Topic [85] Targets ~ the data we get ... 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 2, 2003

    Another posting prompted this question.

    When using photos of a target :

Using the same example I used in another topic. An Amish buggy, with horse and 2 Amish children.

Will data pick up info on the picture be according to the date I selected it ( a few days ago) or will the data go back to the time when the picture was actually taken...say it was 10 years ago?

Example: 10 years ago the buggy existed. Since then, the buggy has been destroyed.  -)oes the fact that the target no longer exists as shown in the photo have any impact on the current data we get?

    My experience has been that I 'go back in time' when doing targets.  I did one on a sculpture where the history was that the artist had a make shift home in his studio while doing his work. In his environment, he had a wood burning stove and containers of water. While his sculpture was not made of wood, he did make some of his own tools fashioned of wood to work on this piece.  At the time, he was experiencing personal turmoil in his life. yada yada

    Among other things, I got this:
smelled wood burning
enclosed water
sadness
sand,grit

    None of these things were in the photo. None of these things existed on the day the photo was chosen or the day I did the session. The photo was taken of the piece while in a current museum...not on the location where it was created.

    mmm...guess the sand/grit do still exist as they were compounded into the material that made the sculpture, however, I got the 'before' componets - in the raw material stage.

    For those of you who do the analysis of target sessions, please comment on how viewers doing the sessions relate to targets of long ago.  

    This has a lot to do with the time/space theory.


   

Wizard, somewhere around August 2, 2003

Hello Polka


RV data is a function of intent defined by you or your monitor.

if you have a pool of photos that dont have any tasking/intent for the viewer then when you pick a picture blindly and go view you should have an intention.

like going to the time and place the picture has been taken.

Allen
--------------------------------------------
http://www.deepawareness.com

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 2, 2003

Thanks....I didn't realize that.

    So, with no particular intent, you are apt to pick up anything having to do with the target.

    My intent, without knowing it was in fact an intent, is always to describe the target- which I can do fairly well...just can't name it.  Are you saying that the intent needs to be more focused such as: to describe and identify by assigning a name label to it?

    So far, I've not done any target work that has asked for specific information....only to just do the session and report what you got having to do with the target. The practice targets available on the internet also seem to be set up in this general way.

   

Tigr50, somewhere around August 2, 2003

Hi there:
I'm new, but what you call "RV". call psychomentry, and I always let the info come according to the questions I ask.  I have a firm belief that important RVing should be done by a team, because everyone has a different "talent" (taste, smell, vision, speech, emotions, facts, etc.)  Combining them all would give you a really well-rounded picture and narrow down the actual item--whether it existed past, present or future.  

The Amish buggy could have been picked up as "dead," or no longer in existence by an RVer with that talent--for example, when you just know a missing person is dead.  I think it is important to focus with your best talent and move out from there.  Or, rely on your first major impressions and build on them.  They might not always make sense, but it works for me.  Some people cannot RV certain things (too personal,  I think).

I have a real problem with direction (NESW) and time ("what time is it?)  I guess I could just look up the time, but when working on the other side of the globe, it's often dark and I can't see the landmarks.  I often wish I had something from the place or person to hold while I was doing this stuff.

I am one of those peope who thinks the target should always be identified and not hidden.  Cut to the chase sort of thing.  A photo is a great start, and so is a map.  I like anything metal too.  You can get a whole life from a set of car keys--and the condition of the car!

I'd  love to do some team target practice on important targets.  Like fugatives, stolen art, other felons.  They are fair game and don't have any protection (psychic).

Just some thoughts
Deb

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 2, 2003

Hi again Deb  :)

    Somewhere on this forum, (it's growing and wouldn't it be nice if most message forums had a search option --- or is this yet another thing we can remote LOL ?? ) that I worked as an intuitive with a group for the purpose of locating missing children. Sadly, it is no longer in operation, but the set up was exactly along your lines of thinking.

   Briefly, the set up was comprised of approx 100 intuitives. We all did the same case at the same time and we did them on an individual basis by whatever means worked for us.

    We sent in our reports to our team leader. Each team had 10 intuitives. Each team would come together to go over the findings as a group. The leader by this time would have done an analysis on the findings and would present them again to the group. The purpose was for each of us to yes, no, don't know to the responses or add whatever new info came to us on the spot. This would take about 45 mins. At the very end, all was gone over one more time for a final analysis.

    What was so excellent about this is that all input was important for just the very reasons you mentioned...we all have things that we are better at...some emotions, some directions, some time lines...so all put together, gave a wonderful overall report.  Also, statistically, the votes were important. If 10 out of 10 got that this child was in Montana, then this was a very important finding. If only one got Montana, then the info didn't merit much consideration.

    We were only given the name of the child, a picture, last known location and then we followed a template of information we were to seek (the intent) which consisted of info that could be followed up on by the authorities. We never got into the sadness, the methods of deaths etc. ....only valid info that could be tracked and verified.

    What was truly amazing was to see that we 10 strangers, from all walks of life, came up with a huge percentage of same information. Then add to this the other 9 teams and you can see what a powerful method this was.

    and yes, children were found ~~ and happily, a few were alive.

Tigr50, somewhere around August 2, 2003

Now that is great to hear!  That sounds like the way it should be done. I would also suggest a "moderator" to do some analysis and bypass egos on decisions made about what seems a concensus and what does not.   I would love to work with a group like that, because I think it really works.  About four years ago, I worked with a group in MN--my main concern was OBL.  At that time, I felt very much in tune with his comings and goings and really wanted him picked up--it was so much easier then to get a lock on him, and he was quite easy to get at.   A lot of things would have been different now had he been.

