Topic [141] Target Talk TKR Remote Viewing Forum August 2003

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.

Dick, somewhere around August 22, 2003

In the masking/entrainment thread "polka dot puh jammies" ( a three star poster) asked "Why" when I stated that "target talk" is a no - no among serious remote viewers.

Saddam Hussein is the news. Saddam Hussein would make a great target. Saddam Hussein's whereabouts are very important and probably ought to be the next operational target tasking. Let's talk about Saddam Hussein and how remote viewing can find him.

Now, here's an operational target ID. Try to work it without thinking of Saddam Hussein.  Get the picture?

And it goes beyond the "don't think about pink elephants" aspect.

People who remote view consistently, develop another skill called "tagging."  On many instances in the HRVG classroom Glenn will bring  an envelope with a target ID to class, and someone in the class will blurt something out directly related to the target. They "tagged" that night's target.

Target talk is like farting in front of the Queen. If you are an experienced remote viewer you don't do it.

Polka dot Puh Jammies... what RV training have you had? How many sessions have you done?  Is any of your work published somewhere? (Just want to know who is taking part in this discussion.)

Aloha

Dick

admin, somewhere around August 23, 2003

... because so few have the right to have an opinion? So you want a resume'?

Can't someone just have discussion on a topic--and ask an honest question--without providing that?

How come you ask this of pdPJ but not of Savin (I do recall you saying you had no idea of its real identity)?

Should everyone be required to provide not just a name/alias, email, and discussion, but some kind of RV-Qualifications-Registration to converse?

That's an unspoken (but oft-demanded unless someone's agreeing) requirement on your board, Dick--but not on TKR.  We welcome anyone interested in RV, regardless of whether they
(a) have official training,
(b) have chosen to put their work online,
(c) have been involved for 1 day/month/year/lifetime, or
(d) choose to share any of that info with us.

Yes, I realize your question alone did not infer 'class distinction' in RV, but your history of communication online does, so it's tough not to read that into it.  Maybe I'm just oversensitive.  But I don't want anybody to feel like they need to live up to someone else's standards of qualifications to have a discussion, and the only way to enforce that environ is to make issues like 'RV Credentials' basically moot: we are all in this together, at whatever level of experience, or training, that we work, and the primary challenge in RV is about the self (not comparison to others) anyway.

Can't we let the part about proving oneself (I notice you commented on this on another topic/board as well) go?

PJ

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 23, 2003

[quote]"polka dot puh jammies" ( a three star poster      )

Polka dot Puh Jammies... what RV training have you had? How many sessions have you done?  Is any of your work published somewhere? (Just want to know who is taking part in this discussion.) [/quote]

Interesting to say the least....

    As you have made it your business to know, I am a 3 star poster with over 200 postings. What training have I had, how many sessins, am I published...who am I ??

    I suggest that you read all of those 200 postings and you will be able to answer your questions and learn even more. ;-)

    It may surprise you, but I'm actually allowed to be here  ;-)  I am allowed to ask whatever questions I need to ask within the topics determined by the wizops.
I am allowed to be curious enough to ask questions about whatever it is I need more information on for either more or fuller knowledge or clarity for better understanding.  I believe these qualities are known as parts of intelligence. ;)

    I not only have posted questions to and of the forum but I have also contributed to the forum.  This is also allowed.  I will continue to do so.  

    As my postings increase from the 200 marker and I move from 3 to 4 stars, you will certainly get to know me better.  You will find that I am agreeable, easy to get along with, have a great sense of humor, enjoy people, ask a lot of questions about things that interest me and enjoy helping others. (This is the short list)

 Another clue to who I am....my signature line says" I am more than remotely interested'...
    I see you have 14 postings to date...and even though not so many yet so much has been revealed.  I look forward to meeting the less aggressive and less challenging Dick and making friends with the other more gentle aspects of you.  I don't know how many stars this will take for you, but I'm sure it's within you. ;-)

    [quote]Target talk is like farting in front of the Queen. If you are an experienced remote viewer you don't do it. [/quote]

    Since it's not likely that the Queen is a member of this forum, I'm guessing it's okay with you for TKR to continue existing? If this was an arts & craft forum, talking targets would be inappropriate right?  But since this forum is ALL about remote viewing I think talking about targets fits in just fine  ;)  If not here, then where??

    Even in this posting, you are getting a better idea of who you talking with....as well as learning that I don't buckle or even much care when presented with attitudes such as the one created by the orginal posting on this thread.

    I will be around Dick. I'm sure we will bump into each other on many other threads. As you are new to this forum you will likely be reading all the topics eventually....and darned if you aren't going to find a posting of mine in almost all of them ... yup, you guessed it...asking questions!!  ;-)

    ....and while I may be guilty of farting in front of the Queen  ::) I am courteous enough to respond to all postings directly related to me or a question being asked of me.... such as I have done here and I hope you will extend me the same courtesy.

    This is not my most favorite way of meeting new people but us both being adults (right?) , I'm sure we can work things out without having to go to the flaming boards ;)

 

Fire, somewhere around August 23, 2003

On other forums using this software, the number of posts are represented by all kinds of different things.  Fruits and vegetables... chicken legs or steaks... I am wondering what more-funky, creative icon TKR could use besides stars for that post-count icon!

I'm still trying to figure out what being a "three star" poster means, I mean besides the post count, why that would be remotely (no pun intended) relevant in a conversation.  

But I swear, lately, I feel like I am operating from some slightly different reality.  I also think that whatever reality it is, it is about three frequencies removed from Dick's, so it may be that on some level I am completely mis-interpreting everything all for some boneheaded reason of my own.

Actually, several things have happened in the RV/parapsychology field at large lately that frankly are making life seem slightly surreal right now.

I think I'll go water all my eggplant and basil and miniature colored bell peppers.  My garden grounds me. Something had better, lol.

PJ

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 23, 2003

    How about using bandaids or first aid kits ?
.....especially for those who survive the 1st 50 postings  ;)

here is how it could go:

bandaids
firstaid kits
crutches
straight jacket
purple heart     ;-)

Don_Williams, somewhere around August 23, 2003

PdPJ,,
It's fine to talk about targets and different options for targets.  The reasoning Dick is using might be appropriate if we were all working in Intelligence but we're not.  So, not expecting the government to call me on the telephone asking me to locate Hussein any time soon, I feel pretty free to discuss the ins and outs of ways to target him.

You may have noticed that the thread this one was moved from was about exactly what? - targeting!  Even more relevant, it was specifically about substitutung one target for another ("masking") with the intention of keeping this knowledge from the viewer, something Dick says is actively going on at hrvg.   Why it's okay to discuss that and not individual target possibilities like Hussein, I can't fathom.

When my wife, who tasks me most of the time, tells me not to watch the news or read any papers, I infer that she is going to throw a current events-related target into the practice pool.  But she has also done this when she was going to task me operationally for someone local, the subject of the target being in the local newspaper at the time.  She has also told me not to watch the news when she had no intention of tasking me with anything related to current events - she just likes messing with my mind, keeping me on my toes, lol.   A good deal of the time, I'm not even told when the target has to do with applications or not.

So, I've learned not to infer anything.  I know, going into every single session, that it could be a precognitive target in one or more of several different ways, it could be an applications target, a historical one, a picture target, an outbound target, a physical location with pictures and literature as feedback, or it could be something very esoteric thrown in for fun.  I keep my mind open and don't worry about it.  The blinding method we use prevents my tasker from even knowing which target I am working at any particular time.  They are pulled randomly from a pool of already -sealed envelopes containing 30-50 or so targets.

The only person I would NOT discuss target possibilities with is my tasker - if he or she doesn't understand that now that target is not a good one - at least for awhile.

Keep asking questions.  There are *no* dumb questions, remember that.  I wish to God I would have had more people to ask questions of when I began RVing.  Just take every answer with a large grain of salt, no matter who it comes from.  In RV, most of what is passed off as knowledge is really just opinion.  The only answers you can fully trust, ones that will almost always apply to you as an RVer, are those arising from scientific studies of RV and what you learn from your own experience.  But don't ever stop questioning.  :-)

BTW, I'd bet there ARE RVers within the defense establishment who are targeting Hussein.  But one of the most difficult things to RV successfully is a moving target.  Plus, if there's a great deal of similarity between his safe houses, that adds another degree of difficulty.  Probably the best thing to do in this situation is precog RV, trying to perceive where Hussein will be at some point in the future.  That's one possible approach, anyway.  
Best Regards,
Don    

wizopeva, somewhere around August 23, 2003

I can't see any possible reason why talking targets is a prob here on TKR.  We haven't even starting actually DOING targets yet, so it's hard to frontload something that isn't there, LOL!  And even if we did, people watch the news and guess anyway, so talking of Bin Laden isn't going to frontload them anymore than would life in general.  Besides, I believe HRVG said they don't like to do current events so I can't see how discussing stuff you don't do could be such a big prob.  As for the class blurting target info problem, it seems to me a most simple solution is for the class to do the target immediately and before any chitchat is allowed to occur.  THis would prevent or at least greatly lesson any accidental tagging.  

BTW pdPJ, I think I speak for many of us when I say we've greatly enjoyed the quality of your posts here and I do agree that they go plenty far enough to  demonstrate who you are as a person.
 
-E

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 23, 2003

Thank you Eva .... I appreciate your comments.

I immedately noticed the quality of this board~  and in fact, my very first posting was about this.  I knew it was of the calibur where I could continue to learn and stretch...just what I was looking for.

I am happy to belong to such an endeavor and look forward to all that is yet to be.  ;-)

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 23, 2003

Hi Don

    In this situation, it is thinking such as yours that benefits all.

    I agree, that since it's not likely that we will be called upon by any intelligence agency to 'work for them' that looking at and discussing the kinds of methods etc used on these two current events is a great learning tool for us all.

    This is why I was surprised by and needed to better understand Dicks statement....and so I asked.

    I was going to comment on just what you pointed out about in order for this thinking to be carried through, it would require that RVers livie in a bubble .

    You said much of what I was going to say, so there is no need for me to cover it again... I needed to 'take care of business' before I got into more of the discussing.

    I will only say that it looks like you and I will never be presented to the Queen   ;-)

   

Fire, somewhere around August 23, 2003

Hi Don,

[quote]So, not expecting the government to call me on the telephone asking me to locate [him] any time soon, I feel pretty free to discuss the ins and outs of ways to target him. [/quote]
The day the government calls me on the phone about finding a terrorist is the day I get seriously worried for my health and welfare.  ??? LOL.

[quote]I know, going into every single session, that it could be a precognitive target in one or more of several different ways, it could be an applications target, a historical one, a picture target, an outbound target, a physical location with pictures and literature as feedback, or it could be something very esoteric thrown in for fun.  I keep my mind open and don't worry about it. The blinding method we use prevents my tasker from even knowing which target I am working at any particular time.  They are pulled randomly from a pool of already -sealed envelopes containing 30-50 or so targets.[/quote]
Seems to me that is the only way to have a tasker inhouse yet still work double blind, and that whole paragraph is worth quoting.

