when it comes to a nightime visit by a ghost or other apparition that holds you down in bed or induces paralysis.

Unless something supernatural intercedes or you are gifted, you won't have much choice.


But don't you think that they would be very annoyed if you attempted such a thing without asking them for their permission to do that ahead of time?

An RV'er could remotely visit you right now and access your field data to get a good look at who you are. Your permission wouldn't be necessary.

You probably wouldn't even notice the tiny undulations from a passive access attempt. Might not even notice an active mind reading attempt.

If you don't who will?


Most likely, because you would not ask for permission ahead of time to do that with them, they would not allow you to merge/embed yourself into them for that reason just like we have the ability to block such intrusions when they try to do that with us?

Benevolent entities always first ask for the person's permission to do that (embed/merge).... unfriendly and malevolent and low level entities don't ask for permission ahead of time but the medium/channeler can fortunately prevent them from doing that.If they are skilled at controlling their own field then, yeah.

Otherwise, it is a game of the most aware. ET's and Demonic entities are two different classes of entities. Yet they can control large groups of people without too much effort.

One is physical and the other is not. Despite that, people are vulnerable all of the time. Unless something supernatural watches over them, there is nothing to stop the process from occuring besides a fairly gifted victim to be.

[A99]

Wow! This is amazing stuff! Am referring to Fore's post #40. Am reading it over carefully now but need time to think about what he's saying before I comment on it.

[Fore]

Question: Do machines like computers have a consciousness?

I think it would be easier for the participant/viewer of this kind of RV exercise to zero in on the target if there was someone, a human being, IOW's, an intelligence with a consciousness, pick out the target for each session and then ask you to describe to him and/or draw out the target than having a computer randomly bring up a target from its database of images instead.

I think consciousness plays a big role in Remote Viewing. Computers, at least as far as I know, do not possess a consciousness.

Look into the fabled Montalk Project.

The project reads like a story of people attempting to create artificial consciousness. Very much like the ET have. ET's have artificial consciousness technology. They can even build ones that you cannot see with physical eyes.

Even up to artificial psychic structures attached to flesh reference points.
Even up to artificial psychic structures that have a physical material host body to attach to....(implants that look like misc shards for example)

Much like you body is the physical vehicle through which your (invisible) psychic structures stay attach to. Am implant is probably like that. Just a host body for an non-physical structure that is foreign to the body of an individual.

"Perhaps" a form attaching non-physical structures within individuals?


LOL. I am going to get a personal visit for that one...

You might even have one right now inside of you since I...believe you have been abducted before right?

You might have seen the stories of different ET's who do notice a competitor group putting in structures in their experimentee and then have to pull them out.

Disclaimer: "I am only speculating"

[newyorklily]

Could I get the link to the results of the Remote Viewing project of that LMH project that Fore is giving his opinion on? I'm not seeing that from the first page of that site.
http://www.debrakatz.com/#!linda-mou...projects/c12f2 (http://www.debrakatz.com/#!linda-mou...projects/c12f2)

That's because there are two cases. Click on the title of the case and it will take you to the raw data of what the viewers saw.

[newyorklily]

Good hit! You can't get much closer than that!

Question: Do machines like computers have a consciousness?

I think it would be easier for the participant/viewer of this kind of RV exercise to zero in on the target if there was someone, a human being, IOW's, an intelligence with a consciousness, pick out the target for each session and then ask you to describe to him and/or draw out the target than having a computer randomly bring up a target from its database of images instead.

I think consciousness plays a big role in Remote Viewing. Computers, at least as far as I know, do not possess a consciousness.

This thread is about practicing Remote Viewing. Musing on the consciousness of machines would be extremely off-topic.

[A99]

Off Topic sorry.

[newyorklily]

Fore and A99, this thread is not about Aliens or Creatures. It is about practicing Remote Viewing. Could we please get back on topic.

[A99]

This thread is about practicing Remote Viewing. Musing on the consciousness of machines would be extremely off-topic.

Not in this case not at all. I disagree with you that I was off-topic. Sorry.
Read over what I wrote Lilly. I explained to you my thoughts about that RV thing on that site and that such exercises like that would be easier if there was a person picking out the target instead of a Computer, which is a machine, randomly popping up an image from their database. The reason why is because I believe that consciousness plays a big role in RVing. Machines like Computers do not possess a consciousness but humans do.

[newyorklily]

This is a really cool RV practice site. It is easy to use, no registration required and you can save your results by using a screen snip.

http://davisanddavis.org/rv/

Just one word of caution: It can become addictive.

This is my Opening Post. It sets the topic for the thread. The topic is practicing remote viewing. Let's get back on topic.

[newyorklily]

Back to the RV Practice page, http://davisanddavis.org/rv/ here is one I just did.

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/RVPractice.jpg (http://s525.photobucket.com/user/nylily/media/RVPractice.jpg.html)

I thought it was a Ferris wheel.

My practice session last night.

[A99]

That's because there are two cases. Click on the title of the case and it will take you to the raw data of what the viewers saw.

Thanks!
Also, that RV link with that image generator on it is cool and great for practice too! Thanks for posting that link here! :)

[A99]

My practice session last night.

Great results. It's very close to the image!
I've done a few runs on that page but have not yet had much success with it. :( Will keep trying though!

[A99]

Tried it again just a few minutes ago and sorta got a hit on first try. Ok, not great but better than when I first tried out that test yesterday. I'm using photoshop to draw out the target because I don't like that thin pen used on that page. The thing that came to my mind was something with a tail.
http://i932.photobucket.com/albums/ad164/A99_x/Untitled-4_zpsadca43d1.gif (http://s932.photobucket.com/user/A99_x/media/Untitled-4_zpsadca43d1.gif.html)This is fun! It's a great way to get comfortable drawing something out even though no images are popping into my mind as to what the target could be.... at least not for this one.

[newyorklily]

Tried it again just a few minutes ago and sorta got a hit on first try. Ok, not great but better than when I first tried out that test yesterday. I'm using photoshop to draw out the target because I don't like that thin pen used on that page. The thing that came to my mind was something with a tail.
http://i932.photobucket.com/albums/ad164/A99_x/Untitled-4_zpsadca43d1.gif (http://s932.photobucket.com/user/A99_x/media/Untitled-4_zpsadca43d1.gif.html)This is fun! It's a great way to get comfortable drawing something out even though no images are popping into my mind as to what the target could be.... at least not for this one.

Very good, A99.

[A99]

Thanks Lilly! I'm quite amazed and will try it again this afternoon! lol

[Lee]

Great results Lily and A99!

Both of you were clearly on target with your sessions. From what I've read on the topic analytical overlay is a common problem (where the viewer's brain jumps to conclusions regarding the target's actual identity). Ingo Swann's protocols allow for this and ask the veiwer to write them down (AOL=ferris wheel for example) so as to clear the mind. It's much better to try and pick out general info about the target, such as texture, colour, scale, etc. In the instances above you both clearly identified the target's general gestalt and then got stuck on AOL info.

I tried a few experimental sessions with a friend many years ago with similar positive results. We created targets for each other using images cut from magazines placed in sealed envelopes with long random numbers for target IDs, it worked very well.

This looks like a great tool! Looking forward to seeing more experiments from other members too.

[Lee]

My practice session last night.
Hmmmmm, the link doesn't work for me... I get "sorry this page doesn't exist". Maybe because i'm limited to using a phone at the moment. ..?

[newyorklily]

Hmmmmm, the link doesn't work for me... I get "sorry this page doesn't exist". Maybe because i'm limited to using a phone at the moment. ..?

I just clicked it and it worked fine. Maybe the site isn't suited for mobile.