But, water under the bridge.  The group became very MN oriented and started not to record my RV sessions or add them to the mix and they preferred to go after  kidnap victims, and lost children, which are hard for me to do.  At any rate , group work is extremely valuable because you can use all the talent available and put much less pressure on one person.  Everyone's  input is  valuable, even if it is symbolic.    

Someday, I hope there will be groups that work like this and just send in reports and those reports get sent in to the "right" people so action can be taken if need be--or not.  There may be some "misses" but my guess is that there will be a lot more "hits."  And then if you combine RV info with other data like satellite or communications, some events might take a different turn, shall we say.

Enjoy all your posts from all of you.
Deb

admin, somewhere around August 2, 2003

It depends on your tasking, but practice targets with photo feedback should be self-tasked as, "The target is the focus of the photograph at the time the photograph was taken. Describe the target."  

So the target AS IT IS REPRESENTED IN THE FEEDBACK is literally what you are viewing.  There may be elements not apparent from feedback, or only inferred from feedback, but in general the session focus the focus of the feedback photo.  If that were not the case, there would be limited value to have such specific feedback.

PJ

admin, somewhere around August 2, 2003

pdPJ -- this forum has a great search function.  At the top near the title, click on the little icon that says 'search'.  It will let you search one or all forums, for text or other options.

PJ

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 2, 2003

ta da!  thanks for the meat and potatoes PJ !

......and about the search option....ooops   :-[ :-[

River, somewhere around August 3, 2003

[quote]Are you saying that the intent needs to be more focused such as: to describe and identify by assigning a name label to it? [/quote]

I'm so used to people saying that we should 'describe' the target that it has never occured to me to add a personal instruction to aslo 'name' the target! :-/

No wonder I always just get a description and can't name it.  ;-)

Thanks for that idea PDPJ. I'm going to try it next time and see what I get.

Liz

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 3, 2003

Hi Liz

    Let me know if it works....then I will follow my own advice  ;-) ;-)

    Actually, I'm going to do this as well..it just makes sense when you think about it .  ;-)

Fire, somewhere around September 19, 2003

Howdy pdPJ,

[quote]Will data pick up info on the picture be according to the date I selected it ( a few days ago) or will the data go back to the time when the picture was actually taken...say it was 10 years ago?[/quote]
It's up to you.  Whatever you intend.  Space and time technically don't exist and it's all just energy/information; it's divided by your 'intent'.  If you don't have any intent concerning time, you might get just about anything time-wise.

That being said though, you probably won't often get info on a target that is wholly disconnected from everything else.  For example, say your practice target is a photo of a skydiver, floating down to earth with a parachute.  Chances are in that session you might get the sense of anxiety or excitement, a sense of the jump out of the plane, and sense of the sudden slowing or a sudden billowing above you, and maybe a sense of hitting the ground.  None of that is IN the target--only the floating down is.  But people don't just float down out of the sky in a void, separated from all else--there are essential circumstance all around that experience which put it in 'context'.  There is a good chance your mind is going to give you some of that 'context'.

By the same token that might also go for the creation of something.  I mentioned elsewhere a crop circle target--at least half the data I got was about its creation.  Well actually, that IS my primary interest, and was my interest when I dropped it in my target pool, and so that makes sense that I would get that.  But even if hadn't been, it's not unlikely that 'creation' information might be part of a session on an object.  Years ago the first session I did that wasn't just 'had a lot of accurate data' but really "resounded inside me" as a "hit!" was about a bridge, and one of the things I got clearly in the session was, "the architect loved this."  I just really felt that whomever designed it, really enjoyed what they were creating.

The real issue isn't whether you get 'related' data in your session on a given target, but whether you get specific data too.  Sometimes, contextual info is going to come through first, and as the session goes on, you might get more and more specific.  

This is one reason that highly specific targets are often done with more than one session.  In the first session, the viewer describes the target, which may be a person in a situation but probably will have plenty of info about the location et al.  For the second session--done before feedback on the first of course--a tasker would pick out some of the data from the first session, perhaps the person, and say, "Tell me more detail about this."  The mind of the viewer already has some of the context data; now they can focus in on the detail.

Not that it's impossible to do detail without that, and you can actually be tasked on data from someone else's session too of course, but in general it's a good way to deal with real specifics, is multi-tasking.

You also have to consider that most practice targets end up being something 'validated by feedback'.  The fact that you knew all those things about the artist's creation point is a form of feedback.  Your data was validated as accurate.  It is not impossible that if you didn't get any of that info at some point, you might not have gotten it in your session.  The real issue isn't getting the info of course--it's your psychological response to getting it, if you see what I mean.

Best regards,
PJ

wax, somewhere around September 19, 2003

I'm looking at the front cover of 'The Stargate Chronicles' by Joe McMoneagle  :o How do you get that kind of detail out of a target? My missile looks like a needle  ::) ... how do you get that detail?

I wanna draw pictures like that  8)

one day  ;-)

admin, somewhere around September 19, 2003

That picture represents the kind of detail Joe can get (at least), but the pic is not his session.  The publisher, based on what they had seen of his work, had an artist come up with that.  He had little say about the cover of the book.  Since it didn't represent anything more impressive than he has very often done, he figured it didn't bother him as a representation.  fyi.  But he does tend to on occasion draw what amounts to detailed blueprints, not to mention the conceptual stuff.  Absolutely bleepin' amazing if you ask me.  I couldn't draw that well if I were looking right at the target with my eyes open.  ;-) PJ

Glyn, somewhere around September 20, 2003

Hi PDPJ,

I think you were replying to a mail by Allen, and I am browsing through all the threads.....but what you said here brought me up short.