[quote]I wish to God I would have had more people to ask questions of when I began RVing.[/quote]
Yeah me too.  Lyn really worked OT with me for six months before I even got to training, lol.  Bet he wished he'd had a whole internet to pawn me off on.  ;) He did manage to partly pawn me off on several other intell viewers, who had a bit of mercy on me.

[quote]Just take every answer with a large grain of salt, no matter who it comes from.  In RV, most of what is passed off as knowledge is really just opinion.  The only answers you can fully trust, ones that will almost always apply to you as an RVer, are those arising from scientific studies of RV and what you learn from your own experience.[/quote]
Good response.  

In reality I find that the questions you ask when you begin, though worthy, you eventually find if you'd known something more fundamental, wouldn't even have come up (or could have been figured out).  

And the answers one gets, no matter how great they sound, really don't mean much except on the surface of your brain until you experience something and understand it for yourself.  At which point you don't need anyone else's answer! ::)--but at least you finally understand why they said what they did.

[quote]Probably the best thing to do in this situation is precog RV, trying to perceive where [he] will be at some point in the future.[/quote]
Yeah, though the real need is to have intell on the ground.

pdPJ,

One thing I wanted to mention about a target like this, is that it amounts to a curiosity for most viewers.

Remote Viewing doesn't work well in a vacuum, there needs to be support, not only in the process but in the use of the information and some back&forth that enables retasking and details etc.  

Otherwise, it is just someone sitting there 'tuning in', and they never really know, they just suspect based on their own experience.  And that's what this kind of target amounts to, unless you're employed by the NSA I guess. ;-)

As a last note, some viewers are pretty sensitive when newbies or the public ask about targets like this.  There are several reasons.  

One is, there are 1.2 billion interesting things about RV, but most people just wanna know where OBL or SH is. That gets a little exasperating after awhile.

The second is, a lot of people want to hold up this kind of target like, "If RV was real, you'd have found OBL."  Well that's just silly, because no viewer has the on-ground intell support to make that happen.  Even if a viewer DID have the info there'd be few if anybody to give it to who would use it, and even if they caught him, they'd never publicly admit psi was the source!  So it's a totally unfair challenge.  

A lot of viewers hear so much of this kind of thing, that eventually they just kind of knee jerk when someone asks about it.

PJ

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 23, 2003

[quote]The second is, a lot of people want to hold up this kind of target like, "If RV was real, you'd have found OBL."  Well that's just silly, because no viewer has the on-ground intell support to make that happen.  Even if a viewer DID have the info there'd be few if anybody to give it to who would use it, and even if they caught him, they'd never publicly admit psi was the source!  So it's a totally unfair challenge.[/quote]

THIS I can totally relate to  ;-)  the Queen, however, was a bit of a stretch for me  :P

Tunde, somewhere around August 24, 2003

<<I know, going into every single session, that it could be a precognitive target in one or more of several different ways, it could be an applications target, a historical one, a picture target, an outbound target, a physical location with pictures and literature as feedback, or it could be something very esoteric thrown in for fun.  I keep my mind open and don't worry about it. The blinding method we use prevents my tasker from even knowing which target I am working at any particular time.  They are pulled randomly from a pool of already -sealed envelopes containing 30-50 or so targets. >>


Hi Don,

My mentor suggests (and its just his opinion by the way) that a target pool of less than 700 could cause
problems or be taken as a minor form of front loading.
in some way. Personaly i dont agree with that
especially with sealed envelopes and a mixture
of targets set up over a long period of time.

My mentor hasnt used  a pool format before
so i advised him to try it out for himself to see
the effects. at the moment my pool is about 70 +
and constantly being updated plus ive got targets
from others as well which i throw in occasionaly.
All envelopes are the same color and routinely
shuffled when needed.

whats funny is i often scratch my head when
i look at the feedback and think ..when the heck
did i put that in my pool??  ;-)

one such target was the teletubbies  ???
man, that was one screwed up session !

Iam lot older and wiser with setting up
targets these days and learning how to be precise
in getting as much info as possible.

so as long as you dont have  any idea what
your envelope contains (and neither does the tasker/monitor) then i dont see any problems.
does everyone agree with this ?

Peace,
Tunde

admin, somewhere around August 24, 2003

Well first, it depends on how the pool was created.  If someone else created the pool, it could be really tiny, it's still double blind, no worried.  If the viewer created the pool, or contributes to it, the needed size to get it all out of your brain increases of course.

I've worked from pools of 50, 150, 700 and 1000.  All of these were self-made pools. My experience with 50 was pitiful.  Total AOL.  The 150 was doable but a problem.  I still had serious AOL and in fact, as a sort of humor of some kind, I would AOL on just about every target in the pool that had that kind of thing in it EXCEPT the actual target which did, lol!

700 was probably overly large for being able to slip things in to accomplish in any reasonable amount of time.  But, it did basically kill the AOL issue.

I think it just depends on how the viewer deals with AOL--assuming we are talking about self-made pools here.  Like I said, if someone else makes the pool, most the time it doesn't matter if it's 1 or 10 or 50, as it's still doubleblind--only in the case of say, current events needing to be able to be 'slipped in' so the viewer won't be expecting them, does the needed number grow.  (Even then, you can task an aspect of a current event without tasking the whole thing as a gestalt.)

Some people are better at dealing with AOL than others.

In my larger pools, the only AOL issues I had were anti-AOL.  In other words, if I had an impression of a certain kind of target, and I knew for a fact there was nothing like that in the pool, then it would cause some AOL-of-AOL issues where I would tend to repress or deny data because I knew it was inaccurate, when in reality that data should be recorded because it may have other values or may lead to other data.

PJ

Don_Williams, somewhere around August 24, 2003

Hi Tunde,
I think your mentor is right about needing 700 targets in a practice pool.  But only if the viewer creates the pool.  If someone else creates the pool, it could be a very small number.  I like for my tasker to keep the number over 30 at the least.  That way, the tasker can't possibly remember all the targets that are in the pool.

Like PJ said, if the target comes from an outside source, the pool is kind of irrelevant.  The problem here is keeping the tasker blind to the target as well.  For example, let's say someone wants you to locate their missing dog.  If they present the problem to your tasker, your tasker then writes a target cue (maybe a statement like "describe the immediate environment where Fluffy is located") on an index card and seals it in an envelope.  Then the tasker assigns a number to the target.

 

Don_Williams, somewhere around August 24, 2003

Sorry, I was typing so fast (with 2 fingers, lol), I must have hit the "enter" button. (At least it didn't look like I threatened to RI anyone this time, lol)  Okay, to continue....

Your tasker has assigned a number to the target.  Now, what happens when your tasker looks you in the eye and says, "Tunde, I have a target for you, number 234"?
How much information that the tasker knows (that the target is a dog, what the client already suspects happened to the dog, the emotions involved in the effort, etc.) - how much of that has been subconsciously passed to you as the Rver through tone of voice, body language, etc.?  It could be a lot.

So, one way around this is to have the tasker give the sealed envelope to a third person who then gives it to you, the RVer.  Now we have a double blind situation, since that third person, the only one who came in contact with you, the RVer, doesn't know anything about the target.  Is it possible that the tasker subconsciously gave information about the target to the third person, who in turn gave it to you, the RVer?  Sometimes I think it is.

So, there's an even better way - a way in which no one ever knows which target you are working at any given time.  Keep a practice pool, set up by your tasker, of at least 30 targets, all sealed up and ready to be RVed.  Your tasker should throw in a few new targets every couple days.    


Every week, at the beginning of the week, your tasker should pull out however many targets you usually do in one week.  Let's say I average 2 per day, so my tasker randomly selects 14 targets.  These 14 targets are the pool for that week.  

This way, when a client wants an applications target done soon, your tasker can mix it into your weekly practice pool.  This way, you know it will get done within one week and you are still working double blind.  Even your tasker doesn't know when you are doing the applications target.  This is how I work 90% of the time.

Once in awhile I'll do a target that the tasker knows, if we've let the practice pool get used up or it's something personal the tasker wants to know about or something.  But I prefer not to do it that way - it's single blind and I can literally *feel* myself reflexively reaching out to get information from the tasker as they give me the target.  I've also made up some targets myself and thrown them into the pool.  But I hardly ever do that anymore.  I have tremendous problems with overlay when I do.  I just can't get that target out of my head every time I settle down to do a session, lol.  Maybe if I had a very large pool, like your mentor suggested, I might be able to do it.  Anyway, that's how we work.
Don        

Tigr50, somewhere around August 24, 2003

I am a newbie to this group (but not to RV), and I'm floored at the bickering over chasing a real target for real reasons--flat out chase, no masking or other blither.  Or using "that which is not" to find "that which is." What a waste of energy.   RVers all over the world should be after Saddam and OBL--giving it their best effort. A psychic array of RVers would be a powerful thing.   Saddam and OBL are not action figures to play with  or characters in a video game, they are criminals that are meant to be caught.  They have destroyed the lives of thousands, and they are "fair game."   Show me something more useful to humanity than to help catch a perp or prevent a disaster?  I applaud those that stick their necks out and chase the bad guys--even if they are wrong once in a while.  Real targets are the real test. IMO   (and no smiley faces here.  This ain't no smiley subject).

jimk, somewhere around August 24, 2003

>Or using "that which is not" to find "that which is." What a waste of energy.


We all have different motivations when it comes to RV.  

I am personally trying to learn as much as possible about what is known, and then apply the more theoretical sides of RV to try and make it better.  Where would we be today if scientists all over the world gave up on all research that seemed 'too complicated' or 'a waste of time'.  We wouldn't be getting anywhere.

I also think they got about every active RVer in the system working terrorism targets right now to the point  they wake up tasting C4 in their mouth every morning.

I'd personally leave finding UBL to the professionals and not dabble with that myself.  Who'd believe me anyway?

Jim K.

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 24, 2003

[quote]I'd personally leave finding UBL to the professionals and not dabble with that myself.  Who'd believe me anyway? [/quote]

    Sure, the pros have the resources available to them and people who will listen and react.  However, I believe that its possible for anyone of us to tap into the same information field...pros or not.

    ....and true....anyone of us could hit it dead on...and then what???  who to tell ??  

    As far as who would believe us....this isn't a point that matters to me.  What matters is that I believe it.

    It's one thing doing targets in an envelope, but these guys have huge amounts of energy circulating--they & theirs are generating such powerful energy. It's almost impossible NOT to be able to tap into it.  How many of the worlds population is focusing in your your target envelope compared to tracking these guys??  

The point I'm trying to make is, that I think thiese are excellent targets to work on...front loaded or not.  It is still about gathering information. It is still working with psi and perhaps good training on being aware of how our egos or rational thinking gets involved and then learning how to combat it.

    Due to the nature of their said constant movement, you are apt to get different data everytime you do a session. Yes, agreed, hard due to no instant feedback, but interesting enough as a project to track the info, journal it and eventually, when 'this business' has concluded, compare it to the information that becomes known.  I was daft enough to post a prediction in the predictions section  ::)  But hey, I don't mind if I'm wrong. I feel good about even giving it a go.

    The intent is so strong, almost automatically built in, for these 2 targets (for most people) that it in itself will fuel the data engines. (group energy at its best? )

    Anyway, I think it's interesting to do and I have yet to attempt something that has not taught me 'something'.