[Lee]

Thought as much... thanks for checking! :D

Also, here is a link to the RV protocols manual I used:

http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/answers/crvmanual/index.html

These are the the original "CRV" protocols developed by Ingo Swann for the DIA. The original and the best, IMHO.

[newyorklily]

Thought as much... thanks for checking! :D

Also, here is a link to the RV protocols manual I used:

http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/answers/crvmanual/index.html

These are the the original "CRV" protocols developed by Ingo Swann for the DIA. The original and the best, IMHO.

Cool! :thumbup: Thanks, Lee.

[A99]

Thanks for your insights and comment Lee! Also, great link for those protocol's and will it over! :w00t:

[A99]

Ran the following session around lunchtime. Nothing impressive but hope others will try out that site too!
http://i932.photobucket.com/albums/ad164/A99_x/rvys_zps4775eccc.jpg (http://s932.photobucket.com/user/A99_x/media/rvys_zps4775eccc.jpg.html)

[newyorklily]

In both cases, you got the shape of it, A99. Even the drawing for the push pins show there is a larger spot on one end for the head. On the first drawing, the curved line you drew could be for the partially enclosed space for the structure the produce stands are under.

[A99]

Thanks for your comments on what you're seeing in my drawings Lilly!

Hope to improve as time goes by!

[Fore]

In both cases, you got the shape of it, A99. Even the drawing for the push pins show there is a larger spot on one end for the head. On the first drawing, the curved line you drew could be for the partially enclosed space for the structure the produce stands are under.Sorry about earlier.

I do have a question and a number of thoughts about the RV site:

How should we "RV" the picture if it has no actual spatial relationship to the observer in real time? It doesn't even technically exist as photons projected on the screen until a user clicks "the covering" picture...at which point the computer renders it into existence as a photo (in real time at least)...at the time frame of actual observation.

It is hidden behind a 2D rendered element on the browsers screen. So it doesn't have an actual existence until you actually view it....Should we be RV'ing ourselves...in the future...are we trying to look at it with Precognitive RV (temporal) targeting?

That is a big jump from normal spatial RV'ing isn't it?

--------------------
My thoughts on looking at this experiment,

1) I strongly suspect those who have the most success on that website are actively emitting influence encoded with their observations of the object. (This should help the temporal factors of their RV attempt)

2) Are staying within a fixed position somewhere like a desk for a period of time before observing the picture in a future time frame. (This should help the spatial factors of their RV attempt)

3) Are precognitive to some limited degree (see number 1). Likely at a capacity of observing their future influence field encoded states...say 6 minutes, 24 hours or 1 month or thereabouts.

4) Are unconsciously, or consciously, emitting and receiving:
4a) Specific influence and psychic patterns from their psychic structures that are being picked up and resolved cognitively across a certain index of time. (see number 3 and 1)

4b) Are aware of future [encoded influence] states of their own personal consciousness.

--------------------
Some thoughts to test these points:

If you look at the test from a smartphone while you are moving, it should lessen number 2's effectiveness. Which means the actual [spatial] RV'ing component of their targeting should decrease the effectiveness. While the opposite being tried would (depends on the psychics skills and abilities) would increase it's effectiveness.

Another point,
I have recall reading in some of OMF's sections that the [human] RV'er in the military supposedly liked using isolation chambers that kept them from being distracted with ambient noise.

Another unrelated point,
I also noticed some of the RV'er techniques were routed in placing the RV'er in some kind of headset with sounds to "retune" their brain functions into a desired state to increase effectiveness and receptivity. (Lacking the psychic structures or initialization/activation techniques necessary to do it automatically)

Another point,
The length of the observation after observing the photo being RV'd.

And

The elapsed time period required or the frequency per index of time, where the RV'er actually emits the coherent encoded information across a period of time.

===================

(Translated: If the psychic RV'er emits across a span of time, in this case retro-actively exposing a future state of their thoughts or conscious observations....how long until till each emission occurs? With what frequency does each emission in a given window of time occur?

How many transmission periods occur in a given time index?

Tasked from the time the RV'er starts drawing to time they actually observe the actual object.)

Things have to jive or be modified at an unseen level in order to put things into an effective state.

Etc...

[Lee]

Fore, I think you're right. RV does involve precognition to some degree. Puthoff and Targ discovered that it was essential for the viewer to observe the target after the session was over, they call it feedback. Essentially the mind reaches forward in time to the point of feedback, IDs the target and then extracts the relevant information.

In the case of real world targets, it becomes clear that precognition is used only for target acquisition. Detailed information can be extracted beyond what is presented after the session.

I think this is explained in the CRV manual, it's well worth reading.

[A99]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aB2Gy47zDbM

Here’s a screen capture video of a RV session that I did this morning and then loaded onto You Tube.
What’s seen in the video: (using only mouse to draw out my target's in these sessions)
:03 -- First I clicked on “Click on Arrow for the Next Target”, brought up Fireworks to draw in it then started the session.

Then for about 41 seconds, I focused on what kind of textures are in the target so in the video, nothing is going on at that time.

:44 -- I then start drawing out the target where I first draw out a slope-y line followed by slanted vertical lines under it because I was sensing something spiky. Then, after a moment’s hesitation, I sensed that whatever it is, it’s got eye’s.

Then I bring my cursor above the rendering and decide if I should add anything else to the drawing. I decide to keep it as it is where I then run my cursor over the grey box to bring up the target.

The Results were so so. It appears that I ended up drawing out part of the wreath on the woman’s head where her eye’s, of course, are beneath the wreath.

The slope-y line that I first drew out corresponds to the top leafy silhouette of that wreath.

Those slanted vertical lines beneath it (was sensing something spiky) corresponds to the stems and pistils of the flowers in the wreath that are sticking out here and there throughout that construction. There are also yellowish lines too that run the length of the blossoms of those flowers in the wreath.

The target/photo shows a woman’s face … this matches up to the eye’s I added to that rendering. The angle of those eyes that I drew out are different than what’s in the photo though.

[A99]

Here's a screenshot of my results in that last session:
http://i932.photobucket.com/albums/ad164/A99_x/rv0wx_zps4e020680.jpg (http://s932.photobucket.com/user/A99_x/media/rv0wx_zps4e020680.jpg.html)

In my next session, I'm going to take the time to first type out my impressions of texture's, color's, mood etc of what might be in the target before I draw anything out.

[Lee]

Nice job, 99! Looks like you were on target again.

It really is worth reading the manual. First stage is to draw a rough impulsive impression called a gestalt. Next is to interpret that image and flesh out the details by writing down textures etc. At the same time write down any AOL type conclusions so as to clear the mind and repeat...

Keep up with it, you're doing well.

[A99]

Thanks Lee! My results aren't all that impressive at all right now but posting them here to encourage anyone else to give it a try too. Hope to start improving on this as time goes by but like anything else, if one does not practice at it, then there's no way to get better at it. I think RV skills can be very useful in many, many ways so I definitely am trying to improve in this area for that reason. These are very practical skills to have! No question about that!

I started reading over that manual yesterday... VERY INFORMATIVE and am learning a lot! Will continue reading it today and for the rest of the week. Am taking notes too. Thanks for posting the link on that!

[A99]

Nice job, 99! Looks like you were on target again.

It really is worth reading the manual. First stage is to draw a rough impulsive impression called a gestalt. Next is to interpret that image and flesh out the details by writing down textures etc. At the same time write down any AOL type conclusions so as to clear the mind and repeat...

Keep up with it, you're doing well.

Thanks for the suggestions! Will do this in my next RV session later today!

