Topic [113] RVing Techniques 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.

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 11, 2003

    This topic is a spin off the RV Teachers topic.

I am having difficulty finding out what the various techniques are for gathering more data.  How or what do you do to go beyond your present level of acquiring data?

If you want to know if something is manmade or natural or biological...is there a way of getting this particular info?

If you wanted to know if the target was a mountain, or a structure, or a human being...what is the technique for doing this?

My list goes on....but you have the idea.  I for one would greatly appreciate any information that you have about techniques.  I am stuck  AND  I WANNA MOVE FORWARD    :'(   :'(

or maybe there are some links that could be posted with this info??  

energycritter, somewhere around August 12, 2003

I am curious if it is possible to know if poeple are envolved, as opposed to a mountain or building, by considering emotions. If emotions are appearant, would that help to make it evident that humans or life forms are part of the target? OR, maybe the mountains and buildings carry an emotional feel too....? Just curious....

BC the EC

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 12, 2003

my experience so far with human emotions has been this:
On the target that was a sculpture: I picked up on the emotional qualties of the artists life during the time of his creation. In the case, picking up the human was okay, but he wasn't the target.

On the target we did for Grillflame - I  picked up that the target could create anxiety in people. This target wasn't human.

I have picked up people as being part of a crowd around the target.

I have picked up that this is a target people would go to or are drawn to.

I have picked up that the target was in populated areas.

These examples show that I can tune into there being people, but in all these cases, none of the targets were people.

In my reading, I have come across statements that refer to techniques to use  to identify specific aspects of the targets. Another statement would be 'since this was a building, I wouldn't have used xyz method as my approach but I didn't know this while doing the session so how could I have known which methods to use.  Lots of statements about these techniques, but never any specifics.

So it's the little secret box of tricks that I want to learn.

Scott_Ellis, somewhere around August 12, 2003

Have you read any of the free methods?  They basically boil down to one of two methodologies - CRV and its derivatives or ERV or a combination.  With ERV you know it's a building if you see or sense a building or walls, etc.

A couple of you who are new to RV are clearly in the mode of gathering information, which is a fine thing.  But there really isn't that much information to gather - if there's a secret box of techniques, it's well kept.  Even as I hear of people's internal mentations with ERV, it unfortunately appears that the information arrives through a limited set of mechanisms.  I gave a pretty thorough accounting of my own in the thread "What one thing has improved your RV the most?"  Success really does seem to derive from practice and innate ability.  If you want to learn how to RV, you need to spend time doing a bunch of blind sessions.  You might want to consider how you prioritize your time if learning to RV is something you want to do.

How many sessions a week are you actually doing now?  

Scott

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 12, 2003

[quote]How many sessions a week are you actually doing now?  
[/quote]

a fair question.  Currently, I am doing 2-3 a week. When not doing an actual RV target, I do other things such as intuitive readingsand meditate which uses the same senses.  So, everyday I am doing something.

    I have read the manuals you mentioned. I have some understand problems with the later phases but continue to try and teach myself.

energycritter, somewhere around August 12, 2003

Can innate ability be educated (to draw out what is already within) from within those that are not initially considered innately tallented?

Some poeple may not be considered innately tallented at first, until they play with techniques that are contained in a box of secrets as well as through a lot of practice.

Do any of the innately tallented have ways that they consider to have been their secret to getting good enough to now be considered innately tallented.

I think everyone can do RV, it just takes proper internal alignment of latent mechanisms that exist in all of us. This internal alignment seems to be the desired secret that may or may not applly to all, who learn it, but, we all need to determine for ourselves (tenthousandroads) what does need to be tweaked internally to make the results seem almost as if it is a innate ability.

just babbling..... ;-)

BC the EC

wizopeva, somewhere around August 13, 2003

pdPJ, there is no limit to what kinds of info you can get, but often, you might notice that certain people are stronger in some areas and others in others.  For instance, some are better at sketching, others at getting people, others at technology, etc.  But still, anyone can get any type of info.  You never know what wil come in.   The only limit I can think of might be that your conscious mind must be able to comprehend the info enough to process it in the first place.  