 [Quote]     My intent, without knowing it was in fact an intent, is always to describe the target- which I can do fairly well...just can't name it.  Are you saying that the ent needs to be more focused such as: to describe and identify by assigning a name label to it? [/quote]

When I was first taught RV I was taught to 'describe, describe, describe...never name, never label'. So I have always set out to do this really. When I have tried to label in the past I have failed. I have now been RVing about 5 years, and apart from the small improvements that come through familiarity and practice I can honestly say that I don't get much more pure *data* than when I started; I'm just better at interpreting it.

Wow! Sometimes I get so frustrated that I can never really get much beyond picking up bits and pieces of the target, and think it is a bonus if things actually fit together :-).

Now, could that early 'programming' (which is fine, and perhaps even necessary for a beginner), now be working against me/us? Maybe I fail to be able to label now because I have taken on board that I cannot..and a belief structure like that can be very strong.


That kind of thinking is quite radical I think, and we'd have to watch out for AOL, but then if we are more experienced now then we may recognise that more. It may require a whole new level of practice; another learning curve.

Who knows? Well never find out unless we try will we? In RV we must find out what works for us as individuals, not just accept that something is the wrong thing to do just because others say so or it has not worked for us in the past. Things change; we change. Sometimes we cannot go on to the next stage until we have experience with the first.  

Whatever, it's worth a try. Maybe it's time for a little deprogramming....change our conscious intent when viewing (Viewer intent is so important IMO).. and try to dump that limiter that we have imposed on our subconscious. Something that was perhaps so important when we were first learning RV may be working against us now (?)

You may be a genius PD. Thanks, you have sparked a whole new enthusiasm in me.  ;-).

Kind regards,
Glyn

wizopeva, somewhere around September 22, 2003

Hi Deb, it's amazing sometimes the similarities between rv and older methods of psi.  In this case, the only major diff I can see in the advice is that in rv we don't use physical objects to facilitate incoming data.  (as you may well know but others may not),  But yup, diff viewers often have diff talents.  In rv, we usually attempt to get the viewer to work on all aspects of data gathering, but when it comes down to operational data collection, yes you are going to trust a viewer's strengths a lot more than their weaknesses and operational target assignment should also be influenced by the viewers strong and weak points.  

Pru often used to talk about how early data is often more accurate but unfortunately often more vague too.  I don't know if I've heard that mentioned in CRV, but it's interesting to hear you now mention it too (at least the part about the accuracy).  I can only guess that in the beginning of the session, the viewer often has not had time to build a big fantasy up out of the data and so perhaps the session in the beginning is often less influenced by the analytical mind.  

By targets being 'not hidden' I am assuming you mean that the viewer is informed of the target before the session?  Yes, I know a lot of psychics work that way.  It's another difference between rv and some of the older methods.  However, I've noticed that a lot of psychics, although they may want some bits of info about the target, often ask not to get too much info either.  So it may be that at some point, too much info can give the analytical mind too much power and where that line is may depend a lot on individual training history (ie what you are used to), talent, and personality.
-E
 

wizopeva, somewhere around September 22, 2003

When I was first taught RV I was taught to 'describe, describe, describe...never name, never label'. So I have always set out to do this really. When I have tried to label in the past I have failed. I have now been RVing about 5 years, and apart from the small improvements that come through familiarity and practice I can honestly say that I don't get much more pure *data* than when I started; I'm just better at interpreting it.

Wow! Sometimes I get so frustrated that I can never really get much beyond picking up bits and pieces of the target, and think it is a bonus if things actually fit together :-).


Hi Glyn.  Well I've heard it said that the only way to get a lot better in short order is to rv almost every day.  Otherwise you remain like a  hobbiest runner and probably will never it make it to the big leagues.  I can't say that's true for sure but it wouldn't surprise me.  


Now, could that early 'programming' (which is fine, and perhaps even necessary for a beginner), now be working against me/us? Maybe I fail to be able to label now because I have taken on board that I cannot..and a belief structure like that can be very strong.


Wellll, I kind of get the impression that some time ago, there was much more animosity in the rv world about labeling.  But the way Lyn taught us (to my knowledge at least) is to remain neutral about labels, not to fight them.  You don't make judgements about them.  If you say you are programmed to think labels are 'wrong' then in my opinion, yeah, I think that may indeed be a mistaken way of thinking cuz you just don't know if they are right or not.  They could well be right but you just don't want to get too addicted to them in the session because then they might lead you too much in the wrong direction.  I get the impression that if the info is correct, it will keep coming back on it's own anyway so no need to clamp on to it too much anyway.  And we were taught once it was time for the summary, yeah sure you can include any labels you want because labels can sometimes be correct.  I think I like that way better.   Also, I think over time, I am getting slowly better at telling when labels/aols might be correct.  
-E  

Glyn, somewhere around September 23, 2003

Hello there Eva,

[Quote]Well I've heard it said that the only way to get a lot better in short order is to rv almost every day.  Otherwise you remain like a  hobbiest runner and probably will never it make it to the big leagues.  I can't say that's true for sure but it wouldn't surprise me.  [/Quote]

If truth be known probably the majority of us don't practice every day; me for one :-/. Unfortunately work and home commitments get in the way of my hobbies and interests...and most of us are probably in that situation.

[Quote] But the way Lyn taught us (to my knowledge at least) is to remain neutral about labels, not to fight them.  You don't make judgements about them.  If you say you are programmed to think labels are 'wrong' then in my opinion, yeah, I think that may indeed be a mistaken way of thinking cuz you just don't know if they are right or not.  They could well be right but you just don't want to get too addicted to them in the session because then they might lead you too much in the wrong direction.[/Quote].

Yes, I absolutely agree. To start paying too much attention may set ourselves off sort of 'digging' for names/labels without realising it, and that could be disasterous. Letting them come rather than forcing is essential; but trusting ourselves to do that....that is the difficult thing  :). Trusting ourselves to just let go and get the data in an RV session is very difficult I think. Do you find that?