    It may not be true RV protocol, but it is psi nonetheless. I think doing any psi activity helps to keep all psi wheels turning and honed. which in the end, it good for RVing.  

   Most of life is front loaded ...and I feel true psychic skill is the ability to be accurate no matter the situation...or in spite of the situation may be a better way of saying it.

jimk, somewhere around August 24, 2003

I have to ask this question, because I cannot work frontloaded targets.  I don't think I have ever worked a serious front-loaded target.  Heck, I don't even want to know if it is an operational target or a practise target.  I just don't think I have my mind enough under control to do that.  All I want to know is XXXX-XXXX that's it.

How do you folks wrestle with preconceived notions in a front-loaded target?

Jim K.

admin, somewhere around August 24, 2003

I think there is some dichotomy between the need to keep RV 'clean' as a process, the need to theorize and understand what may be the many complexities of consciousness (even though we might be inventing it all as we go along), and the need to be able to reach out and touch that which interests us.

I have two different worlds when it comes to psi.  

One is RV.  I don't do it often enough.  It has a formal protocol I will not agree to break for anything (though I sometimes muck it up by accident).  -)ouble blind and feedback are critical.  I have some ego performance awareness tied into this which is more harm than help.

The other is psi.  This is pretty regular but informal.  This doesn't have rules, or any performance anxiety tied into it. This is, 'tune in and see what you get'.  For me this is usually about people and events and situations, usually without immediate feedback (though it often comes indirectly later).  For me this is often tied into meditations of healing, archetypes, and other things like that.

In the process of doing so, of course, gradually one's own mental processes begin to develop in a way that I suppose one could document as a 'method', but in reality it is spontaneous, and slightly different every time, in degree or sequence as well as detail.

The FBI, CIA, and other orgs get a bazillion contacts a week from people who are certain they psychically know the answer to {check one modern political question}.  Of course, little if any of the data matches.  

There is nobody to take the data of viewers and do anything with it.  We can send it, they will ignore it and archive it with about a million other unsolicited sends.

Wanting to be the psychic that finds Bin Laden is like wanting to be the engineer that works on the space station in the flying chair.  Unless we had the support of NASA reserving our space on the next shuttle as an astronaut-engineer, that is just not something we can usefully contribute to, as much as we might want to.  

It isn't that there aren't people qualified to help, it's that official support is required for 'access' -- there has to be intell on the ground taking the psi info (and usually, a feedback loop, retasking is likely necessary for any target in motion), or it goes into a void no different than a deleted computer file or trashed fax.  To the agencies we are each just one of millions of people inflicting unasked for information on them and they would need years and about a million new employees just to process it all.

As far as personal interest goes, I think any viewer is going to want to do things they feel are important or especially interesting.  Often those are current events and they don't have feedback and there is nothing to do with any info you might obtain.  Technically it isn't RV if it's done non-blind (or even single-blind with frontloaded monitor), but so what--psi itself is innate and everywhere, and much of what drives viewers is their insatiable curiosity.

I think finding a balanced mix of clean protocol for RV and an open-range (freedom) for psi, in or out of an RV model, is important.  It is possible for a viewer to have both worlds.  To feed their intrigue on one hand, and to discipline their development on the other.

PJ

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 24, 2003

    I may ramble a bit here while trying to explain this the best I can...but here I go ~

    Whenever I attempt any serious psi work, it is imperative that I shut down my ego.  I am fairly good at doing this.  The key for me is to empty my mind -- I simply just let everything go. I have found that to think or not to think is a choice!   I mentioned elsewhere on this forum about this white dot I have.  I keep my mind empty, except for repeating the intent like a mantra, while locating this dot...by the time I see the dot, I am in a different frame of mind.

    I am sure I am self hypnotising myself.  As soon as I become aware that I am thinking again, I stop and go back to what I call 'my level' and then continue on.  

    Now, to answer your question ~ prior to what I've described above, I am a thinking & reacting person having opinions, my beliefs and ideas...but I am not so strongly attached to what I think that I can't put it aside.

I am open minded enough to accept that while I think I know something ,that in fact, I may only know a fraction of the whole ...so I am always open to looking at all the  angles and facets until I either further strenghten my original thought or learn enough to alter it :)

    Anyway, I find it impossible to have personal opinions, thoughts while in this frame of mind ~~ I'm in a place where I simply 'am' and I become the observer, not the orchestrator.

    I had my white dot thing before taking the Silva courses, but Silva taught me how to go to level almost at the snap of my fingers. Because I can so quickly go 'to my frame of mind' I no longer go through a long process of cooling down, or any of those guided meditations. (...and they drove me crazy....too impatient!   ::) )

    I am fortunate in that I can almost always control my going to level no matter what is going on around me. From what I hear others saying, it's unusual for a person to be able to do this as I do it.  I dunno

    I don't know if I helped or not.  If I haven't made something clear, let me know and I'll give it another go   :)

admin, somewhere around August 24, 2003

Hi Jim,

[quote]How do you folks wrestle with preconceived notions in a front-loaded target?[/quote]
I've had such abysmal experience with frontloading that I just won't do it.  It just screws with my head.  I can sometimes get accurate data not contained in the FL but the session is a neurotic disaster, as my head just has too much left brain BS going on as a result of knowing anything at all.  

I think different people may have different degrees of affect.  Really the only way to tell how much FL affects a viewer is to do some careful self-studies of accuracy both in FL and non-FL situations.  And even then, it might vary by target or by type of data.  

I know people who can get accurate unknown info when totally aware of the target's nature.  Such as, hearing something on the radio and right then, tuning in to pick up the details.  That isn't technically RV (it's out of protocol) but it very well can be psi, and psi operates in any situation, frontloaded or not.  

Avoiding FL isn't because psi can't get real info of course, it's because the psychic tends to have a great deal more personal interference in the data in that case.

It's worth considering that over time, remote viewing has had some gradual developments in the process, I don't mean method here, or even the larger protocol, but the processes in general that surround a session.  There is a careful margin of frontloading which can help and more than that tiny amount will usually harm.  This is a lesson learned in research and ops and worth taking advantage of.  

But it might be that every person needs to do some experimenting to see for themselves, what works for them and what doesn't.  Some people do better with FL solely because their belief systems, fear, ego, or whatever gets in the way of "real RV", but like I mentioned above about myself, just sitting down and "tuning in for the hell of it" has a lot less blocks for them psychologically.

PJ

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 24, 2003

PJ.... I'm going to give an example and I'd like you to dissect it according to natural psi vs remote viewing.

    I have done lot's of 'reading' on the internet.  I don't know these people. Before I begin, I give them my list of how I do my readings. Such as, you may ask 3 questions. I don't do past lives or alien readings. Your questions are to be put simply with a little information as possible. The more you tell me, the less accurate my reading will be. During the reading, you may only comment with a yes, no, don't know or close.

    Ok...so all I know is their screen name..no ages, gender etc.  So according to RV...this would be front loaded right?

    Being able to do these readings on command make it not spontaneous, but controlled right?

    I follow a 'process' that enables me to get the information I need.  These would be protocols?

    I will certainly get visuals both literal and symbolic, mostly impressions or sensings...same as RV right? I will also 'hear' 'smell' etc.

    So how does this measure up to remote viewing??
I still have to go through a process, and while not on paper, the interpretation of the data is the same...
however, where I see it as being different is that when doing these readings, I am able to conclude, to make accurate determinations, whereas in RVing I can't.

So what kind of a stew is all this???

Gene_Smith, somewhere around August 24, 2003

Hi Jim,

I think it's a process and is something that can be learned/trained.  In reading some of the stargate history, I just have to assume that after some of these very talented people were on their 6th straight session having to do with the Iranian hostage thing were frontloaded to some extent though not purposely.  I've also read where Joe McMoneagle says he will do several sessions prior to do the "real" one in front of the camera for Japanese television.  Again with his talent I just have to believe those later sessions are frontloaded to some degree.

There is also the matter of what PJ called negative frontloading, or something like that.  One hypothetical example of this might be if one were working a training target for HRVG you could be pretty sure this had nothing to do with a recent headline or some such thing a Sadam's or OBL's current location.

It is my training and experience that it can be done, but it IS very hard and is not something that is even attempted in the first year or two.  Training would begin with something where the cue may be known but not the answer.  A quick and not too well thought out example off the top of my head might be something like "stolen car/current location" or "lost keys/current location" where this was NOT your car or your keys as a first step.  It is NEVER in my experience used in a training situation to help someone produce better data, and there would be some unknown data, else why do the session to begin with.

In my experience with this speed becomes of paramount importance so you just have no time to go into imagination/aol overdrive.  You are just racing as fast as you can.  In my experience you do reach a point later in your session where the "buzz" sorta sets in and you know you can slow down to a more normal pace.  But even so the data collected, again in my experience, is less reliable and must be taken with a larger grain of salt.  So lets say you normally get x% of data correct I would just expect to drop a third off that normal % total.  But I believe from the personal experience of my own sessions and seeing that of others that it is just another skill set within RV that can be developed with practice and perserverence.

Again in my experience you reach a point where the latest headline or what someone said in a B/B etc just doesn't come into play.  If it does you have a tool to work with.  Just speed up, go into frontload mode and continue with your session as normal.

Best regards,
Gene Smith

 

admin, somewhere around August 24, 2003

Hi pdPJ,

[quote]Ok...so all I know is their screen name..no ages, gender etc.  So according to RV...this would be front loaded right?[/quote]
Absolutely.  In RV, you would not even want to know the target was a person most of the time.  You want a number or just 'describe the target' as direction.  The tasking (the psychic intent for the session) would be one of the questions you referred to.

If the viewer returned a session with data sufficient to indicate they were on target, or just data that might be, but it's not certain what it is or what it means, then they might be retasked for another session on that target prior to feedback. They wouldn't be told which part if any of their data was accurate, they would simply be retasked with something like, "Tell me more about the "XYZ" data" (this would be data from the session).

Sometimes frontloading of a monitor is done in this kind of situation, e.g., "If the viewer should describe a human, see if you can flesh out a description of clothing."  This is not doubleblind--the monitor in this case knows the nature of the target--but only what they need to know to take the role of interviewer for that target and get the data required.

Some taskers prefer retasking, others prefer slightly frontloaded monitors, it just depends.  Most will choose the first as it's closer to protocol, but there are groups that generally don't work doubleblind most the time anyway, and they'll usually choose the FLM.

In remote viewing, the first law of protocol is that the viewer is blind to the target and has no contact with ANY person who knows ANYthing about the target, until the session is over.  (Obviously the partially frontloaded monitor is an intrusion in this protocol but in operations it's sometimes necessary.)  

The fact that it's a human target is enough knowledge, but the fact that you are "talking to the target" puts it even farther out of protocol.  -)oesn't mean you can't be psi, just means it wouldn't be classified as RV.

[quote]Being able to do these readings on command make it not spontaneous, but controlled right?[/quote]
The word 'controlled' in psi functioning has several different applications.  Generally yes, if you're doing formal sessions it is not exactly spontaneous, but it might be partly spontaneous; in RV it's expected that you might have sessions set up for certain times over the next week and be expected to perform.

