Topic [126] Entrainment and Masking 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 19, 2003

A prominent post on this site states that Glenn Wheaton learned about RV by participating in the Psi Tech Chat site.  It is an absurd lie, but it remains published.

Last night at the HRVG advanced class Glenn lectured for over an hour on Entrainment and Masking, after tasking the class on a multi-part target that involved masking and overlay.

I would invite (challenge) the Psi Tech president to write a few paragraphs here explaining target overlay techniques, masking, and entrainment.  Tell us how and why a target overlay might be employed, how the entrainment would be accomplished, and how analytical servicing is employed to maintain the overlay.

When Skip Atwater visited HRVG he was admiring an excellent session produced by one of Glenn’s students.  The student mentioned, “But the real target wasn’t the Russian Revolution- this was an overlay target.”  Skip raised his eyebrows and said, “What?!”  The student explained overlay to Skip, who looked at Glenn and said, “Your stock just went up considerably.”   He said to the student, “Not even many of the people in MY unit were familiar with these concepts.”

So you TRV students out there might ask your teacher about entrainment, and masking. Maybe work a few overlay targets. I would be interested to hear Joni’s (or DeuxesMachina’s) thoughts on these topics.  It is an interesting aspect of remote viewing.

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 19, 2003

[quote]write a few paragraphs here explaining target overlay techniques, masking, and entrainment.  Tell us how and why a target overlay might be employed, how the entrainment would be accomplished, and how analytical servicing is employed to maintain the overlay.
[/quote]

    I, for one, would like this information from anyone who is informed about it.

    Throughout all these threads, a main theme  mentioned by so many is to advance the cause and practice of remote viewing.  This forum has a captive audience with many so eager to learn.  Not all of us have been fortunate enough to be personally trained to date, nor will some of us ever be due to a multitude of reasons.

    Those who have or will have the benefit of personal instruction have an advantage over those who do not. or will not. There are no doubt many forum members who are  'yet to be skilled remote viewers' who would benefit in such an immense way if we had all the shared knowledge possible from all who are members of this forum.

    Those of you who have been trained know where the weak links are in this learning process ~~ the places that it's easy to fall into bad habits, the confusion of how to decipher the data....all kinds of things ~~ things I don't even know enough about to even ask the questions  ;-).

    Personally, I thank each and everyone of you who has taken the time from your busy lives to share what you have.

    One of the best ways to promote remote viewing is to have people who can remote view....in order for  people to remote view, they need guidence and instruction....wishing  & hoping ain't gonna do it for us.

     So, anyone having the knowledge needed to respond to Dicks questions/statements, please have at it!  We students are in our chairs are ready & waiting.......

   

admin, somewhere around August 19, 2003

Howdy Dick,

Gee whiz. Did this have to be a fight thread?  Come on, surely we could talk about any topic of interest without it only being to aid or abet a flamewar?  (And if you're going to begin a thread AS a fight, you might as well begin it in the fever forum, lol.)

Sounds like after a long lecture about it you'd be the one more qualified to talk about theories of specific interest to you--like that one.  And as I've found people have different usages of similar/same terms in this field, it's never even 100% certain that what one person considers an obvious meaning, is the same thing someone else would mean by it, until often extensive discussion has been had.

How about instead of a gauntlet thrown to demand someone else prove themselves, you just talk cordially about what you learned and your thoughts about it?  I am sure that in doing so, the good example set of your thoughtfulness or Glenn's insight into this would speak volumes--and probably better than the combative stuff would.

I don't wanna hear yet more fighting, but I'd be plenty interested to read someone's essay and thoughts on topics like those.  I'm sure others here would be interested as well.

PJ

PS  The 'prominent post' has (a) already been rebutted as I recall and (b) is on the fever board, not this board.  If you are trying to amend an incorrect statement, it'd be more logical to do it where the statement was made--more people who've seen it might read it.  Just an idea.

Dick, somewhere around August 19, 2003

First of all about the "gauntlet" aspect of the post. Of course, it is just what you say. I haven't seen any apology or retraction from Joni (DeuxesMachina).  So someone else "rebutting" the slander and defamation is not the same as the poster acknowledging that it is untrue.  If you want to move this to the other topic column, fine.

Now, as to why this is relevant to remote viewing.

Target overlay, masking, and entrainment are extremely interesting subjects. When I first found out about this I was just short of flabbergasted. I had been given overlay targets and never suspected.

Last night when the newer students heard about it, it was interesting to watch their slack-jawed, WOW! expressions.

So, it is a fascinating topic and we'll discuss it.  I just wondered what Psi Tech knows about it.

Aloha,

Dick

admin, somewhere around August 19, 2003

Hmmmn.  Well I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about it.  If shift into regular conversation happens the topic is fine here--obviously those things DO relate to RV.

Regards,
PJ

Damien, somewhere around August 20, 2003

    Dick, I have to say I am also personally very interested in Entrainment and Masking.  I would guess almost everyone here would love what you have to say on the subject as well.  Let's not worry about who has the most knowledge about this or that, let's just learn from each other.  I'm all ears.

                                          Thanks :),
                                                          Damien

                           

energycritter, somewhere around August 20, 2003

well, count me in....I'm all ears too....let's learn...

;-)

Bc the EC

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 20, 2003

Hello Dick

[quote]Target overlay, masking, and entrainment are extremely interesting subjects. When I first found out about this I was just short of flabbergasted. I had been given overlay targets and never suspected[/quote]

While you wait for someone else to discuss this topic and since you are so interested in it and it is so relevant to RVing, then please start to flabbergast us with what you have to share. ;-)

I mentioned in my first post on this thread how helpful it would be to all of us. PJ has mentioned the same and the posts following hers have said the same.....

We don't want to be teased....we want to learn.  Please share what you know.  Thanks

Tigr50, somewhere around August 20, 2003

Hi there:
Sorry, don't mean to be dense, but I still don't know what "entrainment and masking" is, nor it's purpose.  Can anyone give me a one-sentence definition as to what it is and how it fits into RV?
Cheers
Deb

admin, somewhere around August 20, 2003

Sounds like Dick and Glenn are the experts.  Maybe he'll come back and essay on it.

PJ

cautious, somewhere around August 20, 2003

[quote]Hi there:
Sorry, don't mean to be dense, but I still don't know what "entrainment and masking" is, nor it's purpose.  Can anyone give me a one-sentence definition as to what it is and how it fits into RV?
Cheers
Deb[/quote]


ARV perhaps?

wizopeva, somewhere around August 20, 2003

Hm, I'm not sure of the definition of that terminology either.  Maybe it's an HRVG terminology and so not widely disseminated amoungst nonHRVG viewers.   But it sounds a bit like what Pru often called 'double tasking,' in which the viewer is given a session to do.  But the session is in fact assigned to more than one target.  The end result is that a viewer will often describe both targets at once, often choosing descriptions that work for both targets.  

