Topic [270] A good way to start? TKR Remote Viewing Forum February 2004

It is the intent of the Dojo Psi that the living-history of remote viewing's development in the public sector not be erased, revised, or otherwise lost to the vagaries of time. In this spirit, the dojo encourages, promotes, hosts and develops archives of online Remote Viewing activity. [Caveats] For current discussion on remote viewing, click the logo at the top of the page to visit TKR's big Remote Viewing Discussion Forum directly.

NearDark, somewhere around February 22, 2004

Hi

Trying rv with  a few freinds who are sceptics but like me they want to believe, so far all we have tried was a method  i found in a book, relax, clear mind, picture a window and imagine opening it onto the target (pictures sealed in envelopes) listen at the window try to feel, hear, taste, generally sense something and write down or draw what you feel. so far its not going to good! we all missed completely, i have trouble blanking my mind same as the others, songs and images always seem to creep in and im not sure if  i would know the difference between real data and imaginings. Anyone tell me if this is the right way to go about starting and how  i can blank out my mind

thnx in advance
neardark

waterway, somewhere around February 23, 2004

In my experience, the best route is:

1: Read and learn
2. Practice
3. Be enthusiastically patient
4. Improve

There are lots of folks willing to sell you all sorts of quick solutions.... though I haven't seen an RV patch.... that might sell too.... but realistically speaking, most of us need to gradually improve our RV skills, just like all other skills.

Good luck.  You've come to the right place to learn a lot.

wizopeva, somewhere around February 23, 2004

RV requires a lot of patience.  It can be a lot like golf.  The first swings can go rather wild, that's for sure!  You really have to do about 100 session before you start to kinda see some patterns.  

Some things that are often suggested in rv sessions:

Write down everthing and then move on.  If there's a song or image in your head, write it down or draw it and then ask your mind to be satisfied that the thought has now been logged and it's time to move on.  Your conscious mind has only one job and that is to log down info and then move on to the next bit of info.  Learning how to control the mind is a slow process and most people take a while to slowly get the hang of it.  Some of your info will probably be wrong and other bits will be right.  Try not to think about that during the session.  Your goal is to be an impassionate observer of the data that comes in and to not judge it or make guesses about it during the sessoin.  It takes a long while to learn that.  

Sometimes I do better when I'm showing others how to do a session because I spend so much time thinking of how to explain things, and making sure that I show them how it's supposed to work that I don't have time to think too hard about my own data.  It keeps my conscious mind too busy to butt in and derail me.  The goal of many of the offical rv methods is to do the same thing, ie keep your conscious mind busy doing busy work so that the unconscious can get an word in edgewise!
-E

 

Psygnus, somewhere around March 29, 2004

NearDark,

I'm also new to RV. I haven't RVed yet but I will start practicing within the next few days. I have had great success with OBE (Out of Body Experiences) and/or AP (Astral Projection). I have had like 15 - 20 OBE/AP in the past 3 months. I'm pretty confident that I'll be able to achieve RV with practice. I believe AP/OBE and RV are closely related. I started by reading Bruce Roberts book, 'Astral Dynamics'( [url]http://www.astralpulse.com/books/books.htm[/url]).  After about 1 week of practicing his methods I was successful. 2 Things this book taught me that IMO will help you achieve RV:

1) Bruce Roberts N.E.W. (New Energy Ways) System. This is simple and very effective way to raise your bodies Energy (Qi, Ki, psi, whatever you want to call it ) levels. The N.E.W. manual is available for free on his website. LINK -> [url]http://www.astralpulse.com/guides/new/new.htm[/url]

2) Meditation. Silencing my mind and relax my body. Bruce really doesn't go into detail on how to or difference kinds of meditation. But he does stress that the key to OBE/AP is deep physical relaxation. I don't think deep physical relaxation is really necessary for RV from what I read. The main thing for RV (as far as meditation goes), I think, is to silence your mind.

I have had some experiences that are similar to what I read RV experiences are like. Where I see a 2 dimensional images flash in my mind. Some like i'm viewing a TV set. The images are very crisp and clear. Some stay for a few seconds, some longer. I have also managed to turn a few these into OBE/AP, where I leap into the image. This is a one of the techniques to OBE. These images come in the morning while I’m waking, eyes shut and relaxing.