[Fore]

Fore, I think you're right. RV does involve precognition to some degree. Puthoff and Targ discovered that it was essential for the viewer to observe the target after the session was over, they call it feedback. Essentially the mind reaches forward in time to the point of feedback, IDs the target and then extracts the relevant information. I didn't even know they had done that yet. (who is Targ?)


In the case of real world targets, it becomes clear that precognition is used only for target acquisition. Detailed information can be extracted beyond what is presented after the session.

I think this is explained in the CRV manual, it's well worth reading.Doesn't this effectively nullify "blind" and "double blind" tests if they went ahead and did this?

Kind of like cheating on your S.A.T.'s...

Unless they (or anyone else near them) never...ever...found out the results.

---------------
To be honest I had always assumed Spatial RV® (as I will now coin the name) was the defacto standard among Human RV'ers. I have heard of Temporal RV'ers but the few stories I have come across usually are fewer in numbers.

Ingo Swann was definitely gifted among them. Whenever I take a look at his stuff it makes me wonder why there are "large leaps" in some of his techniques. Yet if you go by the stuff he reveals publicly it seems like he held alot back. There is always the impression that there are big blocks of techniques missing or aren't somehow disclosed.

I suck at RV compared to RP (which is what I am good at). But looking over Ingo Swanns material the info I got from the ET gives you a fairly good idea of what is missing when they describe methods or write a book or mention something without mentioning the other ABC's.

[newyorklily]

I didn't even know they had done that yet. (who is Targ?)

Russell Targ http://vimeo.com/64878370


http://vimeo.com/64878370

[Lee]

Yep, that's the guy. Thanks. Lil!

It was Russell Targ and Hal Puthoff who developed Remote Viewing while under contract for the CIA during the early 70s. Surprisingly, even though the CIA contract was secret, they published a book at the time.

Mind Reach - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-reach-Scientists-Psychic-Abilities-Consciousness/dp/1571744142

Interestingly, the original experiments involved a third person (Viewer, Monitor and Outbounder) who would physically go out to a target area. Later, while working with Pat Price and Ingo Swann they used actual coordinates (hence CRV), but this was soon changed to random number target IDs.

Here is an excellent presentation from Hal Puthoff describing the origins of the program:

http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/tai-presents-dr-harold-hal-puthoff

[Lee]

I didn't even know they had done that yet. (who is Targ?)

Doesn't this effectively nullify "blind" and "double blind" tests if they went ahead and did this?

Kind of like cheating on your S.A.T.'s...

Unless they (or anyone else near them) never...ever...found out the results.


It's not really cheating to look at the answers after the test is complete. Blinds (where the viewer has no idea what the target is) and double blinds (In this case where the monitor is also blind to the target) are an essential part of the RV protocols.




---------------
To be honest I had always assumed Spatial RV® (as I will now coin the name) was the defacto standard among Human RV'ers. I have heard of Temporal RV'ers but the few stories I have come across usually are fewer in numbers.

Ingo Swann was definitely gifted among them. Whenever I take a look at his stuff it makes me wonder why there are "large leaps" in some of his techniques. Yet if you go by the stuff he reveals publicly it seems like he held alot back. There is always the impression that there are big blocks of techniques missing or aren't somehow disclosed.

I suck at RV compared to RP (which is what I am good at). But looking over Ingo Swanns material the info I got from the ET gives you a fairly good idea of what is missing when they describe methods or write a book or mention something without mentioning the other ABC's.
As far as I can tell the basic method is very much 'out there' and the manual I posted above covers the method in detail. That said, RV is basically the birth of the science of ESP, so there is always gonna be lots of room for progress.

Edit to add: I supose this is going off topic, but hopefully the background info will inspire other members to experiment for themselves. (No need to pay out lots of money, all you need is right here! : )

[newyorklily]

Yep, that's the guy. Thanks. Lil!

It was Russell Targ and Hal Puthoff who developed Remote Viewing while under contract for the CIA during the early 70s. Surprisingly, even though the CIA contract was secret, they published a book at the time.

Mind Reach - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mind-reach-Scientists-Psychic-Abilities-Consciousness/dp/1571744142

Interestingly, the original experiments involved a third person (Viewer, Monitor and Outbounder) who would physically go out to a target area. Later, while working with Pat Price and Ingo Swann they used actual coordinates (hence CRV), but this was soon changed to random number target IDs.

Here is an excellent presentation from Hal Puthoff describing the origins of the program:

http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/tai-presents-dr-harold-hal-puthoff

Thank you for the video, Lee. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get it to start. Do you need a membership there to view it? If so, I think I found the same video posted on YouTube.

[Lee]

No you shouldn't need membership, it's an old video though and I haven't watched it for a while so please post the youtube. I can't recommend it highly enough. 8)

[newyorklily]

No you shouldn't need membership, it's an old video though and I haven't watched it for a while so please post the youtube. I can't recommend it highly enough. 8)
It's in 7 videos so it is going to be posted over 3 posts.


http://youtu.be/oLvxSVK-J4w


http://youtu.be/L1uiKEa1Pb0


http://youtu.be/eRWhWJ6NXs4

[newyorklily]

http://youtu.be/psH7VnMLAyA


http://youtu.be/qLOkEbLdUX8


http://youtu.be/8g4FgIb2iAM


http://youtu.be/LPYFMkxw830

[atmjjc]

It's not really cheating to look at the answers after the test is complete. Blinds (where the viewer has no idea what the target is) and double blinds (In this case where the monitor is also blind to the target) are an essential part of the RV protocols.

The boredom factor was creating morale problems. In the military and DoD there is a pecking order so you do as told. To prevent RV doodling Ingo persuaded the higher ups and presented confirmation feedback. The higher ups was old school and argued there would be intelligence leaks and wanted to proceed as a ‘need to know basis’ and too much information to RV military and associates would be detriment to National Security. They worked out a system of RV feedback which would not jeopardize other outgoing intelligence gathering or personnel.

[Lee]

Thank you for posting that, lily!

I watched half of it again last night. It blows my mind every time... amazing stuff!

[newyorklily]

This is a really cool RV practice site. It is easy to use, no registration required and you can save your results by using a screen snip.

http://davisanddavis.org/rv/

Just one word of caution: It can become addictive.

I did these late last night.

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/RVPractice2.jpg (http://s525.photobucket.com/user/nylily/media/RVPractice2.jpg.html)

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/RVPractice3.jpg (http://s525.photobucket.com/user/nylily/media/RVPractice3.jpg.html)

[newyorklily]

Sorry about earlier.

I do have a question and a number of thoughts about the RV site:

How should we "RV" the picture if it has no actual spatial relationship to the observer in real time? It doesn't even technically exist as photons projected on the screen until a user clicks "the covering" picture...at which point the computer renders it into existence as a photo (in real time at least)...at the time frame of actual observation.

It is hidden behind a 2D rendered element on the browsers screen. So it doesn't have an actual existence until you actually view it....Should we be RV'ing ourselves...in the future...are we trying to look at it with Precognitive RV (temporal) targeting?

The target photo is there after you press the "next" button. After you press that, the photo gets loaded into the queue. So, you are RVing it in real time, it is not precognitive. If you want it to be precognitive, then make your drawing before you click the "next" button.