It's been my experience that the longer one rvs, the less of a prob some of these issues become.  For instance, you might first be drawing box shapes and get a feeling of it being artificial.  A year later into practice, the same target might yield a feeling that it is a building.  I don't know of any magical technique for that other than the fact that practice  makes your insights better.   Things start to come into a more cohesive whole during the sessions and you just know what things are a lot better than you used to.  

But there are some things you can do to help yourself.  Like in the session, you can pick out a sketch you feel good about and probe on it with a pen and see what impressions it gives you.  Write those down.  Then try probing in space around any things you have sketched and see what impressions you get and write those down.  Another thing you can do is to pick out an impression in your session that was interesting to you and ask for more description on it.  OR maybe if you were curious about something in the session, explore that further.  

If you run out of things to think about, expore the senses for target impressions, like sight, smell, touch, sound.  Imagine yourself reaching out to touch the target.  How does it feel?  What is it's weight?  What is it's shape?  What is it's size?  WHat is around it?  Once you are further along in the session, you might try asking yourself some of the more complex questions like 'purpose?'  In other words, what is the purpose of the target?  If it's grass, it's purpose might be to be sat on or to grow.  Other questions I sometimes ask myself at the end of the session are, "Thing analyst most wants to know about target."  (good for ops targets)  Another is 'Most significant aspect of target not yet discussed'  If there were any people or structures at the target, I might want to explore those things further.  Like a building or any hollow object, I might want to direct myself to go inside the object and see what impressions I get.  Also, there are movement commands like tell yourself to move above the target and look down or move to the other side and see if from that angle.  Even if the target looks the same for the new angle, hey that's info too.  All these kinds of things help you to explore more of the target and make it less likely that you'll leave something out.  
-E

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 13, 2003

Thanks so much Eva !  I really found your information helpful   :-*

Jommies is doing the happy dance !!    ;-)

Don_Williams, somewhere around August 13, 2003

Eva,
Wow!  That was an excellent reply!  It's a hard question.  All the answers are found internally in how the RVer approaches the target.  Lots of little tricks that you mentioned seem to only be learned over time and with lots of practice.  When I read the original question, I started to reply and then I read your post and realized you had said it all and said it much better than I could have.

Like you said, the longer one RVs, the less of a problem these issues become.  So much of RV changes over time and with practice that it's always seemed to me that one day you just realize you are operating at a much higher level.  

There was a time - a couple years ago - when I was steadily RVing 2-3 targets a day for months on end.  I was even RVing on weekends, lol.  I was also really paying attention when I got feedback, looking at what I had missed, what I got right, and how I had made mistakes - changing original perceptions into things that "made more sense" - (of course, trying to make the information make sense caused me to make the mistakes)  

I plugged along, RVing as often as I could.  One day I suddenly realized I was getting a lot more information and a lot different information.  Suddenly (it seemed sudden anyway) I was getting a lot of complex conceptual and emotional information, stuff that had to do with the factors and causes behind - or that led up to - the target I was working.  The whole experience of RVing had changed!

A couple months ago I was doing this again, RVing all the time.  I actually did way too much and started getting burned out.  But the same thing happened again.  I sort of catapulted to a new level.  My hit/miss rate changed quite a bit for the better, but what really changed was the kind of data I was getting!  Then, after I took a 3 week lay off from RV, I seemed to have dropped back a little.  I was still better than before but not quite as good as I had been.

I think RV is a lot like anything.  If you just immerse yourself in it as much as your life allows, you steadily improve a lot faster than if you treat it as just a hobby.  The more you think about it, read about it, write about it, and of course do it - the better you get.  I've noticed too that what I seem to be good at changes over time.  For short periods I'm very good at perceiving people in the target site.  Other times I'm good at perceiving locations on a state or regional scale but I can't perceive people at all.

I think the real trick is not just the quantity of practice but really the *quality* - like working on all the tips you mentioned while you're in a session, especially directing yourself to sense for different things and giving yourself movement exercises within the target area.  The tips you gave sounded like you've started practicing your own individual synthesis of CRV and ERV.  Have you?  Thanks for that great post, Eva.  You made me want to immediately work a target, lol!
Best regards,
Don

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 13, 2003

I have read this 3 times now Eva....thank you so much for taking the time to post all of that.