If you do sessions on the internet when you have time and feel like it and have the inspiration to do so when talking with an individual, that is not really planned in advance, and there may be several arbitrary issues feeding into when you decide to do the session.  That does not invalidate it, and many RV sessions are in the same semi-spontaneous framework.

[quote]I follow a 'process' that enables me to get the information I need.  These would be protocols?[/quote]
The word protocol refers to a rule, basically.  You can group the 'rules' of anything in different ways.  

A formal "Remote Viewing Protocol" is a science setup, modified slightly for ops, a singular term referring to a "set" of rules which make it acceptably scientific (mostly by setting parameters that prevent info transfer by accident or design, and hence info acquired which is accurate beyond chance is fairly called psi).  

The various issues relating to 'how it's all gone about' in terms of target selection, tasking, interviewing, judging, etc., all those are also part of "the protocol", but the details of those may vary much more widely than the primary basic rules of 'an acceptable protocol'.

There are rules--protocols--that pertain to the methodology you use.  If they are set down formally and followed linearly by-the-book, any such rules can be called protocols.  If they are a somewhat arbitrary and customized on the spot process, and they are used loosely or intuitively, and they are not formalized, I would not consider that 'protocols', just 'a general process'.  

It is not real relevant in my view, though.  I care about the formal remote viewing protocol but as far as I'm concerned, the detail of methodology is an individual preference.

[quote]I will certainly get visuals both literal and symbolic, mostly impressions or sensings...same as RV right? I will also 'hear' 'smell' etc.[/quote]
Psi is psi.  Some methods of psi functioning tend to get data more in one sense than another, either because they focus on it (like a visual exercise) or because they're just more prone to it (ERV or latter-stage CRV are usually more prone to vivid visuals, probably because they're done in more theta, but brainwave states always mix and some people can be in darn near delta and still carry on a conversation (barely), so again it really depends on the viewer).

Remote viewing is mostly 'sensing' and comes through all senses, detail  depending on the viewer, as well as in abstract mental forms.  Some people are more visual than others.  Some are visual but the visuals are symbolic whereas the other sense data is more literal. The nature of the target may affect how the data comes through as well.

[quote]So how does this measure up to remote viewing??[/quote]
I don't see RV in a 'competition' framework, as I feel all forms of psychic functioning have value.  But what you describe is a casual psychic reading--not remote viewing.

[quote]I still have to go through a process, and while not on paper, the interpretation of the data is the same...[/quote]
That probably can't be said, since putting information on paper, especially in a structured format, allows analytical and interpretive review by third parties, which is one of the major strengths of RV as an overall group product.  (RV as an entire field has a reputation based not just on the viewers or viewing, but on the overall multi-person team process and its end result.)

What is in your head and how you process it there is about the methodology of remote viewing, in this case, the 'internal' methodology.

[quote]where I see it as being different is that when doing these readings, I am able to conclude, to make accurate determinations, whereas in RVing I can't.[/quote]
This might be partly the type of target; you may just be much more comfortable without RV-type restrictions and very good with human detail.  But, your accuracy is being judged by an arbitrary standard, that of feedback by an individual about themselves.  There is a significant difference between telling a person you sense X about them and them saying "yes," vs. having a number only, and describing a multi story structure on fire when that is what the target is, or describing a large confined sea creature when the target is that, etc.

While you are talking about psychic functioning--and remote viewing at its heart IS psi functioning--pretty much every step of your process is different than what would be considered part of an RV model.  

Your target choice is different--you are choosing, and it is people in this case, vs. anything on planet earth or off it and you have no idea what.

Your tasking is different--you communicate with the target and task yourself on the spot, vs. an outside party setting up tasking blind with a number, or oneself doing so but in a large pool so the viewer's clueless.

Your process is the part that is most similar -- while is highly different from structured psi methods designed to be used in a remote viewing protocol (such as CRV, TRV, HRVG's, TDS's, etc.), that is mostly detail; at root we are all humans 'tuning in' to the target, that part we can't really separate between different kinds of psi processes.

Your communication is different, this goes back to differences in methodology.

Your overall protocol is radically different--you have neither hard feedback about an objective target nor double-blind tasking with only a number to begin.

The interpretation/analysis factor is very different--viewers are taught to avoid much of this unless it comes in the context of the data, and any interpretive or blind analysis done on an RV session is done by someone other than the viewer.  

(Viewers are notoriously wrong about most assumptions made about targets. It isn't their job to interpret or analyze--someone else does that.  It's just their job to tune in and describe everything they perceive; often in a specific framework of communication, which may include a linear process of aiming for different kinds of data in a certain sequence. Someone else will figure out what the heck it is.  Sometimes what it is comes through AS data, but usually it doesn't.)

[quote]So what kind of a stew is all this???[/quote]
It's a psychic reading.  It isn't remote viewing.  But so what? That doesn't mean it can't be accurate.  

It's been my experience that psychics I have known are greatly dependent on people for their information.  They are often impressive when a person near them knows the target or a person IS the target, but put them in a double blind, anything-in-the-universe protocol and they are literally drowning.  They also tend to stick to targets which are frontloaded or even non-blind, and feedback which is either arbitrary or generalized/diffused.  It sounds like you're right on track LOL.

Viewers have an attitude about this sometimes (e.g., something like, psychics aren't "playing with the big boys" or something like that, as if RV is "harder"--and it might be), but in my view, pretty much all exercises in psychic functioning that are sincere have some value, to the psychic or viewer as an experience, if nobody else for no other reason.

Many of the issues psychics have when switching into studying RV out of interest, beyond the issues that relate to methodologies, are just belief systems.  Subconsciously, they have no trouble believing that they can tune into a person, but they might have severe trouble believing that given nothing more than a number they can describe a target that could be anything in the universe.

Everybody has this belief system in place until they do enough RV to begin wearing it down.  Psychics often have less tenacity in hanging on in RV because they are used to feeling they do well and are competent, and they get into RV and feel totally lost in the water and incomptent, and usually decide they don't like it and go back to whatever they were doing.  They, like everybody else, would work through the details, with diligent, in-protocol practice over time.

Hope that helped.

PJ

Don_Williams, somewhere around August 24, 2003

pdpj,
Hi.  I know you asked PJ to dissect your post but I saw one thing that I felt I should respond to right away.  

You asked if your process of gathering information was the "protocol".  It's not.  That's your 'method".

The word "Protocol" refers to the rules in RV that keep the Rver blind to the target.  A good protocol, as an example, is when the target is randomly selected from a pool of pre-made targets.  The targets are already set up and sealed in envelopes by the tasker.  When one is pulled at random from the pool, no one knows which target the RVer is working until after the session is done.  After the session, the envelope is opened and the RVer gets feedback, gets to see how well or how poorly s/he has done.  That's one example of a double blind protocol.

Another example is this:  let' say a woman named Mrs. Smith wants to know where her lost ring is located.  She explains to the tasker what she wants to know.  The tasker then writes out a target cue on a piece of paper, "describe the location of Mrs. Smiths' lost ring" and seals this in an envelope.  

Since the tasker knows what the target is, s/he shouldn't have any contact with the Rver until after the session - thus avoiding inadvertant communication through body language, voice tone, etc.  So the tasker gives the sealed envelope a random number (it doesn't matter what the actual number is, it's only used to reference the target) to a third person who then gives the number to the remote viewer.  This way, the remote viewer is still working double blind - no contact with anmyone who knows what the target is.  

Double blind means that no one who knows what the target is can come in contact with the remote viewer in any way until the session is completed.

The examples I gave are 2 ways to make sure the RVer is working double blind.  2 examples of a double blind "protocol".

Other words or phrases that mean the same thing as "protocol" could be stuff like "controls", or "blinding rules", etc.

How you actually go about getting the information, your process, is your own "method".  While the protocols should never be changed to allow the viewer to work in a non-double blind situation (at least not if you still want to call it "remote viewing"), the actual method you use within the framework of the blinding protocols doesn't really matter.  You could use any method as long as you are blind to the target.

I suppose any other rules that DON'T make you totally blind to the target could still be described as protocols, they just wouldn't a be double blind one.  And then you wouldn't be doing RV, you would be demonstrating psi in some form - at least hopefully.  Without the double blind, it's hard to be absolutely sure that psi is really what's going on.  If there are any possibilities of information leaking to the psychic in some way, it's hard to be sure that psi has really been demonstrated.  

I hope that makes sense.  Forgive me for butting in.  I just thought I'd explain that part.
Don  

admin, somewhere around August 24, 2003

You're not butting in, that is the point of a discussion board, is for everybody to discuss. ;-)  We must have been typing at the same time. PJ

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 24, 2003

AH HA!  [quote]since putting information on paper, especially in a structured format, allows analytical and interpretive review by third parties, which is one of the major strengths of RV as an overall group product.  (RV as an entire field has a reputation based not just on the viewers or viewing, but on the overall multi-person team process and its end result.)
[/quote]

Didn't know this about 3rd parties.

Yes, you did a great job PJ...thanks so much.

Fortunately, I learned all of this at about the same time, so I get many over lappings when doing either or...but your explanations really cleared some things up for me.

    As I explained long ago, I was 'taught' about RVing, but I don't know how competent he was.   According to him, I did better than I could yet understand...(  :o ) and all the sessions I did, along with about 10 others, we always scored high, but as I said, I don't have anyone to compare him with.

    I'm looking forward to doing the targets here.  I will feel as if I am being exposed to 'the real McCoy' and can then better assess what I need to be doing and what to stop doing.

     Thanks for taking the time to go through all that for me.  I knew it was psi...or a psychic reading, but I just wanted your opinion/comparison to show me per someone who knows the CRV 'rules'  ;)

    I will say, the two methods vary greatly as far as proceedure, but in the psychic process, there are many similarities.  I've also done 'readings' where we were only given a name and had to identity certain catagories of main concerns for this person.  This is as blind as that exercise could be, but no less amazing that you (anyone) could get accurate information...it is just beyond the odds.

    I've heard before what you mentioned about psychics not being able to RV and/or they throw in the towel too soon because the learning curve is so great for them.  

    I don't know 'what' I am except that I can do both  ;-)

(If I were a canine, I would be called a mutt  :P )

Thanks PJ

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 24, 2003

Thanks Don...between both postings, I have been given the 'advanced crash course'  ;-)

.....about the butting in,.....you didn't at all.  PJ happened to kind of introduce some psi in a posting or 2 prior to mine that made me think to ask the question.

   I saw that she was still online, so I tried to hurry and grab her  ;-)

    Of course, this is open to all.  I hope others have comments to make or questions to ask.  It's by tossing these 'examples' of things out in the open that we get to examine all the facets....      builds a bigger picture

Both of your postings had much value in them for me...thanks!

admin, somewhere around August 24, 2003

I think Gene had two very good points earlier btw -- that frontloading is often inescapable with multiple sessions or repeat targets, and that "speed" in session can often breeze past a lot of mental issues that can screw you up.  

Not like I've tried a whole lot, but I don't recall ever really being able to deliberately invoke speed past about mid-stage 4 in a session.  It comes naturally when data comes esp. right around S4 (CRV/SRV/TRV).