[A99]

Lilly, could you repost your last images in a larger size? I can't make out what's in your sketches. thanks :)

[A99]

Oh never mind. I just wanted to view a larger version of those images but from what I can see, it looks like you got a hit on both targets. Good job! :)

[newyorklily]

Lilly, could you repost your last images in a larger size? I can't make out what's in your sketches. thanks :)

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/RVPractice2.jpg (http://s525.photobucket.com/user/nylily/media/RVPractice2.jpg.html)

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/RVPractice3.jpg (http://s525.photobucket.com/user/nylily/media/RVPractice3.jpg.html)

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/RVPractice2.jpg (http://s525.photobucket.com/user/nylily/media/RVPractice2.jpg.html)

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/RVPractice3.jpg (http://s525.photobucket.com/user/nylily/media/RVPractice3.jpg.html)

It doesn't seem to go any larger. Sorry.

[newyorklily]

Oh never mind. I just wanted to view a larger version of those images but from what I can see, it looks like you got a hit on both targets. Good job! :)

Thank you.

[newyorklily]

Drawing and writing with my right hand on the mouse pad, is difficult.

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/RVPractice4.jpg (http://s525.photobucket.com/user/nylily/media/RVPractice4.jpg.html)

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/RVPractice4.jpg (http://s525.photobucket.com/user/nylily/media/RVPractice4.jpg.html)

I was trying to say that the inside triangle was dark.

[A99]

I did these late last night.

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/RVPractice2.jpg (http://s525.photobucket.com/user/nylily/media/RVPractice2.jpg.html)

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/RVPractice3.jpg (http://s525.photobucket.com/user/nylily/media/RVPractice3.jpg.html)

Thanks for switching over to a slightly larger size than what you had in this post before.

[A99]

Drawing and writing with my right hand on the mouse pad, is difficult.

http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc335/nylily/RVPractice4.jpg (http://s525.photobucket.com/user/nylily/media/RVPractice4.jpg.html)


I was trying to say that the inside triangle was dark.


It looks like you got a hit on that triangle shape of the main section of that cabin and there are those horizontal lines coming from that shape that indicate the rectangle shape of the section on the right of it. Good hit!

The mouse is ok when it comes to doing quick gestalt sketches for these RV tests but once we progress to more detailed renderings of the target in these exercises, we will have to use either a tablet or simply draw them out the old fashion way and then scan them onto our computer. It's pretty impossible to do detailed drawings using only a mouse. lol

[A99]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2771DLSre4I&feature=youtu.be

Just did a short RV session a few minutes ago that I recorded and loaded onto You Tube.

First I clicked on the "Click on Arrow for new target" and then brought back up the image editor to draw the gestalt sketch in.

Then I drew it out and then ran my mouse over the grey box to view the target.

Note: When I was almost done with the sketch I thought it might be flower of some sort so I'm pretty sure that towards the end of that sketch I was adding
more lines to make it look more like that.

Lol, target turned out to be something entirely different but my gestalt drawing of this target came close enough to call it "close enough".

I'm still working on taking the time to focus on what the texture, color etc on the target after I do the gestalt sketch of it. Did have an AOL on this one, as I mentioned before and I think I stopped short wrt to thinking about the targets' details due to that AOL 'thought' interference. Need to work on this. Doing the gestalt sketch for these targets is the easy part but taking it any further than that is harder than I thought it would be.

[A99]

http://i932.photobucket.com/albums/ad164/A99_x/RV_5_18_13_1_zpse0d1d8ce.jpg (http://s932.photobucket.com/user/A99_x/media/RV_5_18_13_1_zpse0d1d8ce.jpg.html)

Here's a screenshot of the results I got in my last RV session that I recorded and uploaded to You Tube earlier today and posted in my last post.

[newyorklily]

Just for the record, I tried to RV the winning Powerball numbers for tonight (600 million dollar prize). These are the ones I got: 3, 17, 21, 32, 54 and Powerball 32.

I probably just lost $2!

[A99]

Sounds good, Good Luck Lilly!

[newyorklily]

Just for the record, I tried to RV the winning Powerball numbers for tonight (600 million dollar prize). These are the ones I got: 3, 17, 21, 32, 54 and Powerball 32.

I probably just lost $2!

Yep, I didn't even have one number. The numbers were 22, 10, 13, 14, 52 and the Powerball number was 11.

I need to work on this.

[calikid]

Yep, I didn't even have one number. The numbers were 22, 10, 13, 14, 52 and the Powerball number was 11.

I need to work on this.

I'm in that club. ZERO numbers matched. :(
So much for my Psi abilities. Off to work!

@Lily. Do you pick your numbers or "quick pick"?

[Lee]

Yep, I didn't even have one number. The numbers were 22, 10, 13, 14, 52 and the Powerball number was 11.

I need to work on this.
Actually, trying to RV winning numbers is never going to work. For a start numbers are analytical in nature add to that the fact that your mind already knows the possible answers and it's almost impossible for ESP to work.

I thought about this some time ago and came up with the idea of assigning images to each of the possible numbers. Obviously though somebody would have to do it for you so as avoid frontloading.

[newyorklily]

I'm in that club. ZERO numbers matched. :(
So much for my Psi abilities. Off to work!

@Lily. Do you pick your numbers or "quick pick"?

I usually just do "quick pick" but this time I also got a ticket of numbers that I saw while trying to RV them.

[newyorklily]

Actually, trying to RV winning numbers is never going to work. For a start numbers are analytical in nature add to that the fact that your mind already knows the possible answers and it's almost impossible for ESP to work.

I thought about this some time ago and came up with the idea of assigning images to each of the possible numbers. Obviously though somebody would have to do it for you so as avoid frontloading.

Interesting. Thank you, Lee. What I was trying to do was focus to see the shapes of the numbers themselves.

When I was about 10 years old, I went with my family to a church bazaar that we went to every year. I would play the spin-the-wheel games and I would always play the same numbers, 3 and 13. this one time though, as I was looking at the wheel, my sight kept drifting over to the number 18. I played it. Not only did the stop tab land on that number on the wheel, it landed on the star (center) of the number which meant that I could pick any prize in the booth. I got a much needed record player that night.

There was also an evening a few years ago when I got a very strong feeling (almost like a push) to play the evening's 3 numbers. I always played the same numbers for that game. I ignored the "push". The numbers came in.

[Fore]

The target photo is there after you press the "next" button. After you press that, the photo gets loaded into the queue. So, you are RVing it in real time, it is not precognitive. If you want it to be precognitive, then make your drawing before you click the "next" button.

Lily, I have to point out that the browser doesn't render the object until the moment you pass your mouse over it and (apparently) a javascript element executes a rendered image that reveals the image on the screen.

Until that future point in time, the object doesn't have a rendered existence. It doesn't have even a photonic presence/existence until that point.

This is true whether you click the next button or not, or attempt to target the current unrendered image or a future one in the browser. It doesn't change the essential scenario.

-------------------

I am nagging because something essential about the goals or assumed techniques of the experiment is being executed wrong. Perhaps an acute realization of what is happening vs what is hoped is happening would allow the subjects in the experiment time to review what they are actually doing and actually achieving.

The Remote Viewers participating might be misinterpreting their own unconscious techniques being employed and the given results. If they reviewed their techniques [carefully] and the actual state of the target [carefully]. I'd think there would be some sort of [--> very <--] positive reinforcement that they did better than what they sought out to do.

As I wrote elsewhere before, when people realize they can actually do something psychically, that opens the door into establishing better control and defining effective behaviors and techniques based on understanding what they did correctly/incorrectly and contrasting that with what is effective and where and when it should be employed as a technique.

------------------

What I am trying to say is that you have some talented folks in the experiment. The problem I perceive is that they think they are doing spatial RV when in reality they are doing temporal RV. Better than that. They appear to be picking up processed manifestations of their consciousness a few moments to a few hours after their initial drawing.

Think about that Lily, how amazing that would feel to the test subjects if they suddenly realized they were able to do that more than once. Even consciously.