If the tasker wants to be sneaky, he/she can neglect to tell the viewer about the second target.  That's why you have to really trust any person that you choose to do sessions for, so you can feel sure that he/she is not sneakily using your session for his/her own gain.  I believe PRu mentioned some aspects of this subject in her closing paper many months ago, as well as me discussing it on various mailing lists before that.  I also seem to recall Shelia making a passing reference to it on Stargate quite some time ago.  LYn also had a few stories to tell on the subject around that time too.  I am not sure if this is a similar thing to what Dick is talking about, but it does sound something like it.  

HOpefully DIck will be kind enough to leave the flamewar in the flame bin and have fun discussing method with us here on the peaceful side of the board.   I do feel that this is a very worthwhile thread about something that many rvers are not told about and I'd like to see it stay on the topics of interest to rv itself.  

-E

Don_Williams, somewhere around August 20, 2003

Dick,
I'm interested too.  I've never heard these terms used in the way you seem to be using them, but I'm not sure.  That brief description was too vague.  Perhaps you are using different terms than others are for the same things.  Or maybe you're referring to the kind of tasking shenanigans PJ made reference to.  Either way, it sounds interesting and  I'm fascinated.

Please tell us about it.  Come on, don't make me have to RI you into it!  LOL!  Just kidding, just kidding!!   ;-)
Don

admin, somewhere around August 20, 2003

I think I've heard or used both words in conversations with a couple others about RV over time (well I think...).

But I've noticed over time, that what I considered to be the meaning or logic of some term or RV experience, Glenn generally has his own unique and rather different perception about. I brought up the terminology issue because it's nearly always a serious issue in RV.

Entrainment and masking both have regular definitions outside RV. I'm not looking at a dictionary, but I think entrainment can mean either, the process of making one thing a part of another, or the process of training something or someone to do something regularly.  Obviously the word has a lot of applications concerning viewers themselves, as well as the process of any disciplined methodology, physiology, and more... I mean the topics one could address related to the word are surely quite a long list.

Masking has a well known meaning, some form of camoflauge, concealment, misdirection, layering or bordering.  (I looked that one up to be sure I wasn't missing something obscure. ;))  There's an equally long list of RV topics that could addressed with that term.  From the attempts to conceal a target by hiding it in elements of dissimilar, distractive nature (something McMoneagle talked about), to the double-tasking issue Eva mentioned (that was E. Don not me!), to several other potential issues with targeting, tasking and feedback.

In short, those terms could address tons of different things, depending on what a person felt like talking about.  Perhaps in some peoples' RV world they have only one meaning, and it's very specific, and so it makes perfect sense to tell someone, "I know all about these things, so tell me about them and I'll know you know too."  In mine, they are not official RV words, they are just english words, and they could be applied to a whole lot of different stuff in RV just depending on what you felt like focusing on.

So the end point is that unless Dick volunteers what THEY mean by those terms, we could talk about 14 different things and never even be touching on what he has in mind anyway. ;-)  So on with the essay, Dick.

PJ

kboyken, somewhere around August 21, 2003

[quote]
Entrainment and masking both have regular definitions outside RV. I'm not looking at a dictionary, but I think entrainment can mean either, the process of making one thing a part of another, or the process of training something or someone to do something regularly.  Obviously the word has a lot of applications concerning viewers themselves, as well as the process of any disciplined methodology, physiology, and more... I mean the topics one could address related to the word are surely quite a long list.[/quote]

If I'm not mistaken, entrainment means something like pulling things along.  For example, in meteorology (I was a meteorology major for a couple semesters in my misspent youth), if I remember right, entrainment is the process in which rising warm air sucks in and pulls along surrounding air.

[quote]Masking has a well known meaning, some form of camoflauge, concealment, misdirection, layering or bordering.  (I looked that one up to be sure I wasn't missing something obscure. ;))  There's an equally long list of RV topics that could addressed with that term.  From the attempts to conceal a target by hiding it in elements of dissimilar, distractive nature (something McMoneagle talked about), to the double-tasking issue Eva mentioned (that was E. Don not me!), to several other potential issues with targeting, tasking and feedback.[/quote]

Masking can also mean to block out or protect something, like when you mask surfaces when you paint.  In computerese, a mask is a bit pattern used in logic operations.  I can see where it might be applied to RV in some way, maybe in some kind of process where you try to mask out irrelevant information, for example.  Just a guess.

Karl

Mystic_Rhythms, somewhere around August 21, 2003

Dick- Thats your great big hint to jump in here and fill us in, man!  -)ont be shy.  If you're waiting for someone else to explain it, it obviously aint happenin'

MR

Dick, somewhere around August 21, 2003

Eva wrote:  "it sounds a bit like what Pru often called 'double tasking,' in which the viewer is given a session to do.  But the session is in fact assigned to more than one target.  The end result is that a viewer will often describe both targets at once, often choosing descriptions that work for both targets."  

Hi Eva,
What you are talking about is termed "morphing." We have done experiments with this. A targeteer assigns the same target ID to two different targets.  The viewers will produce data relevant to either or both targets.  It is an exercise we throw at new students as they train, basically to teach them about why it is important to keep target IDs pristine and not reuse them.

This is different from target overlay, masking, and entrainment. I am working on a post to describe these concepts without attempting to offer instruction. To be honest overlay and masking boggles my mind.  I don't pretend to be an expert on this. I have never tasked an overlay target, but I have worked a few. Only Glenn knows how many I have actually done, that secretive bastard. :-)

I'll give an overview of the subject in my next post.  And I'll try to keep it academic rather than a challenge to Jonina Dourif.

Aloha,

Dick

Dick, somewhere around August 22, 2003

The best I can give you in this forum is a theoretical definition. I’ve had 3 or 4 classes on this subject, I’ve worked a few overlay mask targets (without my knowledge) and I’ve picked Glenn’s brain out of class for hours. It is one of the more complex issues in remote viewing.

Entrainment and Masking, theoretical definition:

Masking is the art of arbitrary target design to facilitate the extraction of data to be extrapolated to another unrelated target area.  In other words you design and create a target to represent the masked target. The data produced by a viewer working the “mask” represents data congruent to the masked target.

Simple Masking is accomplished by the Targeteer in an Overlay process. It is the targeteer’s intent that makes the overlay robust enough to cause a viewer to produce data associated with the mask.

Masking can be very complex, but normally there is no real need to make it so.  

Simple Entrainment occurs when the viewer gleans data from the overlay target itself. The intent of the targeteer is for the viewer to focus on the overlay, which is associated with the target ID.

Complex Entrainment occurs when aspects of the Overlay Target begin to reflect potentials active in the real target area consistently.  The mask becomes a living target and activity and/or changes in the real target are mirrored in the overlay.

Analytic servicing of the Overlay Mask establishes the core Entrainment potentials for Complex Entrainment. This only occurs with the continued application of human intent and focus to maintain the overlay.