[Quote]  Also, I think over time, I am getting slowly better at telling when labels/aols might be correct.[/quote]

I wonder how many long-time RVers there are out there who have noticed that their names/labels/AOL now are slightly less 'rubbishy' than when they were raw beginners? Is it really just because of experience, or may there be something else at work too?

Lets imagine for a minute......Wouldn't it be just wonderful if we actually get *all* information about a target coming in, but how good we get to be at RV  depended entirely on the filtering and processing of that information that went on in our brains? That making neural connections of the right sort was the key to progress (connections that 'naturals' already have in place).

OK wishful thinking (wish wish  ;-)), yes, but the brain is a wonderful thing, and if that were the case, lots of  practice would definitely make all the difference.

What I'm saying, is that is something like that happening? Is that why it may be such a slow process? Building connections in the brain probably *is* a slow process....

Any neurologists out there? Is this totally off-beam? We can live in hope  ;-)

My opinions are all over the place on this (as you probably can tell  ;)). Interesting subject.

Regards,
Glyn

wizopeva, somewhere around September 23, 2003

Yes, I absolutely agree. To start paying too much attention may set ourselves off sort of 'digging' for names/labels without realising it, and that could be disasterous. Letting them come rather than forcing is essential; but trusting ourselves to do that....that is the difficult thing  :). Trusting ourselves to just let go and get the data in an RV session is very difficult I think. Do you find that?

Yes, I find it very hard to let stuff come without trying to categorize it, consider if it's logical with other stuff, or worry if it's right or not.  But I am at least better than I used to be!


I wonder how many long-time RVers there are out there who have noticed that their names/labels/AOL now are slightly less 'rubbishy' than when they were raw beginners? Is it really just because of experience, or may there be something else at work too?


Well, I think my aols have improved a bit in accuracy but also, I think that I have also improved in my ability to figure out which ones are rebush.  Some of them seem kind of weak and those are more likely to be just carrying some kind of simple info.  Others seem really deeply full of flavor and life and those tend to be more accurate portrayals of real stuff at the target.  But my discernment is far from perfect, LOL!


Lets imagine for a minute......Wouldn't it be just wonderful if we actually get *all* information about a target coming in, but how good we get to be at RV  depended entirely on the filtering and processing of that information that went on in our brains? That making neural connections of the right sort was the key to progress (connections that 'naturals' already have in place).

I'm not sure about the 'naturals' part.  WIth the exception of maybe a few famous individuals I think even the naturals have to work their butts off.  Maybe if you really did work 4 hours a day on rv for 25 years, then you would be as good as McMoneagle.  When he says only 1% have what it takes, part of what he is talking about is tons of practice.  But as for the rest of it, I actually think that already is how it works.  I think at some level we have access to all of the info we need in complete form.  I think the prob is jamming the info as it presents to that form so that it gets through our brain and into our conscious mind in useful form.  

What I'm saying, is that is something like that happening? Is that why it may be such a slow process? Building connections in the brain probably *is* a slow process....

That's what some people think and it's one of my more favored theories.  I don't know if it's specificly neural connections, although I'd imagined it would certainly have to at least entail that.   But I think in some way we have to learn how to translate the info into consciousness.  But I think all of the info is out there and totally gettable on some level.  

-E

T-bone, somewhere around September 25, 2003

Hello everyone  :)

[quote]Hi again Deb  :)

    Somewhere on this forum, (it's growing and wouldn't it be nice if most message forums had a search option --- or is this yet another thing we can remote LOL ?? ) that I worked as an intuitive with a group for the purpose of locating missing children. Sadly, it is no longer in operation, but the set up was exactly along your lines of thinking.

   Briefly, the set up was comprised of approx 100 intuitives. We all did the same case at the same time and we did them on an individual basis by whatever means worked for us.

    We sent in our reports to our team leader. Each team had 10 intuitives. Each team would come together to go over the findings as a group. The leader by this time would have done an analysis on the findings and would present them again to the group. The purpose was for each of us to yes, no, don't know to the responses or add whatever new info came to us on the spot. This would take about 45 mins. At the very end, all was gone over one more time for a final analysis.

    What was so excellent about this is that all input was important for just the very reasons you mentioned...we all have things that we are better at...some emotions, some directions, some time lines...so all put together, gave a wonderful overall report.  Also, statistically, the votes were important. If 10 out of 10 got that this child was in Montana, then this was a very important finding. If only one got Montana, then the info didn't merit much consideration.

    We were only given the name of the child, a picture, last known location and then we followed a template of information we were to seek (the intent) which consisted of info that could be followed up on by the authorities. We never got into the sadness, the methods of deaths etc. ....only valid info that could be tracked and verified.

    What was truly amazing was to see that we 10 strangers, from all walks of life, came up with a huge percentage of same information. Then add to this the other 9 teams and you can see what a powerful method this was.

    and yes, children were found ~~ and happily, a few were alive.[/quote]

This is exactly what I was talking about in my post in the Special Projects, Targets & Predictions section.

http://www.tenthousandroads.com/wbbs/WBB.cgi?board=projects;action=display;num=1063225649

IMHO, there needs to be a group, like what you mentioned polka_dot_PUH_JOMMIES, not only to put a positive face forward on the RV community as a whole, but also to give those who want or need a positive OUTLET for this talent and or skill.  A chance to not only use our skills, but to give something back to the world in which we live in.

I think that this is something very important, that unfortunatly, is missing for some/most of us.  

Without a functioning, positive, productive and structured organization or group, where a RV'er can actualy put his or her skills to use, we all seem to be just practicing.  

BUT PRACTICING FOR WHAT I ASK???