If you review the test itself [carefully], there is temporal RV at work in the remote viewers. The object/image does not exist until the observer actually moves their mouse and it is viewed.

In absolutely Spatial RV people are aiming for things that already exist somewhere in the distance. Either observed or not. It has a defined existence with very low probability noise. (Vs the Powerball numbers in a lotto.)

-----

If you and the others can do this much, then you won't have too much trouble predicting where the next Stephenville Texas will occur. A lotto will be much harder since there are other factors at play beyond the RV sessions. To do that you would need to employ Probability types of RV'ing.

I'll press the issue a little harder since I am pretty sure you all are accessing cognitive data you yourselves are experiencing a few hours in advance. If you assume that much to be true, then you may have to employ slightly different techniques (at a conscious level at two different time frames) to improve that reception/perception.

Perhaps even up to changing the way you observe that image a few moments in the future will improve what you pick up in the past. Perhaps even attempting to acquire specific traits within your psychic features will make the perception more sharp and clear and defined.

-----------------

I am trying not to say too much because I am trying to gently push [but not shove] people into noticing certain things.

Think of it as an alternative look on the experiment. I'll start a new thread if people are interested. Not for me to dictate anything, just to hint at certain things you might want to try in your offtime to see if it works right for you.

[newyorklily]

Lily, I have to point out that the browser doesn't render the object until the moment you pass your mouse over it and (apparently) a javascript element executes a rendered image that reveals the image on the screen.

Until that future point in time, the object doesn't have a rendered existence. It doesn't have even a photonic presence/existence until that point.

This is true whether you click the next button or not, or attempt to target the current unrendered image or a future one in the browser. It doesn't change the essential scenario.

-------------------

I am nagging because something essential about the goals or assumed techniques of the experiment is being executed wrong. Perhaps an acute realization of what is happening vs what is hoped is happening would allow the subjects in the experiment time to review what they are actually doing and actually achieving.

The Remote Viewers participating might be misinterpreting their own unconscious techniques being employed and the given results. If they reviewed their techniques [carefully] and the actual state of the target [carefully]. I'd think there would be some sort of [--> very <--] positive reinforcement that they did better than what they sought out to do.

As I wrote elsewhere before, when people realize they can actually do something psychically, that opens the door into establishing better control and defining effective behaviors and techniques based on understanding what they did correctly/incorrectly and contrasting that with what is effective and where and when it should be employed as a technique.

------------------

What I am trying to say is that you have some talented folks in the experiment. The problem I perceive is that they think they are doing spatial RV when in reality they are doing temporal RV. Better than that. They appear to be picking up processed manifestations of their consciousness a few moments to a few hours after their initial drawing.

Think about that Lily, how amazing that would feel to the test subjects if they suddenly realized they were able to do that more than once. Even consciously.

If you review the test itself [carefully], there is temporal RV at work in the remote viewers. The object/image does not exist until the observer actually moves their mouse and it is viewed.

In absolutely Spatial RV people are aiming for things that already exist somewhere in the distance. Either observed or not. It has a defined existence with very low probability noise. (Vs the Powerball numbers in a lotto.)

-----

If you and the others can do this much, then you won't have too much trouble predicting where the next Stephenville Texas will occur. A lotto will be much harder since there are other factors at play beyond the RV sessions. To do that you would need to employ Probability types of RV'ing.

I'll press the issue a little harder since I am pretty sure you all are accessing cognitive data you yourselves are experiencing a few hours in advance. If you assume that much to be true, then you may have to employ slightly different techniques (at a conscious level at two different time frames) to improve that reception/perception.

Perhaps even up to changing the way you observe that image a few moments in the future will improve what you pick up in the past. Perhaps even attempting to acquire specific traits within your psychic features will make the perception more sharp and clear and defined.

-----------------

I am trying not to say too much because I am trying to gently push [but not shove] people into noticing certain things.

Think of it as an alternative look on the experiment. I'll start a new thread if people are interested. Not for me to dictate anything, just to hint at certain things you might want to try in your offtime to see if it works right for you.

Thank you, Fore. I'm a bit confused now because I specifically asked that question to the creator of the website so I could find out if it was precognative or not. He told me that the image goes into place when you click the "next" button. Technically, that picture is there whether or not you mouse over the gray box. You just don't see it until you mouse over it. Are you saying that you found something in the computer coding that says otherwise?

[A99]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_pM8NkUCh4&amp;feature=youtu.be

The video above is a screen capture recording from my morning RV session today.

note: clicked on that “Click on arrow to view next target” button after I drew out the sketch/sketches for this session.

What’s seen in the video:

First I make a wavy line on the ‘canvas’.

Then I put an “E” for ELECTRIC, which was a sensory perception of the target that I had, in the left top corner of the canvass

Then I drew out a triangle.

Then I’m sensing that the target includes a CREATURE of some sort.

So I begin to sketch out a creature where an AOL of a dog pops into my mind. So that’s what it ended up looking like (or rather an ideogram of it). Then I put a “d” over it to indicate dog.

But after I sketched that out, I thought I should make the dog/animal have a long snout because that’s what I was sensing it looked like but I didn’t bother to make that adjustment and now I wish I did because if I had done that I may have wondered if the creature was in fact a horse and not a dog.

Note to self: at least add additional thoughts in writing to canvass side-line on anything about the sketch.

Then I sensed that the dog was on a leash. So I drew out a stick man holding the dog’s leash.

Then after I’m done making sketches for this session, I clicked on “Click Arrow for Next Target” to view the target for this session.

Results: The target is a Carousel Horse
I was correct about the target being ELECTRIC because it’s a Carousel Horse on a Merry-Go-Round which is run by electricity.

Even though I drew out a dog, I was correct that the target was a creature; an animal and as it turns out it’s an artificial creature, in this case, a Carousel Horse, that’s put into motion via electricity.

I was correct about the dog/creature/animal having a leash because the Carousal horse, the target, has a leash on it too which is part of its harness which is seen in the target’s photo.

Also, it turns out that the negative space of the Carousel Horses’ harness forms a triangle in that photo which corresponds to the triangle that I drew out on the canvass during that session.

In addition to this, it turns out that the Carousel horses’ harness has a wavy border to it and this corresponds to that wavy line I drew at the beginning of the session.

Anyway, at this point in time I’m starting to ask more questions having to do with what kinds of sensory perceptions I’m having about the target. For this most recent RV exercise, I started to consciously put more effort into that.

Note: When the “Click Arrow for Next Target” button is clicked, the image editor application that I have on top of part of that RV page when I’m working in it for these sessions pops off the screen. When that happens, I click on that applications’ icon that’s in the task bar that’s at the bottom of my computer monitor to bring that application back up on the screen again.
　
　

[Fore]

Thank you, Fore. I'm a bit confused now because I specifically asked that question to the creator of the website so I could find out if it was precognative or not. He told me that the image goes into place when you click the "next" button. Technically, that picture is there whether or not you mouse over the gray box. You just don't see it until you mouse over it. Are you saying that you found something in the computer coding that says otherwise?

Sorry it took time to get back to you about this:

http://i39.tinypic.com/2ymby9i.png

This is a 3D rendering of the elements on the screen. You can do it on your own by accessing firefox and selecting web developer tools, then choose 3D.

The element that shows the actual photo is simply a javascript element that in turn surrounds a flash element. That seems to do the actual introduction of the image, then the browser renders it on-the-fly when your browser notices your mouse cursor in a specific area. It swaps out the placement image:

http://i39.tinypic.com/54vb76.png

...with the target RV image only when you pass your mouse over it and trigger it.