I know this is difficult to grasp. It is not the type of thing that is discussed on Psi Tech chat.  Look for an example of a simple overlay target to be posted (as feedback for viewers) on the HRVG bulletin board in the next day or so.

Aloha,

Dick

Solar_Babe, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Pardon my stupidity... but this sounds complicated. What would be the positive uses for it in RV'ing? Seems that the less complicated the process the clearer the info. Or... is it yet another test of the minds abilities for use during another time for another purpose?  

waterway, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Pardon our stupidy, but I gotta side with S_B on this.  

I guess if the intent is to distract the part of the brain that gives incorrect RV info and just pull out corrent info... then its a great discovery.  It must also be useful to gather data you don't want your viewer to know you are gathering data on... such as sensitive subject to the viewer.  


In any case, Thanks a bunch for sharing that info.  Its obvious a lot of work and thought has gone into teasing out all the nuances of the RV process.  It would help me to understand it better if it was explained in even more detail, and included some graphics/flowcharts or something.  

Thanks for sharing it.

admin, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Hmmmn.  Thanks Dick.  

Interesting for a variety of reasons.

{I was going to comment on your earlier post about morphing and Target IDs.  I think you're teaching viewers something real different than assumed there.  But this isn't really a thread about the issue of target IDs so I won't get into that.}

Some of these masking concepts (and you're using entrainment in a way that it pertains to masking) have been touched on long ago in RVland, but not to an active-implemented degree like you describe.

I'm trying to merge this above with say, McMoneagle's comments on keeping things as simple and as clean as possible, and his comments on multitasking. Which all suggest that the simpler and cleaner any process is, the better by far, and that mucking it up with all kinds of other things generally just muddies results.  

I mean RV isn't perfection and omniscience to begin with, so adding layers of misdirection or complication surely wouldn't help make anything clearer in the end would it?  There would have to be some real dire need for secrets from the viewers to make it worth the effort.

Now I suppose, if a tasker really wanted info on X, but they really didn't want the viewer to know about X, and so they worked out target Y as feedback, which shared many of X's obvious qualities, but then actually tasked the viewer on target X psychically, but they gave them target Y as feedback... this is doable in terms of, SOME of target Y might indeed be in the session (the viewer becoming 'entrained' to pick up one or the other or both) but this leads me to thoughts like,

(a) They better a hope a viewer isn't really good, or the viewer may pick up the "bait & switch routine" as I'd prefer to call THAT process (not as impressive a secret-technical sounding term, I know!) and not appreciate it--more devious plots have been tried with viewers who knew about them, and it did not endear the tasker to the viewer in those cases.

(b) The tasker in this "theoretical example" is either hostile to the viewer, or the viewer is not classified for the "real" targets in question, either of which are a real problem and both of which either endanger or insult the viewer in my view.

(c) Not even sure we should start on the issue of feedback on one thing when the psychic target is another and how this blows much of the Learning Theory in feedback all to hell and might be more harm than help to a viewer's ongoing development.

and of course,

(d) But WHY?

It sounds like you/Glenn are describing what amounts to a way of "subversively using viewers" -- getting viewers to describe what they think is target A when really the psychic tasking is target B.  They never even know.

By your comments it indicates Skip Atwater is "in on this" way of thinking, this using viewers without their knowledge or consent, as if this is a secret he's kept and didn't expect anybody else to know about.  We should copy all the stargate viewers on this discussion as they might be interested.

I guess if any of us ever wanted to be intelligence viewers working for one of these people, that might cause rethinking, but fortunately few if any of us will be.

In the meantime, it does sort of emphasize (by a sort of negative outline) the ethics of remote viewing tasking, doesn't it?  

To me, this is another area of ethics, beyond the merely tasking someone on an inappropriate target; this is in its own way, to me worse, since the target could be anything and the viewer is misled and, as you point out about your own sessions, unaware even after the fact of what sessions they think were on what they saw as feedback but were really on something else.

To me this sort of renders viewers into rats running a maze for a covert agenda they may not even be aware of, tasked by people deliberately deceiving them.

From the armchair intellectual standpoint it's interesting to think about...

... but from a viewer standpoint, I don't think I'd want to take tasking of any kind from anybody who thought all this was a cool idea.... worth studying & teaching.

Used to be one just learned to only take tasking from people one trusted to know what they were doing.

Now I guess one also learns to only take tasking from people one trusts not to be covertly using their viewing for something else.

Criminy. Maybe Prudence wasn't just paranoid! This field gets weirder by the day.

PJ

[size=0]edited to fix a typo...[/size]

wizopeva, somewhere around August 22, 2003

OK, let me see if I can bring this together.  I'll take it point by point.


Masking is the art of arbitrary target design to facilitate the extraction of data to be extrapolated to another unrelated target area.


OK, so you have one target but you are using it to help get data on another target.


In other words you design and create a target to represent the masked target. The data produced by a viewer working the “mask” represents data congruent to the masked target


So the masked target is the other target.  -)ata from the first target will be 'congruent' to data for the other target.


Simple Masking is accomplished by the Targeteer in an Overlay process. It is the targeteer’s intent that makes the overlay robust enough to cause a viewer to produce data associated with the mask.


'Overlay' is the word for the process that you use to do simple masking.




Simple Entrainment occurs when the viewer gleans data from the overlay target itself. The intent of the targeteer is for the viewer to focus on the overlay, which is associated with the target ID.

Simple entrainment is when the viewer describes the first target which is the target given as feedback to the viewer and which he/she associates with the target ID.



Complex Entrainment occurs when aspects of the Overlay Target begin to reflect potentials active in the real target area consistently.  


Complex entrainment occurs when the viewer begins to describe the other target, which apparently is the 'real' target.  Is that what you mean when you say 'reflect potentials?'  


The mask becomes a living target and activity and/or changes in the real target are mirrored in the overlay.


I don't understand this.  What is meant by 'changes in the real target?'  Is the target changing in one session or do you mean across multiple sessions?
 

Analytic servicing of the Overlay Mask establishes the core Entrainment potentials for Complex Entrainment. This only occurs with the continued application of human intent and focus to maintain the overlay.


So you are saying there is some kind of imposing of will and intent upon the viewer in a continuous fashion is needed to accomplish this process.

-E

 

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 22, 2003

[quote]To me this sort of renders viewers into rats running a maze for a covert agenda they may not even be aware of, tasked by people deliberately deceiving them.
[/quote]

    I agree.**  Perhaps this sort of thing is okay when working with highly developed professional viewers, but it certainly muddies the waters for the newbies.

    As far as does this method actually work??  I'm guessing it would as the intent would be to view the target. The key would be for the viewer not to have suspecion/deception factored into the intent.  So far, I have approached all targets with honesty coming from both sides. If I were to become involved with 'tricks' I think my data would be seriously flawed...until I bridged the gap of being a newbie vs an ole pro.