What is the purpose of all the practice when one has no day to day, real world application for the skill?  Speaking for myself, I would like to actualy USE the skill to acomplish something, other than just decsribing another practice target.  I realize that some of us have yet to make the transition from believing to knowing, but if that is the only outcome (and for some that is enough) what did we make the journey for?

(Sigh)  Sorry for the rant, this is something that realy bothers me.  

:(

Fire, somewhere around September 25, 2003

Well some of the TKR staff have asked if we could have a Gallery section that would be sort of like a 'wish list' for the public who had some need for RV.  Basically, they would write up their request and submit it, and the wizops would review it, and if they thought it was workable, write a tasking(s) for it and put it in the projects section (noted as one likely without any feedback).  

Any viewer who wanted could try it and the sessions would be public. The person would just have to take whatever the viewers got with a grain of salt--it might be wildly wrong data, or not--if several viewers did something on it, it might start to come together a little better.

There are some ethical issues with this but in general it's not a bad idea.  This hasn't been approved yet as an option we're going to pursue, but some think that having an outlet for 'real people' to have access to viewers, and viewers to get to do sessions on something they consider 'real' (even without feedback), is something that ought to be here.

I hadn't brought it up on the board yet because we're still working on getting the galleries live online, and I wanted to wait until they were to get public opinion about this.  But I guess for those reading this thread, if you have an opinion, let us know.

PJ

T-bone, somewhere around September 25, 2003

;-) ;-) PJ, if you were here I'd kiss you!  LOL!  ;-) ;-)

Seriously tho', you already know my answer.  ;)

Here's hoping, and thanks!

Tigr50, somewhere around September 25, 2003

Hi there again:
I love the idea of a place where people can put in an RV request--but I don't quite understand the "feedback" part.  Even a bloodhound gets a pat on his wrinkly head if he finds a clue.  

Yes, people should know that they get what they get and take their chances with the info; I am one who is AVID about the idea of using RV for real targets--good, bad, or indifferent.  I think that the "Gallery" should be easily accessed, and you could just let people know by placing an announcement on appropriate websites or chat groups.  Some folks are going to try to trip you up...give you a false trail to RV, so it should be evaluated by your moderators.  

I also think that there should be a final evaluation.  What happened?  Was any good info provided?  If you don't want to name names, then don't.  My ego can stand it.  

I would prefer serious cases, but if someone has lost something--even their beloved pooch, RV should help.

Just my two cents.
Deb

admin, somewhere around September 25, 2003

Howdy Deb!

[quote]I don't quite understand the "feedback" part.  Even a bloodhound gets a pat on his wrinkly head if he finds a clue. [/quote]
Feedback is always an option in the system, it's just having it.  We'll try to get what we can from people.  I think it'd be nice if they could update it too.

[quote]I think that the "Gallery" should be easily accessed,[/quote]
Well inside the gallery walls there has to be registration--but it can be totally anonymous--or the system can't track who owns what sessions, etc.  But we could probably make it part of the public gallery, with a simple form to submit for this, so there'd be a direct link to it and it'd be easy to use.  

There are always going to be far more wishes than viewers even with some limits set on it.  And there's other issues, you know, just because someone wants an answer about a legitimate case doesn't mean they have the right to answers about the case or could do anything with the data to make it worth viewing it.  That's why I said there are some ethical issues sometimes.  

There's also, you know, if someone wants the description of someone who stole their stereo and viewers get data they decide is surely their neighbor and they go hurt the guy, and it isn't their neighbor (or well, even if it was!), that's kind of a problem.  That's the reason I said we hadn't decided on doing it yet.  There are a lot of considerations about the targets taken and the people we're doing it for.

[quote]Some folks are going to try to trip you up...give you a false trail to RV, so it should be evaluated by your moderators. [/quote]
Well we're not going to view intentions for each one, lol, but we'll evaluate how they answer things on the form and hopefully the screening process will help a lot.  If the viewers are all wandering around the map on a target we'll be getting a clue there's probably something up with that one.

[quote]I also think that there should be a final evaluation.  What happened?  Was any good info provided?  If you don't want to name names, then don't.  My ego can stand it. [/quote]
Gallery sessions are name/alias-free unless the viewer chooses otherwise in their session settings.  

Getting specific enough feedback for this kind of evaluation won't be too easy.  We'll have a project gallery where that kind of thing will be much easier, either because the targets are known, or because the answer isn't but the context at least is.
 
[quote]I would prefer serious cases, but if someone has lost something--even their beloved pooch, RV should help.[/quote]
Well, I consider losing a dog to be pretty serious to the person who loves the dog. ;-)  (Although, finding a living dog is as hard as finding a traveling person, as they're generally constantly in motion, and general environmental descriptions aren't real useful unless they're highly distinct/recognizeable...)

PJ

Tigr50, somewhere around September 26, 2003

Hi and thanks for the feedback on my suggestions!

To clarify:  I think if we get positive feedback (owner finds beloved pooch) and it can be linked to our (individual or joint) RV info, and the owner says "good for you," we all should hear about it.  This is just to encourage the unconscious, I think, and to produce more good stuff, and make the ego in a better humor to participate (i.e. get out of the way).  What we find is that Psi comes and goes in waves.

The real tricky part will be evaluating the info without tossing out what you don't like.  The coordinator's job is the hardest.  All the RVers have to do is their best shot at what they pick up on best.  Sometimes, you are only going to get a word or two, or long, rambling sessions (my experience).  It's hard to put together some kind of report, so one wonders if you shouldn't just give everything to the "client" and let them sort it out.

The other hard thing is death of the target.  If it IS the beloved pooch or kitty, what to do?  Still, finding the body brings closure, not to be too morbid.

Tell you what though--this is all real life practice, and I think it gives one a whole new perspective on RV.