---------------

To be more precise, the image doesn't exist tangibly until you make an effort to view it (at a future point). It isn't really hidden like a real object. (in the sense that it doesn't exist on your screen somewhere...except as bits of incoherent electrons in your RAM)

--------------

If the RV'ers in the experiment think very carefully about this problem, they aren't targeting something that has a defined presence in present spacetime. It isn't an object with 3 dimensions at <insert hh:mm:ss>, it doesn't even have a observable reality to it at <insert hh:mm:ss>.

It will have a rendered existence at some point in the future after the effort of drawing is done at some point after <insert hh:mm:ss>. It will eventually be observed on the screen as a 2D rendering at <insert hh:mm:ss> after the drawing has occurred.

But it does not exist at the time of drawing.

----------------

That is why I insist/point out that the RV'ers are doing some kind of temporal RV and probably picking up faint pre-cognition of the object after it has been observed. An object they will be looking at some point in the future.

The object itself has no existence (not even on a screen) that an RV'er can observe in present time when they are doing a drawing. It isn't until much later that the object becomes defined and is looked at with a conscious mind on a 2D rendered screen.

Effectively, it is like me asking you what will I draw on a piece of paper in 10 minutes time? If you come up with a solution to it 9 minutes before it exists...that deeply implies you...the RV'er are doing Temporal types of RV'ing. Precognition...etc.

The person that made the test probably didn't think about that....or didn't understand how browsers render elements.

-------------
To pre-empt a point,

I should point out that this test is effectively like asking an RV'er to determine out of 250 photo frames in my house....which photo in my whole house will I show him 2 minutes from now. (in the future)

The pure Spatial RV'er will be able to know what >ALL< the photo's look like or what they are. But he won't be able to figure out which frame is chosen 2 minutes into the future. Only temporal RV'er will be able to look at that information and render which is the one that shows up in front of them. (assuming the probability noise is really low)

The web site experiment is like that. Only it does one thing differently. It makes Spatial RV'ing incredibly impossible because the photos themselves are not objects at any location....until a future time frame. They are just electrons in cables and ram until they are rendered in a web browser.

I fully understand that no RV'er is purely Spatial or Temporal in talent, but the problem within the experiment is present. I think it has a fault as an experiment for Spatial RV'ers. There is nothing to target in "present time, local space".

[Fore]

If the RV'ers in the experiment think very carefully about this problem, they aren't targeting something that has a defined presence in present spacetime. It isn't an object with 3 dimensions at <insert hh:mm:ss>, it doesn't even have a observable reality to it at <insert hh:mm:ss>.

It will have a rendered existence at some point in the future after the effort of drawing is done at some point after <insert hh:mm:ss>. It will eventually be observed on the screen as a 2D rendering at <insert hh:mm:ss> after the drawing has occurred.

But it does not exist at the time of drawing.



If you hide an object in a box, and you tell the [spatial] RV'er to figure out it's shapes and content. That is something tangible. If you ask a Spatial RV'er to go and look at the windows on my screen and read back the text or identify the shape on the screen as it is open in present time, then yeah, they will be able to.

But if you ask someone who can't see beyond the present reference frame to target an object which has no present tense existence (not even as a rendered screen image) then that Spatial RV'er will totally fail.

The only way to target the information is to pluck the information from someone who has seen it and determined the image. (Which is more akin to mind reading)

Or

Teach their psychic abilities how to read nanoscopic electrical impulses or .jpeg formats.

---------------

In the first case, there is no second human observer who knows what the sets of images are nor which one has been selected, so it is like a double blind test because you don't know either. At least in present time frame. In a future reference frame you will eventually see what it will be.

So then, you can only refer to your future self as to what the object looks like and what characteristics it has.

The low fidelity pickups (abstract information and sparse sensory information) are going to be more akin to the right than the left.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsjDnYxJ0bo

If the Temporal RV'er figures out a number of critical points and experiences feedback (and assuming they are functionally capable) they can gradually turn low fidelity experience into a high fidelity one.

(By effectively transmitting information through their psychic structures so they can be more easily "picked up" and "observed" at a prior reference frame of time.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAXHA7U6194

[Garuda]

Fore, if you move your mouse over the image, and right-click, you'll see that the image is stored in a Flash object.
It doesn't get swapped by a JavaScript script.
Given that there is no discernible delay between the image appearing and the actual mouseover, I'm more inclined to believe that the image is already selected in the Flash object (onLoad) and only shown on an onMouseover event.

[A99]

Garuda is correct, that's a flash object and this includes that top 'mouse-over' grey layer too. It's all part of the same interactive flash 'object'.

[Fore]

Fore, if you move your mouse over the image, and right-click, you'll see that the image is stored in a Flash object.
It doesn't get swapped by a JavaScript script.
Given that there is no discernible delay between the image appearing and the actual mouseover, I'm more inclined to believe that the image is already selected in the Flash object (onLoad) and only shown on an onMouseover event.Yeah, I wrote about that above.

I am guessing people aren't really understanding what I am trying to convey...


Given that there is no discernible delay between the image appearing and the actual mouseover, I'm more inclined to believe that the image is already selected in the Flash object (onLoad) and only shown on an onMouseover event.That the image is already selected isn't the main thrust of of what I am pointing out.

It's that there is no image until after you are done with the drawing and actually go check what the image turns out to be. Which is a strong indication that you can't target what doesn't exist at a present time frame.

You'd have to look forward in time (even if ever so slightly) to sense what the image looks like after it has been rendered on screen.

Until that future point in time the image has no substance, not even as pixels on the screen. Therefore, what is the RV'er targeting in real time?

-------------------

I get the strong feeling that in this experiment the RV'er is supposed to "look behind" the "covering image". The premise is false as there is no "behind". It doesn't yet exist.

It will at some point, but not in the immediate present.

So rather than confuse Spatial RV techniques on what is "behind" the element on screen. (There is no "behind") The better wording for the experiment is: "What will occupy that part of the screen in the future"?

At that point, the experiments goals are properly conveyed/implied.

[newyorklily]

Fore, if you move your mouse over the image, and right-click, you'll see that the image is stored in a Flash object.
It doesn't get swapped by a JavaScript script.
Given that there is no discernible delay between the image appearing and the actual mouseover, I'm more inclined to believe that the image is already selected in the Flash object (onLoad) and only shown on an onMouseover event.

From the way I understand it, we are RVing on what the computer has chosen to put behind the gray screen. The computer makes that choice when we click on "next". The computer has made that choice whether or not we mouse-over the gray box. The choice has been made so, it is there now, not in the future.

[newyorklily]

Yeah, I wrote about that above.

I am guessing people aren't really understanding what I am trying to convey...

That the image is already selected isn't the main thrust of of what I am pointing out.

It's that there is no image until after you are done with the drawing and actually go check what the image turns out to be. Which is a strong indication that you can't target what doesn't exist at a present time frame.

You'd have to look forward in time (even if ever so slightly) to sense what the image looks like after it has been rendered on screen.

Until that future point in time the image has no substance, not even as pixels on the screen. Therefore, what is the RV'er targeting in real time?

-------------------

I get the strong feeling that in this experiment the RV'er is supposed to "look behind" the "covering image". The premise is false as there is no "behind". It doesn't yet exist.

It will at some point, but not in the immediate present.

So rather than confuse Spatial RV techniques on what is "behind" the element on screen. (There is no "behind") The better wording for the experiment is: "What will occupy that part of the screen in the future"?

At that point, the experiments goals are properly conveyed/implied.

I was having a problem with this practice because many times, I was drawing not the picture behind the gray screen at that moment, but the next gray screen or even the one after that. When I posted it to the Remote Viewer Group, I was told to tell myself that I wanted to see what was there now, behind the screen that was there, not the ones in the future. I did that, even though I had to stop and refocus several times. What resulted was the picture of the dark triangle and the smaller object to the right of it. Intent is important.