I can sometimes invoke it in early stages, kind of like taking a multiple choice scantron test and just instantly allowing your 'first impression' for each question's answer to be the one you record and move on ;-)  -- though the choices aren't limited.  

But around S4 and beyond, if the data is not coming quickly to me, I've never really been able to 'go real fast' at that point.   And alas that's often the most useful data as it tends to have more context and complexity than early stage data.

On the other hand--sort of a bright side--usually by that point one has better target contact than early on in the session, so data may feel a lot less vague, which can certainly help deal with AOL-related issues (which frontloading is).

Jim, I don't know what hrvg methods are like in this regard, as I know so little about them.  My impression has been that S5 is more ERVish and hence may slow down a bit (though deepen), is that so?

PJ

wizopeva, somewhere around August 25, 2003

[quote]Sorry, I was typing so fast (with 2 fingers, lol), I must have hit the "enter" button. (At least it didn't look like I threatened to RI anyone this time, lol)  Okay, to continue....

[/quote]


Hi Don, you must have an unusual set up on your machine.  On mine, I have to use the mouse to click the 'post' button in order for a message to post.  Since when I'm typing I don't have the mouse in my hand, that makes me relatively safe.  Even if I did bump the mouse, the pointer is usually left near where I last used it and so still will not result in a post.  I have however on numerous occasions managed to pinch a couple of extra keys on the left that immediately resulted in my entire message getting abolished.  I'm sure you can imagine the intense irritation that causes, LOL!   >:(
-E

wizopeva, somewhere around August 25, 2003

Hi Don, that works most of the time, but target pools have probs if the target is one in which time is of the essence as in the case of missing Fluffy.  In such cases, the session needs to be run ASAP.  I know you know that and were just using it as an example, but I'm just mentioning this one issue for the sake of some who haven't been around the block as many times as you have.
-E





[quote]
Your tasker has assigned a number to the target.  Now, what happens when your tasker looks you in the eye and says, "Tunde, I have a target for you, number 234"?
How much information that the tasker knows (that the target is a dog, what the client already suspects happened to the dog, the emotions involved in the effort, etc.) - how much of that has been subconsciously passed to you as the Rver through tone of voice, body language, etc.?  It could be a lot.

So, one way around this is to have the tasker give the sealed envelope to a third person who then gives it to you, the RVer.  Now we have a double blind situation, since that third person, the only one who came in contact with you, the RVer, doesn't know anything about the target.  Is it possible that the tasker subconsciously gave information about the target to the third person, who in turn gave it to you, the RVer?  Sometimes I think it is.

So, there's an even better way - a way in which no one ever knows which target you are working at any given time.  Keep a practice pool, set up by your tasker, of at least 30 targets, all sealed up and ready to be RVed.  Your tasker should throw in a few new targets every couple days.    


[/quote]

admin, somewhere around August 25, 2003

LOL.  -)on regularly sends me emails with nothing in them at all.  And he sent me a tkr pem a week ago missing half a paragraph at the end.  (As a testament to MY lack of brain cells, I didn't even notice until he said something later.)  They guy's computer is cursed, that's all there is to it.  Either that or this is his brain on internet software.  

(My primary client is head of an internet company. He's been making webstuff since 1995.  It took me three years to teach the man how to clear his cache without him either forgetting or doing something else really weird instead.  I just don't get it!)

Still, Don, we know it's really just a great EXCUSE.  We know that really, you were standing on a mountaintop preparing to exercise your Cosmic Powers.

I have a lamp on my desk here.  I expect you to melt it down at 8:15pm Central tonight to prove yourself.  

If you fail, it might be because the lamp target is actually a mask, and the real target is your truck.  Haha! I am intending!  That'll teach you to be so evil on OUR board. If you have to scrape your steering wheel off the driveway tomorrow, you'll know it's all for real.

PJ

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 25, 2003

                  oooooooh boyyyyyyyyyy    ;-)

wizopeva, somewhere around August 25, 2003

I think the only way to get over it is practice it occasionally.  Maybe some will give you a clue.  Maybe it's right or maybe it's wrong.  Now you've got to battle that thought in the session.  

One favorite thing I like to do whenever I have a castle built in my head it so ask myself what my castle and the actual target have in common.  At that point, certain impressions will seem more significant to me and I will follow those.  Eventually, I often forget about the castle and move on to other things.  This system allows me to instead of trying to directly fight the castle, to flow through it, use it, and move on.  I consider frontloading to be a similar kind of prob but instead of the castle coming from my imagination, it is now coming from some outside clue PLUS my imagination.  Often, the imagination makes the wrong guess on the clue anyway, hehe.  

Now I am not saying that I advocate frontloading.  I don't like it much myself and prefer to be completely blind.  But sometimes things slip and I do think it's impt to be able to work in all kinds of environments and situations, especially if one is very very serious about learning rv and all it's aspects.

BTW, I would just like to make some subcomment that I have never seen any evidence that blindness is any better than frontloading when it comes to data gathering correctness.  After all, many famous psychics were able to operate under greatly frontloaded conditions.  Now of course, I can understand why logically it's quite possible that blindness would be better and I do understand that it's sort of integral to the definition of rv and it's also the way I am used to operating and the way I prefer.  BUT, I do like to always consider evidence vs assumption and in many ways, this issue is still in the category of 'assumption.'  WHen you think about it, just about all rv stuff is assumption, LOL!  Anyway, I think that is enough blasphemy for today, hehe.
-E

 


[quote]I have to ask this question, because I cannot work frontloaded targets.  I don't think I have ever worked a serious front-loaded target.  Heck, I don't even want to know if it is an operational target or a practise target.  I just don't think I have my mind enough under control to do that.  All I want to know is XXXX-XXXX that's it.

How do you folks wrestle with preconceived notions in a front-loaded target?

Jim K.[/quote]

admin, somewhere around August 25, 2003

LOL Eva.  I don't think it's blasphemy.  I know viewers who do well under frontloaded conditions.

But aside from making it cleaner/easier for the viewer (which is a big deal worth doing, unless the situation renders it impossible), the other reason for full blinding is somewhat for analysis.  

If the target is a few terrorists holed up in a small stone keep in the mountains in afghanistan, and the viewer describes things like that--things which we KNOW already--it at least demonstrates right off that the viewer is on target.  If the viewer already knows, or even suspects, that the target is terrorists hiding out (the frontloading), then all the data which could have been "confirmation data" (to help validate they were on-target), is useless.

PJ

River, somewhere around August 25, 2003

Hi everyone,

In my opinion frontloading is just the same as a target number if you stay in the right frame of mind while doing the session.

By that I mean you must stay in a state of mind where your thoughts don't come in. And that is what you do anyway while doing a double blind session, so being front loaded shouldn't effect the session.

Lets for example say someone frontloaded me by saying describe my house. 'I' have no idea what their house looks like and thinking about it won't help.

The only way to know the answer is to NOT think. Same as in doubleblind RV. The only way to know the answer is to NOT think.

In double blind, blind and frontloaded sessions it's thinking that will wreck havoc every time.

I had psychic developemnt classes that required me to come up with the answer while standing in front of the class (my worst nightmare) and while keeping my eyes open.

To start off with I was so terrified I cried every time, yet my teacher made me stand there until I got the answer she was looking for.

Believe me, there are harder ways of getting psi info. than double blind RV.   LOL

Liz

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 25, 2003

Hi Liz

[quote]In my opinion frontloading is just the same as a target number if you stay in the right frame of mind while doing the session.
 
By that I mean you must stay in a state of mind where your thoughts don't come in. And that is what you do anyway while doing a double blind session, so being front loaded shouldn't effect the session[/quote]

Somewhere, I think I've already agreed with this  lol...  I'm starting to forget what I've said where.... ::)

I was talking about having the mind empty and going to 'level' as I call it.  Anyway.... once in that frame of mind, I agree, you simply don't think.

From a scientific approach, in order to PROVE that the data wasn't known, is where the double blind comes in. I can see where frontloading would be a problem... not that the data would necessairly be wrong, but that it couldn't be proven that it wasn't known all along.

What science does with mathmatical odds and statistics is one thing (their thing) but in everday reality for most of us, we are happy to get the info ..... at all.....period  ;-)

.....and in the end, we can't fool ourselves can we? ...if we cheat, then that's what it is...cheating.  If we don't cheat and get valid info, then yippee...we can know for ourselves that it works..... science or not   ;-)

Gene_Smith, somewhere around August 25, 2003

[quote]
Believe me, there are harder ways of getting psi info. than double blind RV.   LOL
Liz[/quote]

Exactly right and that is part of the point here.  To me working partially frontloaded on anything is to be avoided it if at all possible.  It IS actually easier to work completely blind and IS the way to do it whenever possible I believe.

But having the ability or tools to work partially frontloaded if the need arises is uniquely practical in certain situations.  And regretfully like most skills is something akin to work that has to be regularly practiced to be useful or available.

It DOES open the door to cheating, or even self delusion and for that reason is something that is looked at under very bright lights by most in the community which I think is very healthy.

If one were to do a completely frontloaded session on something like how were the pyramids constructed I would distrust it completely, I just would.  And when you look at the question there, there really is no reason for someone to be working such a thing frontloaded.  -)o it double blind, have sketchs of the pyramids, and describe construction techniques and I'm a believer!

On the other hand there are people I truly respect in the field who believe the practice is verboten, ALWAYS.

Best regards,
Gene Smith

wizopeva, somewhere around August 25, 2003

The only prob with that is it's based on another assumption, ie that accuracy in one part of a session is an indicator of accuracy in another part.  Now it could very well be, but it also might not be or at least I haven't seen any evidence to that effect.   ;-)
-E  


[quote]

If the target is a few terrorists holed up in a small stone keep in the mountains in afghanistan, and the viewer describes things like that--things which we KNOW already--it at least demonstrates right off that the viewer is on target.  If the viewer already knows, or even suspects, that the target is terrorists hiding out (the frontloading), then all the data which could have been "confirmation data" (to help validate they were on-target), is useless.

PJ[/quote]

admin, somewhere around August 25, 2003

Hiya Liz!,

[quote]'I' have no idea what their house looks like and thinking about it won't help. The only way to know the answer is to NOT think.[/quote]
I assume we all work on stilling the mind and 'allowing', and learning to recognize when we are creating.  But I don't know anybody who can simply cease ALL thought--at least, not while they're in the middle of 'listening' and writing down (left brain) information, anyway.  

By the time I get to a state of mind where I can genuinely cease all thought, I have also genuinely ceased to be awake. LOL.  Or at least, it had better be a verbal session, and the transcriber had better be psychic. ;-)

[quote]In double blind, blind and frontloaded sessions it's thinking that will wreck havoc every time.[/quote]
Analytical thinking and conclusions wreck it, true.  (There is nothing more temporarily glorious than a session in full on AOL drive, though. Wow, how the data flows. ROFL. ;-)) But aside from the usually fairly fast early stages, some mental function is going to come up.  In the later stages and with some of the more contextual and higher-level data, a certain amount of mental processing does come in or one wouldn't even be able to render it over into verbage, at least that is my view.