I would suggest practicing some Meditation and raising your Energy before jumping into RV. I feel they should be prerequisites to RVing. Keep us posted on your progress! Good luck.

Don_Williams, somewhere around March 29, 2004

Neardark,
The way you're starting is pretty much the way I did.  I agree with all the suggestions people have given except that I think physical relaxation can help a lot - it does for me.  I use progressive relaxation (first the feet, then the calves, then the thighs, etc.  working your way up to the head).

If you haven't been completely alone when you do your sessions, try that.  Just the presence of another person can interfere in the beginning, as can any sounds or bright lighting in the room.

Try to get your mental state to a place that's similiar to when you spaceout or daydream, maybe even to the edge of sleep.  One way to do this is to count your breaths.  Focus soley on your breathing, imagine the air coming into your mouth or nose, going down your windpipe, filling your lungs.  Then mentally follow the air back out as you exhale.  Start at 20 and count down.  If you don't feel like your mind is completely clear when you get to zero, start again at 10 or 5.  Sometimes I'll try to hold the image of a white or light blue screen in my mind as I do this, like a movie screen in my mind.  Then, when I reach a point where my mind is completely blank, I watch open to the target and watch the screen for images to flash by.

Don't discount bits of songs or memories from the events of the past few days.  The subconscious gives us information in all kinds of ways.  Songs or memories can often be related to the target in some way, surprisingly.

One thing that might make it easier is to affirm in your mind that you are going to remote view the actual physical location where the pictures were taken at the exact time they were taken.  RVing real locations is much easier than RVing pictures.  Pictures as targets is hard.  Use the pictures as targeting material (meaning do put them into the envelopes) but think of them more as part of your feedback than as the actual target itself.  If you can have someone go to local places and take photos of locations, then put the photos in envelopes, it's even easier.  Then, after your session, go the location and check out what you got right and what you missed.  This outbound targeting (minus a beacon person) is probably the easiest and most successful form of RVing - for me, anyway.

Good luck and stick with it.  You are attempting something that's new to both your conscious and subconsious minds.  Stay relaxed and keep it fun.  Treat it like your own private experiement.  Like someone else said, it often  takes time and patience to begin seeing real results.  I hope some of this helps you.
Don  

T-bone, somewhere around March 30, 2004

Neardark, (not Don, my bad)

Give this a try and see if you don't have better luck.  Try and outbounder experiment.  You'll need about 4 to 5 people to do this.  First, divide into two teams.  The first team minimum of 2 of you, will stay behind (one of you being an observer, the othe being the RV'er).  The other team of 2 to 3 (they will need a camera), gets in a car and drives arround for aprox. 20 to 30 mins in no particular dirrection and after that stop at an interesting, yet distinct location(Translation- no a fast food joint ect. , you want something out of the norm.  A powerplant, dam, landmark, power substation, railyard, large bridge, you get the idea.)  They should not give any info on the dirrection they are heading, in fact don't even talk about it untill they get in the car and are moving.  Once they've drove arround for a bit, when they see a location that fits the bill, they stop the car and get out.  They should then call from a cell phone to the RV'ers location, ring the phone a predetermined number of times, then hang up.  This will signal to the RV team they are in position.  

At this point the RV'er will try to "see what they are seeing"  if you will.  He or she should record his/her impresions and make scetches of what comes to his/her mind.

The outbound team should stay at the location for an agreed on amount of time, lets say 30 to 45 mins or so.  (Don't skimp on the time.)  While there, they should take time and realy look at the target location, paying attention to the details, concentrating on what it realy looks like, walking around it, taking pictures of it from different angles (If possible)

After the pre-agreed time is up, the outbound team should call the number of the RV'er again, ring the phone again signaling the RV team that they are leaving the target location.  They then travel back to the RV'ers location.

Once there, they pick up the RV team and travel back to the target location.  Note, try not to discuss the location or the RV'ers notes, impressions ect. untill you are at the TARGET LOCATION as it will lesson the impact for the viewer.  When you arrive at the target location, then nd only then, start comparing notes, scetches, pictures ect.  This is the feedback portion of the experiment.  Even if it seems like a complete miss, don't skip this.  It is very important for the viewer.  I can tell you from experiance, once then viewer gets there they will notice things they might have "seen" but discounted.  