If what you is saying is true, Fore, then I failed every practice try. To succeed, I should have seen nothing or just a blank screen. Failing precognition tests is fine with me because I don't want to develop precognition. I don't want to see the future. So, if it develops precognition, I won't participate.

[Lee]

The way I see it RV is about non local consciousness, in no way can the physical brain see beyond the skull. So in a sense semantics about spatial RV, precognition, etc is irrelevant.

As I pointed out previously, early studies by Puthoff and Targ at SRI concluded that the viewer does indeed acquire the target by reaching forward in time to the point where it is revealed. Yet at the same time the viewer can also visit the target and aquire information beyond what is presented following the session.

Fore does raise an interesting question in my mind though... would it be possible to spatiality view a CGI rendering, and aquire info beyond what wss presented as feedback following the session....?

[Fore]

Note: I rearranged your post to remark/answer certain point a bit better.


I was having a problem with this practice because many times, I was drawing not the picture behind the gray screen at that moment, but the next gray screen or even the one after that. Which creates confusing feedback.

Literally, because the targeting aspect of RV (of any type) is not being properly implemented in this experiment. When you put in that internal request to target "something" your "higher features" and your "psychic components/structures" will try to target objects at random in order to fulfill your specific/unspecific request(s).

Without a proper targeting strategy your psychic structures will bring forward the results which could be filled with data obtained at future reference points that...while perhaps exceeding your expectations...don't actually do what you originally intended.

It wouldn't be surprising if you did pull up future tests that go beyond your intended target. The higher portions of you don't function in the same way as your organic mind. If you are "vague" in your instructions it will do random things to fulfill your "vague" desire and intent.

Consider this: If you didn't know that you were even doing that [relatively uncontrolled] type of targeting, you might eventually assume that you failed in your task.

When in reality you might have multiple datasets that aren't defined as "the target".


If what you is saying is true, Fore, then I failed every practice try. To succeed, I should have seen nothing or just a blank screen. Correct, but only if you turn on Spatial RV features. In this case you seem to have access to Temporal RV features.

Most psychic people I have encountered don't have good control in the upper functions of their own self. So they often...residually...turn on various (unnecessary) psychic features that are perhaps not in the optimal configuration or with the right applied technique.

Some seem to get ~"lucky"~ and turn on a random set of their psychic features that allows them to do very well on one test, then do terribly at every other test thereafter.

Control is just as important as having the ability itself.

---------------

If you are like me, then your intent was translated into a psychic action. If that action failed you should have felt it manifest as a form of "resistance" in your [lower/organic] mind.

If you kept insisting, your upper portions would have normally have expanded the parameters beyond what you originally desired. Or from the get-go operated with several features that you didn't intend at a lower level of your consciousness.


Failing precognition tests is fine with me because I don't want to develop precognition. I don't want to see the future. So, if it develops precognition, I won't participate. I am surprised by that. Most people would like those features. (like you though, I understand and share the sentiment)

Imagine, if you used it to look at future PM's and peoples future posts instead of at pictures. You could let yourself know what is about to happen before it actually does.


When I posted it to the Remote Viewer Group, I was told to tell myself that I wanted to see what was there now, behind the screen that was there, not the ones in the future. I did that, even though I had to stop and refocus several times. What resulted was the picture of the dark triangle and the smaller object to the right of it. Intent is important.Where there is a will, there will be a way.

You just mentioned some evidence for what I was pointing out. The folks at the RVG need to give different advice and take a look at what the goal should be and if that is achievable in a straight forward way.

[whoknows]

The way I see it RV is about non local consciousness, in no way can the physical brain see beyond the skull. So in a sense semantics about spatial RV, precognition, etc is irrelevant.


Well said

[newyorklily]

I am surprised by that. Most people would like those features. (like you though, I understand and share the sentiment)

Imagine, if you used it to look at future PM's and peoples future posts instead of at pictures. You could let yourself know what is about to happen before it actually does.

I find it unethical to look at anyone's PMs whether present or future.

Have you ever gone out of your house and had a feeling that it was going to be broken into then come home several hours later to find your door open?
Have you ever looked at a house you passed by and felt the heat of flames on your face and then find the building totally engulfed by fire when you passed it again a couple of hours later? I have had several premonitions about fires that came true. It is disturbing to me.

[Fore]

The way I see it RV is about non local consciousness, in no way can the physical brain see beyond the skull. So in a sense semantics about spatial RV, precognition, etc is irrelevant. The ET version I was taught is different and specific in implementations.

For example, I define RV as Full Immersion. Meaning, your faculties of [body based] awareness are either:

A) Temporarily interrupted and you experience an event vividly with all 6 senses.

B) Simultaneously experience, with local [body based] awareness. [bi-location] [out of body awareness] etc.

The versions of RV I noted floating around are what I would term "RP" = Remote Presence.

Describing or transcribing features of an object, consciousness or form of data by way of various techniques. Like putting your hand in the sand and describing texture, granular size, shapes, mass, content etc.

Full immersion RV isn't vague or "associative" in the same way (in the strictest sense). There is less translation and transcription in the [upper/lower] loops of conscious experience. It can be directly "experienced".

-------------------

I was involved in a few experiments that caused all of the types described above. Though, it resulted in sharp pains which I think were the onset of hemorrhaging or (in hindsight) some kind of onset seizure or momentary epilepsy.

It was stopped and I was told they wouldn't be continuing those tests. I also got to experience one of the ET team members who was administering the test. There were errors/mistakes and I got to see things I understood at the time I shouldn't have seen.


As I pointed out previously, early studies by Puthoff and Targ at SRI concluded that the viewer does indeed acquire the target by reaching forward in time to the point where it is revealed. Yet at the same time the viewer can also visit the target and acquire information beyond what is presented following the session. There is an often used telepathic expression that doesn't translate to English too well.

The "expression" itself stands for "the state at which an influence structure(s) emits encoded information" across various axis. In the ET world the axis are spatial, temporal, "probability...curve/arc/trajectory". Each psychic structure is (usually) set to filter out encoded signals beyond a certain horizon across the three basic axis.

To gain their level of Temporal RV /RP and Probability RV / RP and subsequent offshoot talents skillsets you have to modify the psychic structures themselves. Otherwise spatial RV is predominantly the only "easy" thing a psychic can do.

As a sender: The higher the activation a psychic structure is set to by default, the longer/larger the window of transmissions of encoded information across the 2(+1) axis. Fidelity is something separate and has to be created by design.

As a receiver: The higher and more prolonged the activation (assuming the psychic structures had filters which are diminished) the farther distance across the 2(+1) axis, a signal can be perceived.

You can think of the two ends as an array. Instead of metal it is of biological tissue and invisible [psychic] structures that give off and receive emissions. When the psychic structures are fully active, the structures achieve states of both reception and transmission. That in turn creates access to displaced information. (pre-cognitive abilities as well as spatial RV.)



Fore does raise an interesting question in my mind though... would it be possible to spatiality view a CGI rendering, and aquire info beyond what wss presented as feedback following the session....?You can "see" a CGI rendering if it becomes an image, not before. (unless someone figure out how to read 1 and 0's in a ram stick...among billion of bits...or perhaps read the distinguishing code that composes the jpeg file format on some server somewhere.)

It would be easier to view a physical photograph even if it is in the dark, while hidden inside a box. As long as you can interpret the distinguishing aspects of the material you could pull it off. You could also look through your own, or someone elses, processed consciousness after the rendering of the image is done on some LCD.