I feel there are many things which are 'recognized' in a session; symbolic or emotional things that one can track to meaning something in one's own internal world, self-direction to delve into an aspect of something in the data, all of these require some sort of thinking.

I guess I perceive it as a sort of 'borderline' -- a tightrope viewers walk, on one side the critical/linear mind, on the other side the creative/intuitive mind.  Slip too far one way and you can't render your impressions into words well enough.  Slip too far the other way and you're in AOL drive and/or not perceiving the subtleties.  Trying to find that place just left of center, so to speak, is the hard part!  Being one or the other is easy; holding the line between takes work.

Stilling thought is really important.  But I find, the moment one gets in to data and writing it down, unless it is coming super fast, eventually thought is going to creep in, lol.  In a perfect world, it wouldn't.  I wanna live there.  ;-)

PJ

Gene_Smith, somewhere around August 25, 2003

[quote]The only prob with that is it's based on another assumption, ie that accuracy in one part of a session is an indicator of accuracy in another part. [/quote]


There ya go, causin trouble again.  We'll tell you when to have an opinion or thought, and while we're at it what it should be..  ::)

wizopeva, somewhere around August 25, 2003

LOL, yeah, I forgot to take my mind control pill this morning and now I can't stop thinking!  It seems like I've thought about how if rv is a new science, then it stands to reason that some of our assumptions are probably wrong.  IF so then which ones?  I started looking at a lot of rv gospel and most of it is just based on what feels right or sounds right.  There's almost no applications oriented research that I have seen.  But the trouble with 'what feels right' is that first of all, it seems like it's just assumed to be true without much questioning.  That could be a prob.  And another thing is that rv data itself doesn't even seem to follow much in the way of left brain logic, so why assume that the best methods of getting it will?  So it seems we have created some theories that just seem right and then sort of heaped a bunch of logic on top of that and then said that it's based on science.  

When it comes down to it, I haven't even seen any proof that rv works.  It could be that I have just been deluding myself into thinking it does.  I don't really believe that of course, but without empirical evidence, it's hard to come up with a hard core reason why.  Instead we are often told to 'experience it yourself,' and I agree that's a great idea and the only way to truly understand rv.  But you'd think that after all this time, there'd be some kind of study or empirical evidence for something so simple as that rv works at all, not to mention the efficacy of various methods within rv.  
-E




[quote]


There ya go, causin trouble again.  We'll tell you when to have an opinion or thought, and while we're at it what it should be..  ::)
[/quote]

River, somewhere around August 25, 2003

Hi everyone,

Sorry, I think I've worded my last post badly. I'm sick and finding it hard to think straight.  :(

What I'm trying to say is that letting an 'opinion' of data get in the way is what wrecks a session. The sort of thinking that says, "Oh I know what that is".  :P

I hope that makes more sense.  :-/  

cheers Liz

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 26, 2003

    That was a good posting Eva .

So many times, especially in my beginning days, I was filled with questions like that....well, how does it work, where does the info come from, who is this THEY, ...you know the drill.....

What was frustrating, (now it doesn't much matter) was because I, YOU, WE knew it worked, we needed an explanation to understand that it worked and when finding so many variables as to how, why, when it works, it just wasn't cooncrete enough....and yet,....we knew for ourselves what we experienced...it is kind of like chasing your tail.

RVing is but one discipline of obtaining information. Psi is filled with many methods of obtaining the same information.  What separates them are the protocols used in RV....which for me, brings it back to psi again.

It's kind of like religion. Most religions have part of the truth, but no religion is all truth.  So you take a little from this one, a little from that one, toss out a basket full as you go along.  In the end, you have created what works best for you....and that could well be no 'religion' at all...but something called 'something else'

    I think I rambled myself right out of your statement.... ::)  I just got caught thinking 'outloud' again....

anyway, I found your posting thought provoking...thanks for it.

Fire, somewhere around August 26, 2003

Yeah Eva, Science--as well as experience--do demonstrate that RV *does* work, but they don't demonstrate WHY.  Or HOW.  Or for that matter, there's even some quibble on "when."  And there's certainly quibbles on "who."  So all in all, I'd say the majority of this subject is still in development. ;-)

PJ

energycritter, somewhere around August 26, 2003

Regarding frontloading, I sure had troubles getting the idea of Tunde's targets being esoteria out of my head.

pdPJ, have you done Tunde's yet, I am curious how the idea of knowing that the target is esoteric will affect you during your session.

During my session I wrote down a few times that I felt frontloaded in big bold letters and could only get data that I was creating as being an esoteric target. I found that I was just trying to think of what that meant and how would that appear.

I was not sure the best way to avoid the frontload, so, I guess I just ignored it, I am not sure.

BC/EC

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 26, 2003

:-[ :-[ workin on it EC --workin on it :-[ :-[


I have one finished. I wasn't bothered much about knowing that it was esoteric, before I started however, I would have preferred not knowing.

Where my problem came in was when I saw the ideogram I did. I do these quickly and with my eyes closed.  When I looked at what I 'did'  omg...it was almost a word spelled out....AND it fit with the rest of the data I got....

This little package was just a bit too tidy for me !!  ROFL

Soooooooo, naturally, I concluded that my session was 'garbage'  ;-)   ( sorry SC ) and that I needed to do it again because NOW knowing it is esoteric IS a problem it seems.  It now seems to me I 'made up' my data  and I don't remember feeling like this before.  I guess the only way to tell is to hand in the session...

Now that I have insulted my SC, I'm sure my doing the target again will be a real winner   ;)

......but, I'm workin on it.....

modified to add

DRAT!  I just sent it in  :-/  I no sooner hit the send button and I'm ooh...uhhh...hmmm..wait wait WAIT!  I forgot something, oh, I should have said...errr...didn't mean that exactly ::)

So how was this for me you asked ???  This is either going to be the very most brilliant ever (yea....and we know how often in life THIS happens  :P   ) or I'm gonna be shamed right off this forum   :'( :'(

    I wish now I had done it over, but I didn't and so now it is what it is and it's already history   ;)....and now onward to the next stellar session   ;-)

Don_Williams, somewhere around August 26, 2003

Hi Eva,
Yeah, I don't what the deal is with my computer.  Every so often - usually when I'm in a hurry and my two fingers are going as fast as they can - I hit something that sends whatever I'm typing.  It's not the mouse, it's something on the keyboard.

Well, now my truck's broke down.  Thanks a lot for masking that RI target PJ, now my truck's broke down lol.  Guess I better come down off the mountain for awhile huh? :-)

Eva, if you don't have it, you ought to buy Dean radin's book "The Conscious Universe".  He summarizes alot of the scientific research into psi that's been done over the last 50 years or so.  There's actually a lot of evidence for RV but it's all individual-method style.  There's nothing on CRV, SRV, TRV, etc.  I'd bet in the end it's all about the same though, once someone gains some experience in any method.

The reseach against frontloading is there but it's not really "direct" evidence.  Remember those old cards they used to use in psi experiments, called Zener cards?  There were five of them, each with a different symbol.  Any kind of experiment similiar to those experiments, where the subject was put into a "forced choice" scenario, they did less well than when they had free reign to perceive anything.  i think that may be one of the reasons RV is usually pretty robust in the lab, the subject has no idea what the target could be.  Frontloading sort of puts the subject into a forced choice scenario.  But that's the only research I'm aware of that relates to it.
Best Regards,
Don  

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 26, 2003

I just heard from Tunde !  


[quote] This is either going to be the very most brilliant ever (yea....and we know how often in life THIS happens     ) or I'm gonna be shamed right off this forum      
[/quote]


My postings for the next 3-4 weeks will be coming straight out of the 'Hall of Shame'   ROFL   ;-)

Not only was it a DUD, but in fact, is the BIGGEST DUD ever !   ;-)  Keeps ya humble I'll tell ya.....this makes #5 out of about 25-30 that goes in the 'round file' labeled bin of experience :P

Getting info on Laci Peterson, when the target was a hot pink colored desk stapler was better than this one !!  ROFL     ;-)

so, to answer your question....I guess being front loaded wasn't such a hot idea   :P

Gene_Smith, somewhere around August 26, 2003

Hi PDPJ,

I hesitate to respond on some of these because I feel it might be mistaken for putting myself into a place of knowing enough to be a teacher or authority etc.  I've been at this very actively for about 3 1/2 years exclusively trained in TRV so just take my comments for what they are, from a fellow student.

My first 25 targets produced maybe 4 hits and when you consider the training system I was under at the time had it such that one had a 25% chance of guessing the target; well in short I sucked.  For me it only got slowly better with practice, though it was a fairly linear learning curve.  The more I practiced the better I got albeit slowly, where today I'm fairly proficient.  Though misses are never any further and one's next session in my experience.  Just keep plugging away and you'll get better, I've yet to see anyone who hasn't if they stay at it.

Two things you said here jumped out at me here.  One, which I think you've experienced is that working frontloaded as a newbie is a mistake.  Secondly having a target of something as mundane as a desk stapler is also an error for a newcomer.  What I mean by the later is that targets, I believe, have different levels of attraction or energy that makes some targets more easy to discern than others.  Examples of what I would see as good practice targets, early on would be things like the Pyramids, Niagara Falls, the space shuttle, etc.  RVing something like a stapler would be a challenging target for the most experienced RVer.  Early on especially you are learning basic things like what does water "feel" like etc.  That does NOT mean that has to be boring at all, in fact just the opposite if you ask me.  I guess what I'm saying is attempting targets like staplers as opposed to something that will really draw your attention is an error I think.

Hope that is of some help.

Best regards,
Gene Smith

[quote]I just heard from Tunde !  




My postings for the next 3-4 weeks will be coming straight out of the 'Hall of Shame'   ROFL   ;-)

Not only was it a DUD, but in fact, is the BIGGEST DUD ever !   ;-)  Keeps ya humble I'll tell ya.....this makes #5 out of about 25-30 that goes in the 'round file' labeled bin of experience :P

Getting info on Laci Peterson, when the target was a hot pink colored desk stapler was better than this one !!  ROFL     ;-)

so, to answer your question....I guess being front loaded wasn't such a hot idea   :P[/quote]

Fire, somewhere around August 26, 2003

That's pretty funny.  But not very.

I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that people new to RV work fully blind on hard-feedback targets.  You hear that from any serious instructor or school, and you hear it from any serious self-trained viewer, and there's a reason for that.

The feedback on esoteric targets is usually limited to knowing the tasking.  The tasking cannot begin to give you the kind of detail you need to be able to see, at the simplest level, your data translations, reasons for AOL, possible symbolic data, etc.

The whole point of feedback is to help you learn.  When you see feedback you can think back to, "how did I feel when I got that data component?" or "how did I turn that red skirt into a sportscar?"  or "Where the heck did that quick visual of snoopy come from??"

With specific feedback, you can begin to get an idea.  For example, I had the sense of "thrust"--really powerful, earth-type sense--for many sessions before I learned that this is how I perceive "stone"--like in mountains or stone castles.  If I hadn't had specific feedback repeatedly, how would I have figured that out?