This, along with a few other things you've said have made me see that I am doing just fine and this makes me happy with where I am. I know there is more and in time, I will learn that also.

wizopeva, somewhere around August 13, 2003

Actually, I can't take too much credit for all that stuff.  I heard most of it from either Lyn Buchanan or Prudence Calabrese (or both).  I've studied with both and use techniques from both, plus a few things that I find convenient for myself.  IMO, the methods are really not as different as the trainers like to make out.  I know, blasphemy of the highest nature, LOL!  Practitioners of both methods sometimes get irked when I say that but oh well you can't argue with an opinion eh!  Both trainers give out tons of questions and things to do to help explore a target.  I think that's a common theme to most if not all the rv methods.  One thing that training did for me was teach me how to dig for more info.  I used to just sit back and let info come to me and that was it.  Now I am a bit more proactive about digging for it.  I have realized that I can drive the session, not just sit in the back seat.  I've also noticed the most rv methods dig for similar types of info a lot of the time.  Similarities across methods can teach as much as differences.  
-E    

Fire, somewhere around August 18, 2003

Along those lines Eva, I found some of Ingo Swann's writings on RV to be interesting--I wish I could remember which, of the 1.27 bazillionbytes of text on his site this might have been from ;-)--he talks a bit about not just being passive about incoming data.  Reading it started me on days of thought about the 'pursuit' of data vs. the 'allowance' of data and how maybe they're both just models anyway, but maybe some models work better for some people than others.
PJ

waterway, somewhere around February 25, 2004

This is such a good thread, I thought I'd bump a little life back into it.  

But I have another question for you all.  You can find gobs of info on CRV, the step by step protocol for pulling out info.  But what are the step by step procedures for ERV.  I understand ERV is more open and personal, but where can we find an example of a session?  

Also, I keep seeing in various sources, that "visuals" you get are "foggy" or dim or vague, not clear images.  If its a clear, 3D image, it must be AOL.  But then I see Joe McMoneagle drawing 3D pictures of buildings, balconies, etc.  Or Pat Price drawing a giant crane and Soviet research base.  Huh?  Okay, so we can't all be Pat or Joe, but are their abilities so far removed from the norm that they shouldn't be used as examples?  If they do have something to teach us... how can I draw detailed drawings of my target photo?  

Thanks for any info anyone can provide.

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around February 25, 2004

waterway... I have some info about this. I'm not at home right now but will look it up for you by the weekend if someone doesn't answer this to your satisfaction.

blu, somewhere around February 26, 2004

[quote]Also, I keep seeing in various sources, that "visuals" you get are "foggy" or dim or vague, not clear images.  If its a clear, 3D image, it must be AOL.  But then I see Joe McMoneagle drawing 3D pictures of buildings, balconies, etc.  Or Pat Price drawing a giant crane and Soviet research base.  Huh?  Okay, so we can't all be Pat or Joe, but are their abilities so far removed from the norm that they shouldn't be used as examples?  If they do have something to teach us... how can I draw detailed drawings of my target photo?  
[/quote]

I recently got my hands on McMoneagle's book "Remote Viewing Secrets", I really liked how he went through all the different RVdo belts, and what kind of sketch you should be drawing at each belt level and when I saw the White belt sketch I freaked out, and then freaked out some more!;-)  I didn't think that at my skill level which is newbie-ish, that I could be expected to draw a sketch like that yet, my "golf swings" are pretty wild and crazy at the moment (was it Eva that used that analogy?) :)

Then I calmed down when I read in one of the topic discussions here (can't remember whereabouts though) that it's not really a realistic expectation for someone starting out to be that developed yet (unless of course you are some sort of gifted genius I guess :) )

Thanks Waterway for bringing that up, I can definitely relate, though I'm sure that you have alot more sessions under your belt than me :)


[color=Blue]blu[/color]

wizopeva, somewhere around February 26, 2004

Another thing to consider when it comes to 'white belt' level or whatever is that every viewer has diff strengths and weaknesses.  You often see the session drawings in books.  I think a lot of males tend to be good at the mapping and drawing aspects.  But I've seen some people who aren't that good at drawings, but can give detailed accounts of ideas or describe things really well verbally but not via drawings.  