    Perhaps in 'high intelligence work' this method has a value.   I don't think I'm up to handling it at this time.. :P

modified to include:
** I was in agreement with what PJ said...my post was being made at the same time Eva was posting, so her slipped inbetween. ;-)  We seem to do this a lot Eva  ;)

admin, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Good heavens.  I hadn't even noticed this point:

Dick wrote:
This only occurs with the continued application of human intent and focus to maintain the overlay.

Eva wrote:
So you are saying there is some kind of imposing of will and intent upon the viewer in a continuous fashion is needed to accomplish this process.

Now that I reread what he said, I realize I missed that entirely the first time.

Well, he did say on the hrvg bbs that Glenn had been teaching the 'advanced' class "remote influence" for years as I recall, so I guess these topics tie into each other --indirectly--, but I hadn't realized that.

Erg.  This is getting deeper.

Dick I think you have succeeded with a nice technical explanation, and I'm glad you took the time to do so, thanks.

But maybe I misunderstand.  Because I'm getting that "Run, don't walk..." feeling, LOL!

PJ

jimk, somewhere around August 22, 2003

(d) But WHY?

It sounds like you/Glenn are describing what amounts to a way of "subversively using viewers" -- getting viewers to describe what they think is target A when really the psychic tasking is target B.  They never even know

*****************

Hi PJ and all.

In response to your concern.  You are right, it can be used precisely for the purpose you described.  However, it is not why it should be used.

Let me give you a couple of scenarios, and Dick, please feel free to correct me if I am unclear.

1. If the 'real' target is of a highly complex nature, for example, "Describe the primary architecture used for the 500 Q-bit-state super computer at X-Corporation",  the viewer will probably have no frame of reference in relation to the data produced.  If you create an overlay target covering certain aspects that map to aspects in the real target, it will be a lot easier for the viewer to access and describe those 'artificial' descriptors rather than the real ones.    Once the overlay target has been created and is maintained, any changes occuring in the 'real' target will be reflected in the overlay target by the process of entrainment.

2.  If you work a target with several sub-cues, a good viewer will soon 'figure out' what the target is and if tracking in real-time of a target is necessary, if the viewer really think he knows what the real target is, his preconceived notions about it will pollute the clarity of the data.  

3.  If you want to track a regular occurence or trend, such as the up and down of the stock market, you can with this process overlay the target to for example Billy who works the liquor store next door.  For example, if you know that Billy goes to work promptly everyday at 9 am, rain or shine, give or take 5 mins, you can cue it so that everyday Billy happens to come to work 5 mins early, the stock market will go up, and everytime he comes in 5 mins late, the stock market will go down that day.  Billy is in fact unknowingly becoming a meter of how the stock market is doing, simply by using him as the overlay aspect.  Again, I stress that Billy of course has no idea that this is going on.  You simply observe him going to work as usual in the morning from across the street.

I hope this clarifies the issue a bit.

Has anyone read this book by the way?

"Conjuring Up Philip: An Adventure in Psychokinesis
by Iris M. Owen"

Jim K.

admin, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Thanks Jim, that's interesting--a perspective I hadn't considered.

PJ

Damien, somewhere around August 22, 2003

     Sounds like this is going toward ARV.


                                                                    D

Gene_Smith, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Hi Jim,

As you're the one offering the explainations right now I'm sure you'll be innundated, but would you expound upon the following:

[quote]3.  If you want to track a regular occurence or trend, such as the up and down of the stock market, you can with this process overlay the target to for example Billy who works the liquor store next door.  For example, if you know that Billy goes to work promptly everyday at 9 am, rain or shine, give or take 5 mins, you can cue it so that everyday Billy happens to come to work 5 mins early, the stock market will go up, and everytime he comes in 5 mins late, the stock market will go down that day.  Billy is in fact unknowingly becoming a meter of how the stock market is doing, simply by using him as the overlay aspect.  Again, I stress that Billy of course has no idea that this is going on.  You simply observe him going to work as usual in the morning from across the street.
[/quote]

It sounds as if you take an unknowing person who has nothing to with your experiment and make him/her do something that would act as a signal or answer to a question you want resolved.  I'm sure I must be misunderstanding it, hence my request for more info if you would.

Thank you,
Gene Smith

Savin, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Perhaps for a moment one would just consider the definition that Dick posted and not every likelihood of abuse or unethical conduct. Jim’s comments with Dick’s definition seem to be quite the quantum tease/puzzle for consideration. After all it was Schrodinger’s Cat not Schrodinger’s Rat. Consider just the elegance of the tasking tapestry and neither imply nor infer evil or deceit. Consider what the observer observes and what the observed does whether knowing of the observation or not. Consider just for a moment understanding that Psi energy can be shaped into a mirror of reality to be looked into at varying levels.

Savin

jimk, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Gene,

I knew this one would need a bit explanation as it would seem a tad 'immoral' perhaps?

First of all let me point out that this was just an example.  I haven't applied this (3rd example) of targeting to anything yet, and I am sure I wouldn't use little 9 year old Joe arriving at school late or not as an example. ;-)

However, as far as I understand this concept, you need a 'conscious' being for this to work.  Will an animals or lower life-forms such as bacteria work, perhaps, I don't know yet.  

"It sounds as if you take an unknowing person who has nothing to with your experiment and make him/her do something that would act as a signal or answer to a question you want resolved. "

Yes, you are right unless you set up the target in a way that you don't target a person, but instead a large group of people, or something similar (amoebas?).  It doesn't make it more or less 'right' in your eyes, but if the target is designed in a way that it has what appears to be an impact on someone, then design it differently.  I believe these are very fine variables we work with here and the experiment or project has to take that into account.

The motivation behind this should not be to exploit people in any way, but rather to maximize the accuracy of a remote viewing project.  We are trying to figure out how the world works and to understand the limitations of the remote viewing process.  

I am open to many forms of investigation of the paranormal as long as it is done with good intentions and doesn't harm people.  I am absolutely sure that Glenn and everyone that I know at HRVG share those beliefs.

As always, with best intentions :-)

Jim K.

wizopeva, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Jim, now that we have you on the end of the line, could you answer my questions as well?  Come on now, I'm curious!
-E

Gene_Smith, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Hi Jim,

I sincerely appreciate the reply.  BTW my questions, at this point, have nothing to do with morality as I don't know that I could make a judgement on such without an understanding of the mechanism first.  Of course I've yet to see a convincing all encompassing explaination of how RV works and this might well be the same situation, wherein there are a number of semi plausable theories that differing people in differing camps hold to.

In any event back to my questions on the mechanics of this.  I'm having trouble making the connection of a tasking, which to me is summed up in the cue, and that tasking making a third party do something that is observable as a signal that gives data.  -)oes the person doing the session have involvement in making the third party act in a certain way, or is this solely a function of the tasker, or perhaps both in a synergistic type fashion.