Cheers
Deb

T-bone, somewhere around September 26, 2003

Hi Deb  :)

I agree, but it seems to me that tasking may be a bit tricky too.  For instance, if someone wants to find something that is missing, and the owner "Thinks" it was stolen, then the task could be "Determine who stole said object and his current location" instead of, "describe current location of said object".  Both tasks will take a viewer in differing dirrections with only one leading to the proper target.  (IMHO) Understanding and interperating the task request, then formulating the  properly worded and structured tasking is as critical to the outcome of a session as the intent of the viewer.  They both seem to drive the session outcome.  Ehh... thats my 2 cents worth.

Tigr50, somewhere around September 26, 2003

Hi back, T-bone:

Well, I think that all viewers have a special way of looking at things and adding up multiple impressions might give a questioner the best clues to answer just about any question.  Of course, a moderator could ask more specific questions of the inquirer ("Is the whatever lost or stolen?").  The idea is to give the questioner SOME information that may be better than no information, or something to add to what has been gathered by conventional means to that point.  I've done this kind of thing--on the radio and by mail.   All I ask is the target's name (if animate, like a dog's name) and/or  birth date of the questioner.  I guess I need something to hang my hat on, psychically.

Everyone works differently, and that can be a great advantage.

Cheers
Deb

admin, somewhere around September 26, 2003

Hi Deb,

Well this isn't all worked out yet, and Eva and I will hammer on it for awhile and then let the staff and wizop council hammer on it more before anything is real.  But my original idea was to (a) make the tasking fairly generic whenever possible, (b) make probably more than one tasking for it and (c) the sessions would be seen as-is.  We aren't going to try and make a formal analytical project out of this kind of thing, not worth the time at this point.  We will have formal projects in the project gallery already.  

Someday, if the project gallery is getting to the point where there seems to be enough people and skill gathered there to make it workable, then we might consider doing something more formal for the public, but that's way down the road and only a vague potential.  If we did that though, we would probably make it a private affair at that point (the sessions, I mean), so the 'simple' beginning has its own advantages.

I think with enthusiastic viewers like you, who knows what could happen?  Maybe we'll do it and see. :-)

Best regards,
PJ

waterway, somewhere around October 15, 2003

How about the blog page?  Is that still in the works?  

admin, somewhere around October 15, 2003

That was an idea, not yet begun tho.

I have actually been doing mostly daily RV for about a month finally, never managed to do it every day before.  The odd side effect is that for this time frame, I have found that I pretty much just don't give a damn about anybody else's RV during this period.  Isn't that mean and selfish of me?!

More PEM polite nagging would I am sure inspire me to keep on it, so much is nearly finished.  But I get busy with other stuff and personal stuff and space it out. :-)

PJ

waterway, somewhere around October 15, 2003

PJ sez:
[color=Blue][size=1]I have found that I pretty much just don't give a damn about anybody else's RV during this period.  Isn't that mean and selfish of me?!
[/size][/color]

Uh... yes. ::)

..er.. I mean NO!  Its not like you guys developed this snazzy place and have been creating an infrastructure for years and years that has benefitted thousands.... so I guess SOME brief moments of selfishness is okay.  After all, you are sharing your education with us, and all this insight on the aspect aspects is darn helpful, so [color=Teal]for the sake of the entire universe, please keep selfishly practicing your RV daily!!![/color]

whew... give me a few minutes and I can rationalize anything.... 8)

People are pretty good about sharing their RV technique insights and posting every part of the process they thing is pertinent, which is what a bunch of blogs would do... so it isn't a glaring necessity to set aside a NEW page for that.  

Keep RVing... I think that helps more, in lots of ways.

I may even develop such a habit myself....

[color=Purple][size=1]...it could happen...[/size][/color]

admin, somewhere around October 15, 2003

Well I have no end of good ideas but some end of time. Boy I'd sure love to find some other coldfusion RV web martyr lol.

The main thing is that when I decided to no-kidding-view-every-day, it didn't just mean that I needed about 30 minutes for at least relaxing and an exercise.  It also meant that I can't be seriously sleep deprived anymore, because if I am, most the time I just can't do a bleepin' session.  

I realize now how stupid this sounds, I resent 'having' to sleep because it takes up valuable time lol!  (Actually I love sleeping!--it's just a priority thing.  Sleep is for me: most everything is for someone else--boss, kid, duty, whatever.  I'm at the bottom of the priority list generally.  How did that happen??)

I'm still on the indra thing--er, was that this thread?!--but I'm going to have to take off now.

I am so annoyed at myself about today's exercise.  It was a brief little session and I wanted to focus in on the main thing of import.  I kept getting this long, maybe wooden shape, and a round thing at the end, and the main sketch looks just like a chair leg with a wheel on it.  Also had this sense of four long skinny pole things, held vertically, kind of moving, same direction yet independently.  Was too stressed about work to do much of a session so I ended early.  The target was these four guys playing pool, lol.  Then I understood, I'm sure I've seen that pattern, the stick held up while several people move around the table. But I was so annoyed at myself for the chronic 'rolling wheel' AOL at the end of the long thing--which completely made me miss that it was a BALL.  Sheesh!  If I had a brain I'd be dangerous.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around October 16, 2003

Did you use any aspect RV on that exercise?

I know we have gone over this a bazillion times.... poor Ingo Swann has written about it a bunch... but it ain't sinkin in my noggin so well....

In your session you got info, but no "meaning" or context of the info.  Like from Warcollier's study, you are just getting pieces of the puzzle, but no context to assemble them.  I am very good at test taking because I first figure out the context of the question, then the range of choices are severely limited.... so here, none of that would help because no context is given.  

Could Aspect RV help here?  -)id you look for motion?  did you listen for sounds?  

admin, somewhere around October 16, 2003

The exercise exampled above was poor (as I ranted to a friend after).  None of these are indepth enough to be very good but even as mine go, it was poor, lol.