Also one coment here.  When you get a solid "hit" on a target location, and you go there in person, it can be a very powerful moving experiance for the viewer.  A real "slap in the face" if you will.  The "reality" hits you hard, and it will blow you away. (LOL, you'll love it.) At that moment it will blow a BIG holes in your doubts about RVing.    

Anyhow, give it a try.  Outbound RV'ing is fun and it has something for almost everyone to do.  

When I get the chance, it's my favorite way to practice.  It'll make ya' say things like "HOLLY SH**!" and "OH MY GOOOOD!"  LOL, it's great stuff. ;)

admin, somewhere around March 30, 2004

Think you may have mixed up those identities.  -)on's a viewer, he's done outbounder stuff.  Neardark's the one with the question.

As a note, with an outbounder a viewer would  want to focus on one person, when possible.  One doesn't need a whole team or even a human outbounder. Someone to put addresses in envelopes for you (or better yet drive you to them when session is complete) is just fine--it's the getting feedback in person that is so effective.

The issue of sender/receiver is pretty much inert for now outside of humans-as-targets.  Research showed pretty well that an outbounder didn't much matter to decent viewers, they could describe the target either way.  The in-person feedback does seem to have a great effect on the viewer though.  

I wonder if this is because RV seems to be translating the target into best-match with what we have experienced, and if we go to the feedback, then we have experienced that (time being NOT), so maybe we have a clearer ability to translate in that case.

PJ

Don_Williams, somewhere around March 30, 2004

Hi,
T-Bone - I've done outbounders pretty much as you described with a few differences.  Like PJ said, I think what really makes the difference is going there in person to get the feedback.  It doesn'y seem to matter whether there's a beacon person at the target site or not.  Actually, I think you are better off targeting the site at the time you will be there for feedback.  That way, you get a chance to perceive things that aren't always there (different people, events happening at the target location, etc.).  It also rules out the RVer picking up on transitory things that won't be there when the RVer goes there for feedback - things that the RVer actually got correct but was unable to get feedback on because it's no longer there.  Like you said, T-Bone, it can really blow you away sometimes!

PJ, regarding your last paragraph - are you saying that when we RV, we might be associating target elements with whatever best matches it from our experience?  And because of that, if we actually physically visit the target location, then we have a better best-match?  (Even though we visit the site post-session, since time is an illusion, we still have the better best-match - our experience of being at the target location - to draw from?)  And this could be the reason that outbound sessions are more successful and usually more accurate than other targeting protocols?  Is this what you mean?
Don

T-bone, somewhere around March 30, 2004

[quote]As a note, with an outbounder a viewer would  want to focus on one person, when possible.  One doesn't need a whole team or even a human outbounder. Someone to put addresses in envelopes for you (or better yet drive you to them when session is complete) is just fine--it's the getting feedback in person that is so effective.

The issue of sender/receiver is pretty much inert for now outside of humans-as-targets.  Research showed pretty well that an outbounder didn't much matter to decent viewers, they could describe the target either way.  The in-person feedback does seem to have a great effect on the viewer though.  

I wonder if this is because RV seems to be translating the target into best-match with what we have experienced, and if we go to the feedback, then we have experienced that (time being NOT), so maybe we have a clearer ability to translate in that case.

PJ

[/quote]

From what I gathered, Neardark has about 3 other people working with him on this.

My first thought with RV or any other type of Psi is the Chief's word's "It should be fun".  So, to involve everyone, I chose to suguest a outbound type of RV.  I agree you don't "need" a whole team of people to do this, but it does tend to help when those interested have an active roll in an experiment (IMHO).

As far as focusing on "one person", it may indeed help the viewer to do this.  The question is which one.  For me I have found that I can sync with one person yet not another, and vise-versa on different days.  Why? Who knows, but thats just me.  This is the reason I suguested more than on person on the outbound team.  The veiwer may tend to lock onto one person more easily than another.  