I guess where I am having difficulty here is that RV has in my mind always been a data gathering tool as opposed to a remote influencing tool.   How would you cue this specifically to take it from data gathering to having in effect a third party give one the answer they were seeking.  And while I'm just shooting out questions left and right let me ask one more please.  Why not just ask directly, meaning cue something like "next market session/ results" and see what the blind viewer gets.

Again I really appreciate your time and responses on this.

Best regards,
Gene Smith

jimk, somewhere around August 22, 2003

All,

I made it this far, but I am afraid if I go any further I may stumble...

I have to admit right now that I am probably the LEAST qualified person to talk about this.  I got about an hour instruction 6 Months ago in HI over a glass of Johnny Walker Blue...so I should leave it that.  I am basically on the same page as you guys, I just had a little longer to think about it :-)

That being said, I have contemplated what was explained to me and am trying to figure out ways to apply what seems to me to be an extremely fascinating aspect of RV that can become a powerful tool if used the right way.

Savin said: "Consider just the elegance of the tasking tapestry..."

I agree, the intricacy and complexity of non-locality manifests as elegance.  Like drops of dew glimmering on a spiderweb in the morning sun, each connected, each reflecting each others' light.

Jim K.

wizopeva, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Thanx Jim.  I guess that means it's Dick's turn at bat again.   ;-)
-E

Dick, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Jim's take on Masking/Overlay is pretty much right on.

Here is another example of how it might be used.  Let's say you have viewers working for Lyn Buchanan's Assigned Witness Program. If you are tasked with a target as an part of this program you can pretty much go into it frontloaded assuming that it will be a missing child.  Frontloading is not conducive to good remote viewing.

ou might tell the viewer, we are going to run a couple of validation targets that are not missing children.  Then give them a mask overlay of a real missing child target. You could entrain the viewers to give you the real data without subjecting them to the actual target.

There are many uses. Years ago MJ001 (operational group of HRVG advanced viewers of which I was a member) worked a target that was The Russian Revolution/Overthrow of Czar Nicholas. This data is published on the MJ001 site, which has a link on the hrvg.org homepage. The data produced by viewers and that which emerged from analysis clearly represented The Russian Revolution.  But this was an overlay target.

Like I said, Glenn just ran and overlay test on the HRVG viewers over the past two weeks.  His feedback is set to go up soon, so you can see an example of an actual overlay target.

It is nothing sinister. It is not mind control, nor is it remote influencing.  And it is not ARV.  But it is a difficult concept to grasp and employ.

Maybe Glenn will jump in here and help out. I'm sure he's sitting at his computer smiling as I try to discuss something I barely understand.  By the way, as I kicked off this thread I spoke of Skip Atwater being somewhat impressed that Glenn's students were aware of Masking and Overlay.  They did use this at the Stargate unit. Or at least Skip was familiar with it when we brought it up in conversation.

Aloha

Dick

admin, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Howdy Jim,

Cool.  Seems to me with your guy-late-to-work example, you get into areas which aren't really RV, but which I suppose can be viewed through the filter of almost anything, including RV.

We had a lot of talk on RV Oasis early this year about topics that impinge on this, on creating reality, retro-tasking in this model, and "tasking reality".  Actually a lot of interesting ideas came out of Calabrese's essay--at least, for those who weren't too busy making fun of it to actually think about some of the ideas it held!  

Now it depends on how you look at it, but I tend to the DAT rather than RI model, where this guy early/late to work idea suggests little about viewing and a lot about analysis, instead.

It may be that everything we experience in life is designed to fit our analysis--because technically we're living in the past--a past specifically chosen to fit the parameters we set.

It suggests that the entire apparently objective reality of each person may be a subjective universe composed of what he pays attention to; and of course, that merely the attention/intent/curiosity of the individual to look for an answer, will either

(a) cause their reality to behave in such a way as to answer it, or

(b) cause them to ask, in the DAT model, of a portion of reality capable of providing the answer, or

(c) cause them to ask of a pattern their brain will be able to interpret into the needed answer.

I find that aspect (tasking an answer on what someone else does, or what happens in any part of reality), at least vaguely similar to talk we had back in March. Here is an excerpt from one of my posts in that period:

[size=1]
Have you ever attempted to find an answer 'in' something, anything, around you at that moment'? I do this a lot. I might be at my desk, in my truck, in the shower, thinking about something, and I will feel some dilemma of understanding. I think to myself, "I want to find an understanding about this. There is an answer here somewhere. It will be allegorized around me somehow." And, it always is.

I got this from Seth exercises eons ago; of seeing all of reality around you as a reflection of you.

I have never attributed this to my having reached out and touched something psychically and changed it to fit the pattern of my inquiry's answer. I've always assumed that on some level I have the answer, and the outer world is my 'witness' as some dowsers say: a
physical medium through which a person may interpret psi information. E.g., tea leaves, tarot cards, are a 'witness': a physical intermediary between 'psychic data' and 'psychic perceiver'.

I have always assumed that my mind looks around for a pattern it finds similar enough to 'graft' its concepts onto.

That I may look toward a person getting into a red car, instead of the other direction (or not notice anything informative in the other direction), I have always attributed to my own mind. My mind had the info, and it probably calculated potential allegories near the speed
of light and decided on one that worked.

It never occurred to me that for example, perhaps I was 'accidentally influencing' the particular way that man got in his car, and dropped his bag, and what he was wearing that day, all of which tied into the 'answer' that I understood.

(If I literally create my own reality, and that man is some reflection of me and vice versa, then surely he DID pick out those clothes with the psychic foreknowledge of my inquiry and his being the answer. But oh! - we could go around in circles about THAT sort of thing forever. At some point, everything is totally us and
totally not-us simultaneously and there is almost no point to worrying about it.)

1. If I do not assume that I influenced that man-over-there for my answer, why would I assume that, if I retasked an existing session, I had influenced the viewer?
[/size]

In the way you're using the concept of masking, one would task (ahead of time) a question to an aspect of reality, and let reality answer it for you.

To me this goes back to shamanic traditions and symbols and signs.  If you are culturally bred to believe that finding a dead eagle indicates you or yours will shortly have your freedom attacked, then that's really what it means--you believe it, your sort of "auto-pilot-intent-expectation" of reality holds that, when you get the "sign" you interpret that, and it will likely come to be.

In terms of double precogs, or wildcards, where viewing is not only on something future but the tasking itself is future, it is still just psi looking for "a pattern it can graft an answer onto" in my view--some people use tea leaves, a boiling pot of beans, whatever.

In the DAT model, the only psi particularly necessary here was the tasker's, who chose something to answer the question.  In this case, you know, a viewer isn't needed, and this isn't even about RV.

To me this relates to the whole of how one's personal universe is created and experienced -- and goes considerably, as in WAY, outside the realm of RV -- however, I'm obviously interested in it, and I suppose one could use RV to task things in the way you describe, although again I don't even think a session is necessary in that case.