My boss was ranting on my answering machine not long into it (I'd lost some spacing-time) and I ended the exercise early so I could go respond to him.  (Ever notice how working for a living is so inconvenient to one's social and study pursuits?)

However, in MY sessions--which I call exercises on purpose, to emphasize that they are
(a) usually brief and
(b) always experimental
(each one is slightly different),
I do not have enough TIME in session for a whole lot of context.  Now this is not entirely true; I am certain McMoneagle can get more context in 5 minutes than novice viewers can in hours.  But for most viewers I know and certainly me, more context usually comes when I am in a more altered state and have had a sufficient period of time of target contact to seem to 'deepen' my connection with it.

I have a choice between working exercises, and not worrying about getting really deep into it, and trusting that daily exercises are better than nothing, or not doing RV at all.  So, this is what I do.  We can't really compare a written (non-ERV) brief exercise with a 1.5-3 hour monitored session of course; they aren't the same animal at all, and they won't have anywhere near the same results or 'depth' (just in case some readers don't realize this).  But it's ok.

For a long time I felt like if I didn't have time for a big cooldown and then a full session that I just didn't have time for RV.  But I have learned more by learning to just sit my butt down, breathe calmly for 60 seconds, and then just do it, then I would have imagined I could.

This exercise had several significant problems.  They all do, but I'm perfectly ok with that, because I learn from every one, usually something a little new each time.  I am as I say intellectually informed but experientially starved, so in terms of hands-on sessions, I have the brain of a teacher and the hands of a child: I'm a novice at doing, as my experience is too limited and fragmented over the years.  In a way though it's good because I feel that everything I learn about myself might eventually help someone else.

Most the (limited) data was highly focused on the pool concept (the sticks, ball, pockets and table) which is very good, as my estimation on FB was that this was the proper "most relevant and important" data in the target and in most of my exercises that is exactly what I want to focus on.  I do not want to waste any more time writing down pages of descriptives, which taken as an imperfect whole would describe 90% of the targets on planet earth.  I want data specific to the focus of the target, and/or quite prominent in proximity or relationship.  And I don't want data like 'glittery' unless that is a majorly important aspect of the target, I used to waste half a session on that useless stuff eons ago, I want data that specifically contributes to focus.  So, I have my own filters, as each exercise has its own goals.

More time in session probably would have expanded the data to cover at least a few aspects of the four pool players and the otherwise empty 1940's pool hall they were lounging around.  I want my sessions to start with what is most relevant and so as time goes on, amazingly, they do.  (Good example of getting what you ask for--even on a novice level.)

(My target pool is so diverse that I have really solved most my self-chosen pool AOL issues--there is literally no telling what the heck any data might be.)

Since this is an RV forum I will bore you with the session issues as edu lol--you know, like, it may be that my sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.  ;-)

The first data was the sort of horseshoe/arch shape of the pockets, a bit 'wider' than a regular arch though, and the understanding there was more than one and their positions related to each other in a sort of geometric way.  

Because my sketching sucks, I was incapable of drawing these as I felt them (which were sort of laid-back arches--not vertical) and instead had to draw them as ordinary arches sort of flattened.  

(I can't tell you how often my sketching has itself given me aol later in session. I am starting TODAY on a sketch-objectify daily drill. I need help.  Intervention. Maybe on a cosmic level, I am so bad, lol.)

Then I asked Arch for some info, and got a couple little sketches of the end of something it seemed, something thin and long; the second, at the end I felt this sudden round shape so it looks super 'bulbous'.  

(My platen scanner bit the dust, I have a feed scanner now, and these are in my lab book, hence the descriptions instead of a scan.)

Then I asked PG for some info, and got nothing on people (oddly), and instead info on the ground seeming very bare, but some misc. junk on it and a sense of ugliness, which I promptly aol'd as outdoors and maybe scattered rocks and brush and dirt, that was not only aol and wrong, but wrong that I didn't really write down the raw impression (of dirt, mess and sort of ugliness and untidyness).  (Given the B&W photo feedback, the ground probably was pretty gritty and dirty in there. Bad aol, pj.)

Then I asked BB for info, and I got a clear sense of the arch shape again horizontal (laying down), and it was clearly "elevated" like an edge above the open part.  (Pretty much just how a pool table pocket would be if you excluded all the universe except that pocket from your consideration.)  I sucked at drawing this, having no clue how to objectify it visually, as usual, lol.

Then I asked SSS for info, and had another clear sense of a long thin something, and something round and rolling right at the end of it.  -)emonstrating a beautiful sketch-AOL, I managed to merge this into a nice rendition of what seems to be a chair leg with a wheel slightly apart from it at the bottom, which I nicely attached, obliterating the best sketch fragment yet. ;-)

Then I asked SW for info, and got a symbolic visual.  It was very clear, but without context was tough to communicate.  On paper: "Symbolic> visual> vertical things moving independently, yet fairly together, reminds me of poles, semi-"following" the others in motion, yet clearly not attached as the motion goes."  I drew 4 vertical lines in a pattern and noted, "but they change position; they move 'around'."  I saw another visual of how one sort of separated from the others and became a 'focus' so I added, "One can leave the others."

Then I asked JC for info, and felt "something elevated above ground; on stilts or wheels or something."  He gave me a boatload more info that was far too complex for me to catch and unravel so I had to write, 'more I can't translate' and I knew I'd be sorry later, lol.  I'd planned to come back to him but didn't have time.

I was wondering about the relationship of the arch-shapes and pole-shapes and the sense of motion, so I asked DDL, who said: "fixed arch shapes; moving vertical shapes."  OK, that cleared that up, so I went to RS and ES who had no response.  