Also, while research may have demestrated that an outbounder didn't matter to decent viewers, remember my intention with my suguestion is simply to involve all of his group.  RV'ing from my stand point tends to be dry and worklike most times.  If you are in a group situation, the more people who can praticipate the better.  It's gives them a chance to actualy be part of whats going on and have some fun with it.

When I RV, I simply let my subconsious make that choice of who the beacon will be.  It knows which one I will get better info from and what I need in order to acomplish what I've set out to do.  As with most though, my toughest chalange is just getting out of the way, and recording, without interperating, the info it is feeding me.

The bottom line Neardark is HAVE FUN WITH IT, and do what works FOR YOU.  :)

admin, somewhere around March 31, 2004

Hi Don,

Yeah... it's just my theory.  

I've talked with a friend of mine about this topic at length, about remote viewing being kind of like perceiving energy that you 'pattern match' with what you've got inside (or perhaps, that it's all inside, but we can only recognize on the outside what our outside has experienced and so our physical brain has stored, so one has to find a carrier or pattern-match to send it 'out' to the brain).

I once said well, but since once, when I made a giant target pool, I saw the pic, so why did I get the data symbolically in session? 'Cause I'd seen the pic, so I actually had that in my library of experience.  It was suggested that seeing a pic alone is NOT a full experience.  That I had I personally, physically, seen this thing in real life, I might be more likely to nail it in session; had I even worked with it regularly for some time, a much higher likelihood I'd just nail it for what it was.

Then I started thinking about it.  Many of the best described sessions you read about actually kind of qualify as that.  I've heard a lot of stories about cops that are psi and of course, what they're generally psi about is something they're really attuned to, like they're a Narc and they have a big gut feeling (a dowse sense) when they're talking to someone, or near a car with drugs.  Well that's what they're familiar with.  They probably don't go dowse what gender someone's baby is going to be.  That isn't their... experience/field.

In Jim Schnabel's book 'Remote Viewers' he describes two things I thought fit into this example.

One was Joe McMoneagle describing the soviet sub.  McMoneagle nailed that thing in SO MUCH DETAIL it's just mind boggling.  Well you know, come to find out, the guy was not only an expert on weapons but on boats!--he'd actually studied shipbuilding.

There's also an account in the book about spontaneous psi Paul Smith had, which was a news headline some time later, and it turns out, it was military related and the region and language and so forth were related to the middle east--which just "happened" to be his primary area of study in intelligence, and the thing he happened to be open to picking up on.

So eventually you start looking at what people are good at, and wondering just how much of our viewing skill might relate to our personal experiences, not just through simple interpretation-bias, but actually through ability to 'match the patterns' more precisely.  (Makes ya wonder if RV, like writing and acting, is something where some of the best practice comes from "truly living".)

McMoneagle has done more variety of 'living' in his 50-odd years than most people squeeze into about 9 lives, so experientially... wow.  He's got quite a base.  I've no proof of it, but my gut feeling (haha) is that it helps.

Obviously, a viewer has to have an experiential base for understanding any given thing, or they're not going to get it in a session, if they can't even "get it" in life.  This is a no-brainer about conceptuals and subtleties and relationships, but I think it might also apply to normal stuff.

I see in my own sessions, something that seems to back up this theory.  For example, in a target where this guy was working on the space station, I had this shape clearly in me, and my sketching is lousy so I had to turn it and draw from a side angle, and try to 'describe' it, that it was sort of like curtains, the way they fold in and out, but not quite that soft, more like triangular folds, and I drew a soft zigzag and wrote 'this is a side view', and I wrote some about another real clear shape I had a sense of, and when I got feedback (and then got more, to include the station--blew protocol for that, but needed to know), I saw it.  I was really jazzed that I had the shape so right.  But I understood right away why I'd had trouble describing it and had to resort to "like curtains except..." -- because I have nothing in my physical expe

admin, somewhere around March 31, 2004

Hi Don,

Yeah... it's just my theory.  

I've talked with a friend of mine about this topic at length, about remote viewing being kind of like perceiving energy that you 'pattern match' with what you've got inside (or perhaps, that it's all inside, but we can only recognize on the outside what our outside has experienced and so our physical brain has stored, so one has to find a carrier or pattern-match to send it 'out' to the brain).