(Calabrese talked of these things and using RV in such creative ways, I might add, and for all the scorn heaped upon her for, in part, daring to have an original thought few would even deign to consider without mocking, I find it rather ironic that months and sometimes years later people are finally getting around to the same thoughts like they're novel and pretty cool! LOL.)

PJ

admin, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Actually, rereading my post I noticed one thing I should have said more clearly.

In order to utilize "pre-intended single-tasker double-tasking" as some might consider it, which by hrvg is called "masking and entrainment" apparently (at least in part) --

-- in order to get data about one thing and apply it to another, you have to know the target.

In other words, in formal RV--where analysis is blind--I'm not sure how useful this is. But if we get into "interpretation" of session results--where the 'analyst' already knows the target and just decides how well data they're given fits in with that, that is where it always seems to work.

I have assigned a lot of sessions to 'other' targets than the intended/feedback, in order to see if Calabrese's "retro tasking" (or 'session hijacking') had any validity in my eyes.

What I found is that far more often than not, it seems to.  However, the ONLY way this works, is if the target is KNOWN.

Which means in real (blind) analysis, it wouldn't work, but in interpretive (analyst knows the target) analysis, it usually seems to.

As the DAT model suggests, this may be mostly the psi of the person doing the interpreting, rather than any psi on the part of the viewer.

In which case, I am really not sure it does 'affect' the viewer, so much as the analyst, or the analyst's version of reality.

As a more practical aside, a viewer--and in fact the entire topic of remote viewing--is probably not even necessary in this model.

There are many branches of psi which relate entirely to the "interpretive abilities of the perceiver, using psi, as applied to a question/target known to them."

Bones, tea leaves, tarot, etc. being just a few.  Those aren't RV though.

Technically the examples you gave were great, but actually play on some very different dynamics, each one, and so in a way, kind of have to be addressed separately in conversation.  (Glad you joined us.)

PJ

admin, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Someone just pem'd me about a couple things which reminded me --

Quite a few viewers got into these concepts as a "branch of" the retasking discussions had back in march and april of this year, on pjrv, freevent and farview and PEMs.  

It came up because some of the (many) questions that had to be stated for considering, were things like,

(1) would the same tasker doing the retasking have more effect than someone else doing the retasking? and

(2) if the tasker multi-tasked a session to begin with, rather than waiting until later, in the same model as retasking (iow, not to task the targets equally, but to task one for info and the other for feedback and what info matches both), would that work better?

In the end there were no firm answers, at least until we've answered nearly everything else on earth that has an impact on psi and reality creation. :-)

The few "tentative, temporary answers" I concluded from my own experimentation and talk with a few others doing some or having some experience on these, were (this is certainly open to MORE data and other input!):

(a) the initial tasking intent is what most matters.

(b) the viewer's personal intent is what most matters.

(c) if the viewer is focusing on what is more relevant as demonstrated in feedback, instead of what is most relevant to the tasker, (b) is stronger.

(d) if the viewer is focusing on what is most relevant to the tasker, (a) is stronger.

(e) however in the case of (d), issues with feedback can come up.  Which leads to,

(f) if you don't want a viewer to get feedback, just don't give them feedback.  No need to get complex and layer targets and muddy results in most cases.

(There may be instances making that worthwhile we just haven't of necessity come up with.)

(g) tasking two separate targets initially has a vastly stronger effect on data than tasking the second after the fact.  Vastly.

(h) retroactively tasking an existing session, which had as its primary tasking "whatever gets assigned to this session as the target", works just as well as regular RV, with the caveat that the assignments must be done in a way that no subconscious matching can be done by tasker.

(i) however it's usually best the viewer doesn't know which is a retrotasking vs. a regular tasking.

(j) it is very difficult to discern whether retroactively REtasking an existing session (which was tasked on a different target initially) obtains data congruent with the retasking (which it usually does!) based on
  (1) the fact that so much data is actually shared with so many targets,
  (2) psychic influence of the viewer,
  (3) the DAT model where the session chosen and/or the target chosen for this review match because the person doing the choosing is using psi to match them, or
  (4) about 1.7 million other options.

(k) the delineation of one target from another is critically important to the clarity of the session data, and not having this generally 'muddies' results--blending the data--which might seem cool if the analyst is privy to both targets, but since real analysis is done blind, can potentially cause problems in that regard.

I wouldn't have thought to call this 'masking', because the only context in which I'd ever considered having two simultaneous taskings, one for data and one for feedback, was in some experiments done to see if a third party reviewing results found more result in the session matching the feedback vs. the one matching the 'intent', another experiment done in the retasking (hijacked session) model. But now that I think about it, I guess a 'masking' term would fit it pretty well if the point was to hide the real target from the viewer.

In the example in an above post about AWP, I hope there's a better one.  A tasker for that purpose would be tasking a ton of different things.  Every session related to a missing child isn't describing a child or their environ. A ton of sessions would be "describe the metal object" and "describe the person the child was with" and "describe the car" and "describe the location at 10am that day" as opposed to "describe their location at 11am that day" and a zillion other possibilities.  There should be no assumption that someone tasked by AWP is frontloaded as to the nature of their target.  I would really seriously question the tasking if that is the case, but I'd imagine they have that part down pretty well by this time.

PJ

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Sheeeesh !  

Looks like I'm pretty good at creating my own reality...I asked to be flabbergasted and frankly, I'm flabbergasted for sure  :P

Whatever happened to K I S S ?   :-/


    The more complicated anything becomes, the more prone to flaws and problems it is. Add to this human interpretation based on the 'averages' as well as individually.

    I actually understood much of what has been said here which is a good thing  ;-) but I'm also seeing so many difficulties that it makes me wonder what the value of any final data is in a real life situation.  Having pictures as a target is one thing, being in a war zone with missles flying,with hidden mine fields all around,  la ife & death situation is quite another.  

    These ideas may be fun to explore and great for a verbal discussion but I have to wonder what the real value is in reliable practicle application.

    Maybe I missed something important....I dunno. :-/

I think I need a beer!    ;-)   Matter of fact, I KNOW I NEED A BEER !   ;-)



     

Don_Williams, somewhere around August 22, 2003

This is a fascinating subject.  Like just about anything, I can see how it could be used for good or ill.  I wouldn't neccessarily be suspicious of its use.  But then again, I might not appreciate if I was the viewer either.  

These issues go to the ultimate driver of the RV session.  What is it?  I think it's pretty clear that it's the intent of the viewer.  If the viewers' conscious intent is to fulfill the end result desired by the tasker, "masking" would probably wok quite well.  But I wonder about how well this works when the viewers intent is simply to ascertain and describe the target (irregardless of the taskers' intent) - as Joe M. does.

And given that a decent viewer with a couple hundred targets under his belt becomes aware of much more than just the target, it seems that "masking" would work *only* if the viewer follows the taskers' intent to a considerable degree.  I haven't seen an application target yet where the general subject of the RV effort isn't perceived at least to some degree.  And this being the case, isn't viewer discovery of the "masking" effort also extremely likely?