Then I asked Artist and fell into a daydream (finally started to get altered state here) and by the time I snapped out, had not only lost 20 minutes (bleep!) but forgot what the hell she'd been showing me. That'll teach me.... the value of a monitor, lol!  Forgot my kitchen timer in the other room or I'd have been using it. ;-)

So I asked artist again, and I sensed pretty clearly this shape and dynamic, but couldn't sketch it worth a damn: one wall, flat and facing me.  A second wall, at the left, its side to me, and it meets the other wall in a corner but NOT QUITE, because going "between" the walls in the corner there I drew a 'path' and said "Path? Water?" as I could feel this relationship of something following that path, into the corner 'between' the two walls where they would have met, was relevant.  Then I got a clear sense of "round and rolling" and drew a circle and promptly wrote, "O - rolling - wheel(s)??" -- thank you, AOL, how I know and love you.

I was just starting to feel fairly happy as I was finally feeling some contact and slightly larger data-groups.

For newbies by this comment I mean, see the progression here: first an arch shape, and a long shape, and then the 3D of the arch shape, and then the 3D of the long shape and its relationship to round-rolling thing (3D plus two shapes and association), and then the multiple vertical shapes and their motion and spacial relationship, and then the slightly larger combination of shapes and concept of path-through etc. -- this is fairly normal in a session, in or out of a methodology, that both sketch-fragments and concepts will gradually get more complex as the target contact of the viewer gets deeper.  I started out with one simple thing, and was gradually adding additional facets or more dimensions and some proximity/relationship and so forth.

Alas. Right then my boss called and I had to end the session. !@#$(&!

That session sucked on paper, many do, so what.  It was valuable as an experience, not only giving me a couple shapes I now have to learn to sketch, but several "feelings inside" I now understand better.

PJ

waterway, somewhere around October 17, 2003

PJ posed:

[color=Red][size=1](Ever notice how working for a living is so inconvenient to one's social and study pursuits?)
[/size][/color]

Yep.  I am trying to get over my savage bitterness that I was not born shockingly wealthy so I could ditch this whole "working for a living" gig and spend my waking hours (and some of my sleeping) doing RV research, solving all the world's problems, and losing 25 lbs.  Of course, had I been born rich, I'd be wasting my life in some other, more glamours locale and weigh 25lbs more than I do now.....

or.... [size=1][color=Purple]since I am already fanticizing[/color][/size] ... with my worldly wisdome and insight still in hand, some philanthropist could send me a vast amount of wealth, and I could pursue RV research full time.... or I could RV some lottery info.... and if any of that happened I would hopefully deal with it  well.  But for some reason, I have this feeling that the struggle, the family, the job, the distractions.... are all just what I need.... so I keep at it.... being appreciative for the progress.

Whow... doesn't that just make you feel all warm inside...?  Or maybe its those burrito things I had at the luncheon today....hmmm....

Oh right... remote viewing.   Yeah, I think you are actually doing yourself a SERVICE to have the combat environment going on while you work on RV.  Mr. McMoneagle pointed out in a couple places that if you can only RV in a quiet room with 20 minutes of prep, proper O2 levels, correct LSTime, etc. etc... then you have more crutches than capabilities going on.  

Lotsa AOL complaints in yer post.... maybe the rush job of RV may invite you to move so quickly you don't have time to slow down for AOL.  

BB, DDL, SSS, Artist, are these all aspects you are using?  Or are they common RV terms I am just forgetting?   If they are aspects, how did you come up with them?  Is there an organized "role" for the apsects, or are they just aspects that joined the process and feel "right" to use?

Your description of the process is very valuable.  Thanks.

admin, somewhere around October 17, 2003

Hi Eric,

[quote]some philanthropist could send me a vast amount of wealth[/quote]
I'm thinking that a psychic version of charlie's angels oughtta be of interest to some 'mysterious benefactor', lol.

[quote]Lotsa AOL complaints in yer post.... [/quote]
It's a pretty common issue. ;-)

[quote]BB, DDL, SSS, Artist, are these all aspects you are using?[/quote]
They're usually acronyms for various aspects, yeah.  I use abbrevs and don't always want to share the crazy names with the world, lol.

[quote]If they are aspects, how did you come up with them?[/quote]
Well after I do some general 'describe the target' repeated openings and jot stuff down, I go through whatever Aspects come to mind (I'll eventually get more structure in this but I'm still experimenting), and sometimes I'll ask, "Anybody else have info they wanna share?" and inside my head (though I feel most psi in my torso) I have this sort of hazy visual sense of people all around me and sometimes a hand will go up, or two, or ten, whatever.  I'll pick one and just label it A1 and let them share, see what they can do for me.  The next one is A2, etc.  If some do well, after feedback I'll tune back in and say, "A1 of {X} data, what's a name I can call you, so I can call you back?" and I'll just let something come to me, probably more my own free association or something than them actually supplying it, but the same Aspect does seem to respond to the name from then on.

[quote]Is there an organized "role" for the apsects, or are they just aspects that joined the process and feel "right" to use?[/quote]
Right now while I have a lot of experimenting left, it's not real organized as that would imply a fixed structure.  I have a few I regularly call (like Artist and Architect), and a few I call if a target has a certain feel to it, but the rest are just arbitrary.  Yesterday my target was Gorbachev boogying with two dancing backup singers (girls) (and out of sight, a rock band) during a campaign some years ago, and I got an arch "Singer" and thought oh, that's new, I don't think I've had that before, and the arch said the target had "the setting and people for an audience."  So sometimes they join generically like the A1 and sometimes something just pops into my head during the calling process.

Gotta get back to work for now.

PJ

end of messages

[END Topic 85] Targets ~ the data we get ... TKR Remote Viewing Forum August 2003