I once said, since once, when I made a giant target pool, I saw the pics, why did I get the data symbolically in session? 'Cause I'd seen the pic, so I actually had that in my library of experience.  It was suggested that seeing a pic alone is NOT a full experience.  That had I personally, physically, seen this thing in real life, I might be more likely to nail it in session; had I even worked with it regularly for some time, a much higher likelihood I'd just nail it for what it was.  If I'd grown up with it, well it'd be a super high chance I think.

Then I started thinking about it.  Many of the best described sessions you read about actually kind of qualify as that.  I've heard a lot of stories about cops that are psi and of course, what they're generally psi about is something they're really attuned to, like they're a Narc and they have a big gut feeling (a dowse sense) when they're talking to someone, or near a car with drugs.  Well that's what they're familiar with.  They probably don't go dowse what gender someone's baby is going to be.  That isn't their... experience/field.

In Jim Schnabel's book 'Remote Viewers' he describes two things I thought fit into this example.

One was Joe McMoneagle describing the soviet sub.  McMoneagle nailed that thing in SO MUCH DETAIL it's just mind boggling.  Well you know, come to find out, the guy was not only an expert on weapons but on boats!--he'd actually studied shipbuilding.

There's also an account in the book about spontaneous psi Paul Smith had, which was a news headline some time later, and it turns out, it was military related and the region and language and so forth were related to the middle east--which just "happened" to be his primary area of study in intelligence, and the thing he happened to be open to picking up on.

So eventually you start looking at what people are good at, and wondering how much of our viewing skill might relate to our personal experiences, not just through simple interpretation-bias, but actually through ability to 'match the patterns' precisely.  (Makes ya wonder if RV, like writing and acting, is something where some of the best development comes from "truly living".)

McMoneagle has done more variety of 'living' in his 50-odd years than most people squeeze into about 9 lives, so experientially... wow.  He's got quite a base.  I've no proof of it, but my gut feeling (haha) is that it helps.

Obviously, a viewer has to have an experiential base for understanding anything, or they're not going to get it in a session, if they can't even "get it" in life.  This is a no-brainer about conceptuals, subtleties and relationships, but I think it might also apply to normal stuff.

I'll be back hopefully with an example.

[later] Never mind, my lab books are buried right now as I'm rearranging the house a bit.  Suffice to say that a lot of my data which comes in the AOL form ("like such and such, except...") is usually something that, I haven't experienced the actual target data in real life, but I have experienced the comparative I get as info. It seems that's as close as my mind can come to matching the pattern from my 'library of personal experience', so it takes something that I know, and then presents it like, "PING!--sort of.".

So I think if we go get feedback, we put that literal stuff in our personal experience set.  Since time doesn't matter, it's always there, even before we do the session. So I think getting feedback in person is likely to result, in general, in better sessions for most people.  There is NO proof or evidence of this that I know of.  It's just a theory.

PJ

Joe_Black, somewhere around April 1, 2004

I found the otherday if i lie on my back and do 20 minutes to half a hour of self hypnosis with some kind of CD (almost any works i have found) It clears your mind for a few hours afterwards amazingly.

Less AOL's by far in a session, much better data!:)

I suppose its the same as meditating before you RV

waterway, somewhere around April 1, 2004

Most excellent theory PJ.  

Recall that Hella Hammid had trouble describing a nuclear reactor cuz she had NEVER seen one, didn't know the mechanics, but did describe it from what she knew.  That book I am reading... still... "Networks of Meaning", says that all the stuff we know/will know is in clumps of meaning, and experience is what creates those clumps of meanings.  

So with that in mind.... I am gonna try a few targets that are NOT pictures, stuff I actually visit and experience.

On a related note...  ;-)... I also think that a target can get personal meaning IF the feedback session involves others and there is "significance" to the feedback event.  So then the feedback photo, even if it means nothing in content to the viewer, does have meaning due to its association to the happy social event.  

It may be the case that the more experience we have with a target, ie multi-sensory by seeing, smelling, tasting, etc, the target, the more qualities we relate to it and the easier it is to view.  

end of messages

[END Topic 270] A good way to start? TKR Remote Viewing Forum February 2004