Regarding the example of Lyn's Assigned Witness Program, wouldn't be simpler to just mix the application target into a small practice pool?  It will come up eventually, and this way everyone involved is blind to the target until after the session.  I've found this to be an excellent way of working application targets while avoiding the unique factors they often bring with them.

Of course another way to work with these problems, which I think PJ may have mentioned, is to simply target the RVer retroactively - when the session is completed but prior to anyone seeing it - essentially a precognitive remote viewing.  The assigning of the target to the session can even be done in a random fashion and this still works pretty well - amazing well, to me.

Parts of what you described, Jim sound like an advanced form of associative RV.  It sounds like an excellent tool for targets about which the RVer is unfamiliar and wouldn't be able to understand nor communicate his/her impressions - like the computer you mentioned.  But it seems like - as with ARV - there would have to be a complicated design for providing feedback.  Any element that has been mapped to a respective part of the computer, is now associated with it, would be shown to the viewer in feedback, correct?  But this would depend on whether the computer actually *does* contain that part the element is mapped to, right?  What if the computer does not contain this part or the viewer is wrong in some other way, other than the complete absence of the part?  What is shown to the viewer for feedback then?  This is how it would work if it acts like an extension of the classic ARV process.  The reason it seems incredibly complicated to me is that there would need to be feedback for dozens of different scenarios concerning almost every part or the computer being targeted.  This would set up a situation in which thousands of eventualities would need to be provided for, not that it couldn't be done, but it sounds damned hard, lol.  Am I understanding this correctly?    

I must be misunderstanding the example of the man being early or late for work.  Are you saying the man is influenced by the session?  That's what it sounded like.  If so, then I've missed how this is related to the "masking" subject.
Thanks for the info.
Don  

Savin, somewhere around August 22, 2003

PJ,

It looks like you’ve missed the boat on this one. You have gone off on several lengthy discussives regarding re-tasking and attributing entrainment and masking as a rehash of Calabrese’s comments in her swansong. It is my understanding that HRVG has been dealing with these issues for over 5 years. The Russian target Dick mentions as a masking example was done before the 1999 RV conference, maybe perhaps as far back as 1998.

It is not what you are making it out to be.

Savin

admin, somewhere around August 22, 2003

No, I am not saying it is retasking--it isn't.  

It is however multiple tasking.  Retasking encompasses that, but is not defined by it; but 'masking' as he calls it is not retasking.  I thought this was clear so I didn't say that specifically.

I'm saying some previous talk and experimentation (though private) has been done on this outside hrvg also (just sharing experience here... er, is that ok with you?!), some as a RESULT of the many questions that were "offshoots" of considering "tasking issues" that the original question of retasking brought up.

For example, one can consider 'morphing' as Dick calls it, where two targets are assigned and/or in feedback, and the session reflects info from both, to be different from 'masking' as Dick calls it.  Technically, since we can divide the RV pie into infinite parts, it is, partly because morphing as a term in this context relates to the issue of the merge of data, whereas masking relates to the issue of the tasking.  But technically, it is also quite obviously very closely related to the subject under discussion, since in both cases we are talking about multiple targets for the same viewer during the same session.

I posted some of the notes about retasking because in some contexts it was either related or the info on 'masking' (not my term) I was relating, had only come about due to the retasking stuff in the first place.

A lot of this stuff is very subtle, and it intertwines with many other related things.  

I would say (or agree) that clearly delineating what one is talking about is important.  But in Jim's post, he gave three nice examples, which actually could take the thread in three completely different directions depending.

I addressed one of them (tasking reality, as some called it in previous talks online), and then made some notes on how similar 'masking' type ideas etc. had come about earlier as a side effect of retasking thoughts.

I'm sorry I confused you.

PJ

Savin, somewhere around August 22, 2003

PJ,

Because it is so very interesting I would ask you to reconsider masking and its definition as Dick explained it. It is not multiple tasking but the creation of a new target that resides in a format suitable for access by the viewer. There would never be any relationship between the target id and the real target. It would be something designed and created to entrain the movement of data from one to the other, on its own. Lets deal with just that premise, possibly discuss its merits.

Savin

admin, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Howdy, Savin,

[quote]It is not multiple tasking but the creation of a new target that resides in a format suitable for access by the viewer. There would never be any relationship between the target id and the real target. It would be something designed and created to entrain the movement of data from one to the other, on its own.[/quote]

OK.  Sure, why not address that specific aspect: that sounds pretty interesting to me.

I don't think enough of Dick or Jim's discussion applied to that specific aspect of it though to really make it clear in detail what this means in the hrvg model of all this.  I mean it was mentioned but that's about it.  

I can't speak to that aspect because it was barely touched on, and I am not sure what they mean.

I'd like to hear more about this aspect, of
never be any relationship between the target id and the real target. It would be something designed and created to entrain the movement of data from one to the other

Since this is apparently the most unique aspect--and from your comments, I would gather, the most defining aspect--of the 'masking' as described.

PJ

Dick, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Let me put it simply.
Masking is not retasking.  

Pru's concept of "retasking" has nothing to do with masking and target overlay.

Has anyone ever seen any documented examples of "retasking?"  Has anything ever been published to support the theory?

You seem to be taking something that is a real application of remote viewing (masking), and using it to justify something else entirely (retasking), which has never been proven to exist.  If it has been proven you will have to show me how and where.

Now let me give you one more example of how masking might be employed.  When HRVG worked the Kennedy Assassination target (and produced data of a gunman behind a wall on a hill ) Glenn mentioned casually that the Kennedy Assassination was one of the targets military viewers were forbidden to work.  They did put these guys on lie detector tests on a regular basis.  So there were targets they were not supposed to mess with.

Let's say you had some nosy officers looking in on your unit and you didn't want them to know what you were doing. You show them the target work.  Oh, just a validation target, sir.  Look- we remote viewed Ala Moana Beach Park as a practice target.  But maybe that was a mask and the target was really something else.  And the movement of people in and out of the concession stand at the park really mirrored something else analytically.  When are the drug runners going to show up at such and such location?  When activity at the beach park is mirrored in the overlay mask.

Or let's say you are going on an operation and you need to take data with you or work it in the field. A mask will allow you to have target information and data which looks innocuous- stuff that if captured or found would not compromise the real target.

You have to think like someone in SOF intel.  Not that I know that much about what they did, but I know they are a sneaky, devious bunch, lol.    

Aloha,
Dick

Dick

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Hi Dick

    I mentioned military in another of my postings and you just did in your last one.  Maybe this should be in a separate topic, but I have wondered about what is being done, remote viewing wise, with Saddam and OBL...do you know??

     I'm sure that all methods possible are being used to determine many things about these two and yet, the informed opinions still hang with they are dead to those who say otherwise.  This seems like an ideal useage for RVing, but of course, nothing is ever said about it.