--------------

Perhaps if you tell someone to look at the photo and leave it on their screen...then the other person draws it, that would fit within Spatial RV. (or just plain mind reading?)

[Fore]

@ Lily

I answered your post and placed it way over here:
http://www.theoutpostforum.com/tof/showthread.php?291-What-we-think-we-know-so-far&p=23045&viewfull=1#post23045

[newyorklily]

@ Lily

I answered your post and placed it way over here:
http://www.theoutpostforum.com/tof/showthread.php?291-What-we-think-we-know-so-far&p=23045&viewfull=1#post23045

I'm in this thread, not your thread. Please don't move my posts without asking. I will not answer you there.

[A99]

Well said

I second on that one!

[Fore]

I'm in this thread, not your thread. Please don't move my posts without asking. I will not answer you there.I didn't mean any offense Lily. It was an off topic reply so I put it there instead of here. The intention wasn't so that you would go there, it was just so the pages wouldn't stray off topic again. (I apologized for that earlier...)

I am just going to leave it be.

[newyorklily]

This is a really cool RV practice site. It is easy to use, no registration required and you can save your results by using a screen snip.

http://davisanddavis.org/rv/

Just one word of caution: It can become addictive.

Scott Davis, the creator of this site, is in the process of changing the RV Practice viewer. From what I've read so far, it uses Java instead of Flash and does not work with Explorer.

With this one, you click "Reset Page" to bring up the next target. Then make your drawing. Then, click "Next Target" to bring up the picture that's there.

[A99]

Java is not javascript.

[A99]

This upcoming conference looks like it's worth going to!

Applied Precognition: An ARV Conference-Workshop-Webinar with Joe McMoneagle, Marty Rosenblatt, Dean Radin (http://seventhsightsociety.ning.com/events/applied-precognition-an-arv-conference-workshop-webinar-with-joe-)June 19, 2013 (http://seventhsightsociety.ning.com/events/event/listByDate?date=2013-06-19) to June 23, 2013 (http://seventhsightsociety.ning.com/events/event/listByDate?date=2013-06-23) – Green Valley Resort (http://seventhsightsociety.ning.com/events/event/listByLocation?location=Green+Valley+Resort)

http://appliedprecog.com/Workshops/2013/


Green Valley Ranch Resort and Casino, Las Vegas
June 19 to June 23, 2013
Wednesday 3:00 pm thru Sunday 11:00 am.Joe McMoneagle is looking forward to sharing, in person during the 5-day workshop, his extensive knowledge concerning Remote Viewing, Analysis/Judging of RV transcripts, and how to apply RV using precognition. Predicting future outcomes, using the Associative Remote Viewing (ARV) protocol, is a key part of this unique event and opportunity.
Joe, Marty, Dean and others will be sharing their knowledge on applying precognition through a combination of presentations, discussions, and for workshop participants, assisting with hands-on predictions and FeedBack associated with 3 baseball games. Webinar participants will also be privy to the predictions.
The Analysis/Judging (AJing) of RV transcripts is a critical part of the protocol and different skills are involved in AJing compared to RVing. Therefore, two connected workshops are part of this unique event: one workshop for RVers and one for AJers in separate rooms/suites. Guess what, the RVers provide the transcripts to the AJers :-)

[A99]

http://www.p-i-a.edu/Protocols/EDU/ARV_Background.htm

Associative Remote Viewing (ARV) is an application of remote viewing that dates back to the 1970s. Here's an example of how ARV can be used for precognitive work - let's predict (remembering that accuracy can be better than chance, but not perfect) the winner of the next U.S. presidential election:


The winner will be a member of the ABC Party, or the winner will NOT be a member of the ABC Party - a two choice scenario.
We "associate" each possible outcome with a specific target (e.g., ABC wins = a rock formation photo, ABC does not win = panda bear photo).
The remote viewer is then tasked to describe the target (ID# 834217) that he/she will be shown after the election results are confirmed. The remote viewer's description is based on intuition and results in a transcript of words and sketches.
This transcript is given to a "judge" or "analyst" who correlates it (using his/her intellect) with the two possible targets and chooses one as the "prediction". Thus the judge makes the primarily intellectually-derived prediction based on what the RVer intuitively describes using an RV protocol.
Feedback of the correct target-photo will be provided to the RVer after the election results are confirmed.


In the past, the Remote Viewer and the judge were generally two different people. However, our ARV applied research and the results of similar research by others show that this is not necessary. One person can assume both the remote viewer and judge roles. More importantly, there is great personal growth in getting into both of these mindsets (RVer/judge) and observing the differences in your self as you act in an intuitive fashion versus an intellectual fashion.


There are many applications for reliable binary ARV (not yet 100%, which is part of the challenge of applications) including predicting the answer to yes/no question, wagering on sporting events, and predicting the up-down movement of financial markets. Various people are doing work in this financial area, including our study reported at an International Remote Viewing Association (IRVA) conference involving precognition, free will, determinism, and financial applications.

[newyorklily]

Java is not javascript.

Ooops! Yes, you're right. It is javascript he is using instead of Flash.

[A99]

Lol, I'm pretty sure he will not be using javascript to replace that Flash applet that he's got on that page now. However, he may be switching to Java for Android and ipad, etc viewers. He may be even switching it to HTML7 as that's rumored to be the standard in 2014.

On the other hand, if he's saying that whatever he's switching to won't work in I.E. then maybe he IS switching to javascript. Javascript is pretty clunky in I.E so maybe that's why he said we will not be able to use his new generator in that browser.

[newyorklily]

I have set up a new thread for practice only here http://www.theoutpostforum.com/tof/showthread.php?1297-Remote-Viewing-PRACTICE-ONLY Please use that thread for your practice. The only discussions allowed on that thread are ones about the practice sessions that are posted there. All other discussions will go on this Discussion thread.

[newyorklily]

Lol, I'm pretty sure he will not be using javascript to replace that Flash applet that he's got on that page now. However, he may be switching to Java for Android and ipad, etc viewers. He may be even switching it to HTML7 as that's rumored to be the standard in 2014.

On the other hand, if he's saying that whatever he's switching to won't work in I.E. then maybe he IS switching to javascript. Javascript is pretty clunky in I.E so maybe that's why he said we will not be able to use his new generator in that browser.

He has already changed it. Try it at the new Practice thread http://www.theoutpostforum.com/tof/showthread.php?1297-Remote-Viewing-PRACTICE-ONLY

[newyorklily]

I didn't mean any offense Lily. It was an off topic reply so I put it there instead of here. The intention wasn't so that you would go there, it was just so the pages wouldn't stray off topic again. (I apologized for that earlier...)

I am just going to leave it be.

No offense taken, Fore. I was just feeling scattered in many directions at that moment. It is okay to post it here. I have made this a RV Discussion thread so no posts about remote viewing is off-topic here. RV Practice now has it's own designated thread.

[A99]

I always enjoy reading Fore's posts as they are a real treat to read! No kidding! Including his comments in this thread. And as usual, I may not be in agreement with everything that he says on this or that but he has brought up a number of good points that are worth contemplating on.

[newyorklily]

For those of you with iPhones, Dr. Russell Targ has designed an app for you. It is for practicing ESP skills and is called "ESP Trainer". You can find it here https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/esp-trainer/id336882103?mt=8

[Lee]

For those of you with iPhones, Dr. Russell Targ has designed an app for you. It is for practicing ESP skills and is called "ESP Trainer". You can find it here https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/esp-trainer/id336882103?mt=8
Not available for DROID yet I see. : ( I did find an app called "ESP tester" which seems ok.