This is the kind of education your mind needs to begin developing an understanding of itself.  You get an impression, you write it down, you get feedback, and your subconscious and conscious are both 'corrected'.  Pretty basic learning theory here.

You may recall my earlier comments about how naming the target is not the goal in RV, but detail about it is.  Well, esoteric targets for beginners provide no feedback for detail, in some cases they may or may not even exist, and they often (for different reasons) have pretty heavy tasker issues.  In short, they provide little if any instructional value for viewing itself.

They can provide "experiential" value for the viewer.  This depends on the viewer's level of experience and skill though.  For example, somebody new to RV really should be working basic, hard feedback targets, so they learn.  When they have developed a style and process that takes them into fairly deep target contact, with decent results, somewhat consistently, at that point esoteric targets can greatly 'expand the mind' of a viewer, and can help feed the growing hunger most viewers have to open themselves up inside.

It is pretty important that prior to taking taskings off the internet, you know the person tasking, have an idea of their personal tendencies for tasking, and are clear about what you want out of any given session.

If anybody hasn't figured this out yet, psychic functioning is a very... "intimate" experience.  In my perception, what I view is "in me."

I really don't want Satan "in me," nothing personal.  Some people have been known to task things like that.  I really don't want to work hard in protocol and take my development seriously, only to have someone task me on something that doesn't even exist, but which they and many others have a substantial thoughtform for.  These things may be chosen by a viewer down the road, for their own specific reasons, either viewing reasons or personal interest reasons.  But they are beyond just inappropriate for novice viewers.

I'm not saying that everybody giving out taskings on the internet has these issues.  Only that if you are new to RV, you should err on the side of being wary and taking formal protocol as a deadly serious issue. Remember that many of the subjects viewers discuss are interesting and relevant but should not be issues for novice viewers.  Viewers who are relatively new to RV should probably not be using frontloading, pursuing taskings that have no feedback, or many other options.

Make sure that your sessions are very separate, that feedback for sessions is very separate, that you know prior to any session what your hope is for the session, and that you intelligently plan the work you will do to achieve your goals.

There is a saying that the quality of the work depends on the quality of the tools.  In remote viewing, targets are part of your tools.  You work with the target to end up with an end-product: the session.

{An essay I once wrote on targets:}
[url]http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/RVEditorials-002.cfm[/url]

It's my fault that TKR doesn't yet have its tasking/viewing modules (The Galleries) up yet.  In the meantime, until we have some hands-on, systematic work for anybody interested, both practice and project, take McMoneagle's advice.  Get his book MIND TREK, or REMOTE VIEWING SECRETS, and follow his instructions for how you or someone you know can develop some real targets--best kind are local targets, where you can get your feedback in person. Second to that, photographic targets. (You'd be viewing the focus at the time the photo was taken--not the picture on paper.)

When you do a session, think of all your data as reasonable.  It may not be accurate, but it's reasonable: there is SOME REASON you came up with any given thing.  Your job is to do enough hard feedback doubleblind or solo blind sessions to begin to get an idea of why you come up with certain things and how your mind may be misinterpreting or distorting things.

There is probably a reason that you came up with Laci's info. Shapes, sizes, composites, symbolic functionality, colors, maybe even the name, something, there is some reason, and in the end it may have been AOL drive, but there was a point in the session where you diverged, and that's what you need to be able to look over in a session.  You need to be able to track your session data and say, "There it is.  It was this assumption that sent me off into right field, and from that point on, I was lost."

You can't see that without specific feedback.  You can't learn remote viewing without specific feedback.  You can learn about the universe, and things that interest you, but that is not the same as learning remote viewing.

I'd either leave the esoterics to others, or only do them when you are blind to their nature and they're mixed into a lot of feedback targets.

PJ

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 26, 2003

Gene & PJ

Thank you so very much!  It was worth going to the hall of shame for all those worthwhile comments you both made.

That was my 1st esoteric target ~~  I will be staying away from those for awhile  LOL....  

See ??  I knew I was gonna learn something good from it!  

Remember the thread about having teachers vs not having them?  This situation is a perfect example of the difference of teaching yourself as opposed to having someone whose 'been there' guide you.

The 2 of you have shared valuable information that would have taken me how many ions to figure out on my own???   :o

PJ....I'm excited and I'm sure we all are, that the gallery will be completed soon.  We will all have to find a way to keep you off the boards so you can finish it !!   ;-)

Maybe for the next month we could all swap recipies or talk about house cleaning, the best dish detergent etc so that you won't be tempted to post so much !!   ;-)

Thank you both !   :-*

wizopeva, somewhere around August 26, 2003

Hi Eva,
Yeah, I don't what the deal is with my computer.  Every so often - usually when I'm in a hurry and my two fingers are going as fast as they can - I hit something that sends whatever I'm typing.  It's not the mouse, it's something on the keyboard.

Must be some combo of keys that equal something else.  There are a lot of those and some techies have some of them memorized so they can get stuff done even if a mouse refuses to work or the screen is not working correctly.  However, I wish they would put the impt ones that delete things like super far away from the shift key, LOL!  


Well, now my truck's broke down.  Thanks a lot for masking that RI target PJ, now my truck's broke down lol.  Guess I better come down off the mountain for awhile huh? :-)


Well now did PJ just psychically choose that joke cuz it was schedualed to happen or does she owe you some mechanics fees?  (hm, I think I know which one she plans to think happened, hehe)


Eva, if you don't have it, you ought to buy Dean radin's book "The Conscious Universe".  He summarizes alot of the scientific research into psi that's been done over the last 50 years or so.  There's actually a lot of evidence for RV but it's all individual-method style.  There's nothing on CRV, SRV, TRV, etc.  I'd bet in the end it's all about the same though, once someone gains some experience in any method.


Hm, I knew there was stuff on psi itself, but not stuff specific to rv.  Too bad there's no way to post some of these studies so that people won' t have to buy and read whole complicated book to get it.  


The reseach against frontloading is there but it's not really "direct" evidence.  Remember those old cards they used to use in psi experiments, called Zener cards?  There were five of them, each with a different symbol.  Any kind of experiment similiar to those experiments, where the subject was put into a "forced choice" scenario, they did less well than when they had free reign to perceive anything.  i think that may be one of the reasons RV is usually pretty robust in the lab, the subject has no idea what the target could be.  Frontloading sort of puts the subject into a forced choice scenario.  But that's the only research I'm aware of that relates to it.
Best Regards,
Don  

Hm, I guess I can see how some frontloading would be more similar to forced choice than no frontloading.  But still, I don't really consider it the same.  As you said, it's very indirect.  Like say I am told the target is a human, well I'm not really 'forced' to say anything.  Like I don't have to say hair color or any of that stuff.  I am free to report only what comes in.  Obviously, my choices are somewhat narrowed, but they are not forced.  I might range across subjects like job, emotions, thoughts, appearance, place of residence, family structure, actions at the moment, etc.  I don't know if this amount of freedom for a viewer would result in the same kinds of problems that a very narrow choice of cards would present, especially considering that cards are considered such a difficult rv target to start with and are generally not used at all.  It's an interesting concept.  Maybe the weakness only appears when the viewer's freedom is too constrained.  

Also, I do wonder if the forced choice weakness might be ameliorated with training.  It sorta like when you first take your dog to the pet store and run it through it's sit stay command.  In the beginning, there WILL be a lessening of success on the dog's part.  But most of that can be ameliorated with more work and in the end, the dog's strength of obediance has been improved over where it had been before.

Now who the heck knows if ANY of that would happen with rv and forced choice issues.  But it's interesting to think about.  I still like my bliind targets, but someday I figure at least some of my preferences will be considered old fashioned!
-E

wizopeva, somewhere around August 26, 2003

Yeah, I agree a pink stapler is generally considered a very difficult target.  It has a minimal number of aspects to it.  I remember when Angela put up the results of the rv experiment.  Some of the advanced guys got some difficult targets like a piece of vegetable on a cutting board or a pan of muffins.  Even those guys had a tough time with such targets.  That's the kind of thing one might throw into the mix to keep experienced viewers humble and on their toes, hehe.  But for learning, I would recommend doing lots of somewhat easier targets that have very good feedback.  

-E

admin, somewhere around August 27, 2003

[quote]Hm, I knew there was stuff on psi itself, but not stuff specific to rv.  Too bad there's no way to post some of these studies so that people won' t have to buy and read whole complicated book to get it.[/quote]
Surprisingly, as it is a large book written by a scientist, "The Conscious Universe" is amazingly readable--it really is.  It is written very directly and uses great examples and comparisons to make its points.

[quote]Like say I am told the target is a human, well I'm not really 'forced' to say anything.  Like I don't have to say hair color or any of that stuff.  I am free to report only what comes in. [/quote]
Well, if we're talking about ops or practice too, one is often expected to try and describe the person if possible.  And there are only 2 choices for gender with rare exceptions.  And unless the person is bald or a punk, there are only a few choices for generalized hair color.  I have this issue the minute I decide there is a person in the target--that I instantly feel I am in a forced-choice scenario as far as their physicality.

[quote]I do wonder if the forced choice weakness might be ameliorated with training.[/quote]
Training psychics toward forced choice functioning ruined many of them.  First, because initially they didn't provide feedback (see Tart's paper on the extinction paradigm--training psi OUT of people).  Then, because it bored them into not caring anymore. LOL.  But maybe in much smaller measure and on otherwise free-response targets, experience (I'm more likely to credit experience than training) matters.

PJ

admin, somewhere around August 27, 2003

[quote]I agree a pink stapler is generally considered a very difficult target.  It has a minimal number of aspects to it.[/quote]
It's a lousy remote viewing target. It doesn't even have anything "of interest" to it.  I mean if one is going to target some very small object, it ought to be something unique or interesting.  None are great for novices, but I suspect a hand-carved jade statue of jesus would probably be better than a mass-produced plastic icon of jesus--and a small bomb or secret spy camera would be far better still, as it would hold complexity and 'intrigue' for the tasker and viewer.

We also have to ask ourselves, WHY.  We certainly might be tasked to find something of real interest to someone who has lost it.  But why would we be tasked to find some small irrelevant item of interest to nobody?  It's not impossible, but I'd rather practice toward targets with qualities more likely to come up in my viewing life.  It's not that it's not interesting to me that is important, it's that it's not interesting to the tasker, either.

A white paper worth reading for those with enough caffeine to stay awake through it is "Managing the Target Pool Bandwidth" by May et al.   That particular paper discusses the range of 'free response' and how controlling it to the center--so a target is not forced choice, but a target is ALSO not anything in the universe--helps greatly.

In other words, you can still have billions of options for a target without the viewer having to be open to the target maybe being DNA, or a solar system, or a fairy tale, or a stapler, etc. etc.  At least for early viewers (as well as any science measure), making the 'bandwidth' of target possibilities 'medium' is useful, I think it keeps the viewers from going off tangent as often.

I might add that unless the tasker is using their own physical stapler, photographs of this stuff are poor targets unless your goal is to view the photograph (they'd be more appropriate for ARV than RV).  Nearly all such photos as gotten from stock photography are either beyond boring or heavily edited.  Magazine ads have the same issue.  So much a % of them is graphically created or altered or the composite of 47 different photographic elements that the target is little more than a thoughtform or the piece of paper.