I think with all the emphasis on drawings, sometimes the importance of many of the other rv perceptions tends to get forgotten.  But in ops, you don't always need visual descriptions and that's when you start looking for other types of viewers with other types of strengths.  Or maybe you want to approach a prob from multiple angles and not be confined to physical descriptions.  

Oh sure, viewers should work hard on all their skills, be they strengths or weaknesses, but when it comes time for ops, it really helps to have a variety of types of viewers and target accordingly.   I also sometimes wonder that now with rv in the civilian world, it is now be used for some things that may not have been a priority in mililtary.  That might call for skills that may have been a bit more neglected during the military days.  In the same vein, skills that were more essential in the military might be in some ways not quite so needed now.  

-E

Joe_Black, somewhere around February 27, 2004

If you wanted to know if the target was a mountain, or a structure, or a human being...what is the technique for doing this? "

It will come up in your ideograms. The much less chance of them having any kind of AOL so are usually quite accurate.

Glyn, somewhere around February 27, 2004

Hello :)

I have been doing some daily quick-fire practice on the P-I-A website. I am shown a blank box and write down first impressions of what the target pic is going to be. I am then shown 2 photos and have to select the one I think is the target (according to my impressions), and then I click to get the final feedback.

I have had some failures but some interesting successes. It's fascinating and instructive doing this because as there are alternatives and feedback comes so fast I have observed displacement galore, and am getting to know how my mind works and how it is perceiving/interpreting impressions of the target.

I have become interested in observing how the process works under certain conditions, so take notes of time, Sid time, solar wind speed, my health,mental state, etc etc each day I do this. Interest is maintained because notes can be taken at all stages and an overall trend is available (mine goes up and down like a yo-yo  ;-))

It's so easy, I just sit in my front room with my laptop computer, television usually on, and when the blank screen comes up I close my eyes and try to 'feel' what the target is, not necessarily see it. As I said, I do it very quick-fire and I allow at the most 2 seconds to pick up impressions.

Today my mind is giving me basic 'gestalts' with reasonable accuracy (this does not always happen, and I am intrigued to know why). One example of what I mean is that when doing one target I 'felt' myself floating and flapping my arms...logic kicked in and I AOLed a visual of a bird. Well as it happens I wasn't far off because the final feedback was of a parrot sitting in a tree.

It was interesting to see that my mind was trying to convey the 'feel' of being a bird to me even though the picture was static.

I think I am finally having to admit that for me at least, trying constantly to get better at picking up visual impressions is probably a mistake. My mind does not work that way in everyday life.. I have a lousy visual memory and I tend to remember in 'touchy-feely' ways ( ;-) Sorry I can't describe it any better, but those others who do will know what I mean). ....so why should the same brain, the only one I have, be any better at  this just because I am trying to use psi?

We must each find our own way of doing things according to our own abilities rather than wondering why we can't emulate others. We hear about the great RVers who get stunning visuals, and think that we should be aiming to emulate them, it's only natural, but maybe we are failing to develop the potential of our existing mental pathways.

Thoughts?


Kind regards,
Glyn

energycritter, somewhere around February 27, 2004

[quote]Hello :)

I have been doing some daily quick-fire practice on the P-I-A website.

As I said, I do it very quick-fire and I allow at the most 2 seconds to pick up impressions.

'touchy-feely' ways ( ;-) Sorry I can't describe it any better, but those others who do will know what I mean).

We must each find our own way of doing things according to our own abilities rather than wondering why we can't emulate others. We hear about the great RVers who get stunning visuals, and think that we should be aiming to emulate them, it's only natural, but maybe we are failing to develop the potential of our existing mental pathways.

Thoughts?


Kind regards,
Glyn[/quote]

Well put glyn....I am so glad to hear about your sessions being as short as 2 seconds. hat is how many of mine have been. I was figuring that I was being a little too fast and freaky about how I had done them. I do have a bit of the visual thing going on, but, believe me, I completely understand what you mean when you mention the touchy feely stuff.

Oh yea, and, as you said in your own words, "to each his own." Tenthousandroads..... :)

;-)

ec

end of messages

[END Topic 113] RVing Techniques TKR Remote Viewing Forum August 2003