PJ

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 27, 2003

[quote]PJ....I'm excited and I'm sure we all are, that the gallery will be completed soon.  We will all have to find a way to keep you off the boards so you can finish it !!  [/quote]

heh heh   ;)   Like this had a prayer of working !   :P

I wake up and see 6 more topics posted by missy PJ having to do with target misses & hits, what's the worst ever etc....    gee    ???  wonder what inspired all that?

I may just pass on posting in the worst cause I've already mentioned I am in the hall of shame for the next 3-4 weeks due to the egg I laid in Tundes esoteric target  ;-)

I may wait until I see if someone posts something worse than mine.... ;-)  AND then I'll tell all !   ;-)

admin, somewhere around August 27, 2003

LOL.  If I get time later today (I had more time recently as my printer was down but now it's up and I'm behind schedule!) I'll come post something pitiful enough to make everybody feel better.  ::)  

It wasn't your stapler target that inspired those threads, it was wanting to come up with a few topics all viewers would be likely to have something for, and which could provide members a less 'charged' option for good natured talk than the two most popular threads here have got.  

I also thought that over time, those could evolved into an archive worth keeping.  First, in the name of "fun", remote viewing ought to be viewed as educational and often just as funny as hell, because it really is.  

Second, in the name of development, I think it helps viewers to realize that they are not the lone ranger.  Sometimes on the internet, it seems like everybody will espouse how their method has made them the end-all expert on everything (every method tends to this).  Newbies wonder why their experience doesn't jibe with that amazing expertise everybody else is talking about (this method prevents all AOL!!-yeah, right, lol!).  

I think it helps to know that everybody--often even really good viewers--have sessions that sometimes hit on, "where the heck did THAT come from?!".  (Vastly moreso for people working in protocol--doubleblind--of course. With a person present who knows the target, physiological transfers usually provide at least some info, and maybe more than we dream.)

PJ

energycritter, somewhere around August 27, 2003

There is a lot of good information on this thread. I have read the top of this page (6) a few times now.

I had the word "feedback" running through my mind the last few days.

Being the way I am, I tend to live life with what seems to be a form of constant AOL, so to speak, about mundain issues pertaining to people and social moments. Getting good accurate feedback is important for me or I do not know what to use as good information when trying to live normal life and make routine decisions.

This last remark could fit into the negative aspects of being empathetic more often than is needed. The extra data obtained during social moments of unwarranted empathy seems to cause me trouble during that moment, socialogically, as would AOL when trying to consider session results during RV.

I am not sure if I said that correctly, as ussual.

Bottom line, feedback is good.

BC/EC

Don_Williams, somewhere around August 27, 2003

Eva,
I agree that the Zener cards are not really the same thing as frontloading.  There may be some studies that involve set-ups that are closer to frontloading, it seems like it anyway.  But even those, if I recall correctly, were much more constraining than proper frontloading would be.  Anyway, "The Concsious Universe" is a great book.  There's a lot of stuff about the history of RV experiments, telepathy, precognition, geomagnetic effects on psi, etc.  It really opened my eyes about just how much evidence there really is for the reality of psi.

Btw, I bought Lyn Buchanan's book, "The Seventh Sense" today - money's short these days, but I can't keep from buying every RV-related book I see, lol!  I like it.  He goes into great detail, more than I've ever seen from anyone, on scoring sessions - without using the old blind matching protocols they used to use in proof-in-prinicple scientific studies.  It's pretty complicated though.  Looks like you'd have to use a computer to do it.  Anyway, he includes stories from his days in the military unit, an overview of his CRV method, his vocabulary for RV-related concepts, and touches on time, ARV, and some other peripheal issues.  

The only thing I noticed that I disagreed with, just scanning through the book, was how he seems to imply that ERV is not a real method if you don't use a trained monitor and that ERV without a monitor has no scientific credibility.  From what I know, that's the *only* method (if you can really call it a "method", since everyone does it a little differently) that's been scientifically studied and the results published and peer-reviewed.  I'm not aware of any other form of RV even being studied.  His take on this seems to be that if it's not a highly structured, all the steps being laid out in a manual type of thing, then it's not qualified to be called an "RV method".  He describes what many do as being "guided visualization" as opposed to RV.  But then he mentiones Joe and Edgar Cayce as using it to gather good data.  So I'm unclear as to exactly how he feels about this.  I'm also in that category of RVers, so it's of interest to me.

I'd also recommend Lyn's book though, regardless of that point.  There's lots of good info in there.  He covers a lot of information.  He writes well, too.  It's very readable and easy to follow.  I think every RVer would benefit from it.  That's apparent just by glancing through it.  

I'd bet you're right, Eva, about an RVer getting better at handling frontloading with practice.  Some people are probably better at dealing with it right off the bat, too.  I'm not.  If I'm really in practice, doing 2-3 sessions daily for a couple months, I can handle it a little.  I've done it on applications work, where my tasker told me that certain responses from previous sessions were acurrate and then asked me to elaborate on them in following sessions.  I found though, that after a couple sessions in a row like that, I later felt a little unsure of myself when I went back to working double blind again.  But that feeling wore off after a few days.  I'd just rather not have to deal with it most of the time but I know there's occassions when it can be helpful - if it done very carefully.  I think frontloading is a whole art unto itself.  
Best regards,
Don

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 30, 2003

[quote]Don_Williams
 Re: Target Talk
« Reply #5 on: 08/23/03 at 15:51:27 »  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PdPJ,,
It's fine to talk about targets and different options for targets.  The reasoning Dick is using might be appropriate if we were all working in Intelligence but we're not.  So, not expecting the government to call me on the telephone asking me to locate Hussein any time soon, I feel pretty free to discuss the ins and outs of ways to target him.  

[/quote]

I just finished reading this accounting...I enjoyed it, maybe you will also.

THE DEAD ZONE “THE HUNT FOR OSAMA” By Joe McMoneagle & ...  - THE DEAD ZONE “THE HUNT FOR OSAMA” By Joe McMoneagle & Michael Piller (11/13/02) Following the events of 9/11, the United States Government has been using ...
http://www.usanetwork.com/series/thedeadzone/episodes/thehunt.story.pdf

wizopeva, somewhere around August 31, 2003

I have to agree.  Otherwise, you risk the danger of becoming dependent on frontloading and that's just not rv.  Any decent viewer should feel completely at home doing fully blind sessions.  Even when frontloading is given, knowing for instance that a target is esoteric would not be the type that would be of use to the viewer.  Standard types of frontloading are stuff like, 'the target is a person, the target is a location, or the target is an event.'  THe stated reason for these types of frontloading are to allow the viewer to know which areas to focus the attention.  You don't want to spend 2 hours describing a person when all they want to know is the location.    For viewers who do really long sessions or multiple sessions, this could be useful.  However, for newbies, I can't see much of a use for it and plenty of dangers.   But still, it's also the case that a viewer has something to learn from every target, even frontloaded confusing ones, LOL!
-E  


That's pretty funny.  But not very.

I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that people new to RV work fully blind on hard-feedback targets.  You hear that from any serious instructor or school, and you hear it from any serious self-trained viewer, and there's a reason for that.

wizopeva, somewhere around August 31, 2003

I guess I've never experienced it that way.  There are many kinds of ops targets.  If the issue is one of finding the best employee for a job description, then description may be of less importance.  Perhaps there are only one or two people being considered at that point.  You'd want to know more about their honesty, reliability, work ethic, ability to get along with others, intentions, etc.  There are also plenty of situations in which the target person description is already known and you may just need to know what they are doing at the time, if they are alive, etc.   Working blind, the viewer cannot assume that one type of info is needed over another.   I guess my method for that kind of thing  is to relax and allow the info to come and to absolutely not try to make it a forced choice situation.  It's that big effort to NOT try to think.  My main prob with thinking is usually more of an issue of trying to make sense of info that does come in, like noticing is if seems contradictory and stuff like that.  So that's one of my main bugaboos, but I guess everyone's mind is diff and everyone will have different areas that are problematic.  That's why I would agree that frontloading is not for everyone and if you don't like it, stay away from it.  I personally prefer to not work frontloaded, but on the other hand, I don't mind after I have worked a target for about 30 minutes and am about ready to quit to THEN get minimal frontloading.  That way I've gotten way into it and after 30 minutes, I can find out if there are any aspects of my sessions that I might want to put more time into.  But still I know the  
first 30 minutes were only from my own head and I can write down in the session at what point the frontloading was given.  

-E
 


[quote]


Well, if we're talking about ops or practice too, one is often expected to try and describe the person if possible.  And there are only 2 choices for gender with rare exceptions.  And unless the person is bald or a punk, there are only a few choices for generalized hair color.  I have this issue the minute I decide there is a person in the target--that I instantly feel I am in a forced-choice scenario as far as their physicality.

PJ
[/quote]

wizopeva, somewhere around August 31, 2003

Btw, I bought Lyn Buchanan's book, "The Seventh Sense" today - money's short these days, but I can't keep from buying every RV-related book I see, lol!  I like it.  He goes into great detail, more than I've ever seen from anyone, on scoring sessions - without using the old blind matching protocols they used to use in proof-in-prinicple scientific studies.  It's pretty complicated though.  Looks like you'd have to use a computer to do it.  Anyway, he includes stories from his days in the military unit, an overview of his CRV method, his vocabulary for RV-related concepts, and touches on time, ARV, and some other peripheal issues.

Since I've taken some training from LYn and been exposed to a lot of his stories and systems of scoring, a lot of that was a repeat for me.  THe book is probably even more interesting for those that haven't heard any of it before.  
 

The only thing I noticed that I disagreed with, just scanning through the book, was how he seems to imply that ERV is not a real method if you don't use a trained monitor and that ERV without a monitor has no scientific credibility.  From what I know, that's the *only* method (if you can really call it a "method", since everyone does it a little differently) that's been scientifically studied and the results published and peer-reviewed.  I'm not aware of any other form of RV even being studied.  His take on this seems to be that if it's not a highly structured, all the steps being laid out in a manual type of thing, then it's not qualified to be called an "RV method".  He describes what many do as being "guided visualization" as opposed to RV.  But then he mentiones Joe and Edgar Cayce as using it to gather good data.  So I'm unclear as to exactly how he feels about this.  I'm also in that category of RVers, so it's of interest to me.

Yeah, I've heard him say that many times but without any kind of reasoning behind it, it's hard to think too much on it.  I can see logically that it would probably be even more difficult to self monitor with ERV while one is in a deep trance, than it would be in CRV when one is closer to waking state and with eyes open and pencil in hand.  In CRV you can write stuff down as it comes to you.  In ERV, you'd have to have a taperecorder or try to remember it all until after the session was over.  But I'm not sure how one could easily catgorize something as 'ERV' or 'notERV.' especially if there really isn't a set listing of exact steps to it.  It seems to me that it would have to come down to one's personal opinions on it, and I think we've all seen how drastically one opinion can vary from the next, even among 'experts,' hehe.
-E

end of messages

[END Topic 141] Target Talk TKR Remote Viewing Forum August 2003