    Have any ideas?  Maybe another topic should be posted for this discussion-- (if there will be one)

Gene_Smith, somewhere around August 22, 2003

[quote]There would never be any relationship between the target id and the real target. It would be something designed and created to entrain the movement of data from one to the other, on its own. Lets deal with just that premise, possibly discuss its merits.
[/quote]

I don't know that I'm going to be able to understand this short of seeing the actual cueing and I don't know if you are prepared to share that at this point.  So I'll just ask my question with hopes that you can address it. If you have the mask/target set up such that data from the "real" target will flow into it, then ipso facto there exists a relationship between the "real" target and the target ID.

I'm not questioning what you are saying, meaning I'm not arguing with you, but am simply stating how I'm viewing this in hopes you can use that to better explain the mechanics of it to me.

Thank you,
Gene Smith

admin, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Hi Dick,

I appreciate your explanation, but I was not saying it WAS retasking (as I'd posted prior to your response), and it only even came up in response to one of the examples Jim gave.

If you explain the specific point Savin is making, which you only mentioned very distantly -- rather than explaining what it is not, explain what it IS -- I am listening, I am interested.

PJ

jimk, somewhere around August 22, 2003

"in order to get data about one thing and apply it to another, you have to know the target. "

Here's my 2 cents...

Not necessarily, usually you can map a range of expected viewer responses to a variety of  stimuli from their past performance record.   Especially with viewers who are very narrowly specialized in what they excel at, you can by statistical analysis pretty much map any reality to any 'conjured' reality.  Some people excel at radioactive material, some do good with people targets.  Create overlays is such a fashion that they correspond to the abilities of your viewer pool to maximize efficiency.

I use the word conjured here again, if you think of the basic concept of a 'standard' Voodoo doll (if such even exists...) with pins and all, you get the gist of entrainment at its most powerful.

"never be any relationship between the target id and the real target. It would be something designed and created to entrain the movement of data from one to the other "

Well, I guess there is a relationship, there is the targeteer's intent and focus that creates the connection between the overlay target and the real target.  Sort of the booster for the entrainment.

Now consider what would have to go into a process like this.  How do we sequentially perceive data according to the HRVG method?

Visual Ideograms - Perceive basic visual gestalts of the target.   - Create a basic visual overlay gestalts.

Spontaneous Ideograms - Simplex/Complex, Textural (Hard, Soft etc.), Manmade/Natural/Artificial, Static/Dynamic - Map corresponding aspects in real target to overlay.

Playfair & S2 NIMO - A sequential succession of sensory input ranging from far to close.  Sights - Sounds - Smells/Taste - Temps - Texture - P.  - Map these aspects to overlay as well.  May need to include higher kinesthetic concepts as well.

S3 - Site Sketch should be overlayed with a grid-like precision and clearly identify unique identifiers.

And on and on you go, you can make it as intricate as you want, but as far as I understand, the volume of intent seems to grow over time and with attention, and I think it is pretty much possible to get any sort of information, as long as you can fine-tune the overlay with the viewer's expected neurological or sensory response.

I believe that there is some indications that manifest reality is possible to some extent and is related to the topic at hand.  Pardon the lentgth, but I'll include two little snippets that point out the extent of what seems to be possible here.


***************
"When Alexandra David-Neel journeyed through Tibet, one of the many mystical techniques she studied was that of tulpa creation. A tulpa, according to traditional Tibetan doctrines, is an entity created by an act of imagination, rather like the fictional characters of a novelist, except that tulpas are not written down. David-Neel became so interested in the concept that she decided to try to create one.
The method involved was essentially intense concentration and visualization. David-Neel's tulpa began its existence as a plump, benign little monk, similar to Friar Tuck. It was at first entirely subjective, but gradually, with practice, she was able to visualize the tulpa out there, like an imaginary ghost flitting about the real world.
In time the vision grew in clarity and substance until it was indistinguishable from physical reality-a sort of self-induced hallucination. But the day came when the hallucination slipped from her conscious control. She discovered that the monk would appear from time to time when she had not willed it. Furthermore her friendly little figure was slimming down and taking on a distinctly sinister aspect.
Eventually her companions, who where unaware of the mental disciplines she was practicing, began to ask about the "stranger" who had turned up in their camp-a clear indication that a creature which was no more that solidified imagination had definite objective reality.
At this point, David-Neel decided things had gone too far and applied different lamaist techniques to reabsorb the creature into her own mind. The tulpa proved very unwillling to face destruction in this way so that the process took several weeks and left its creator exhausted."
********************************

The Philip Phenomenon

A Made In Canada Ghost
“Philip was an aristocratic Englishman living in the middle 1600s at the time of Oliver Cromwell. He had been a supporter of the king and was a Catholic. He was married to a beautiful but cold and frigid wife, Dorothea, the daughter of a neighbouring nobleman. One day, when out riding on the boundaries of his estates, Philip came across a gypsy encampment and saw there a beautiful dark-eyed, raven-haired gypsy girl, Margo, and fell instantly in love with her.
He brought her back secretly to live in the gate-house near the stables of Diddington Manor - his family home. For some time he kept his love-nest secret, but eventually Dorothea, realizing he was keeping someone else there, found Margo, and accused her of witchcraft and of stealing her husband. Philip was too scared of losing his reputation and his possessions to protest at the trial of Margo, and she was convicted of witchcraft and burned at the stake. Philip subsequently was stricken with remorse that he had not tried to defend Margo and used to pace the battlements of Diddington in despair. Finally one morning his body was found at the foot of the battlements where he had cast himself in a fit of agony and remorse.”
This of course is a very tragic tale that contains many elements normally associated with reports of historical ghosts. It is however a complete fabrication.
The true story of ‘Philip’ is actually a remarkable experiment that was conducted in the early 1970’s by The Toronto Society Of Psychical Research. The purpose of the experiment was to see if a wholly fictious historical character - ghost could in fact manifest itself through the groups efforts of concentration on the bogus data.
Dr. A.R.G Owen, a member of the Department For Preventative Medicine and Biostatistics at the University of Toronto and psychic researcher who specialized in poltergeist cases was the group’s scientific advisor. He is quoted in the introduction to “Conjuring Up Phillip” as saying, “It was essential to their purpose that Philip be a totally fictious character. Not merely a figament of the imagination but clearly and obviously so, with a biography full of historical errors.”
The opening paragraph of this article is the basic storyline that was concocted by one of the group’s members named only as “Sue” - a former nurse with the Canadian Armed Forces. Further details including a sketch were added on as the group discussed and immersed themselves in Philip’s invented biographical data. Contradictions such as Philip being reincarnated several times yet also being seen walking the battlements of Diddington every century or so were carefully woven into the story. And while a Diddington Hall really does exist in Warckshire, England the group made sure that the real location’s history in no way resembled Philip’s home. In essence the group sought to create a “collective hallucination” of Philip through subscribing to a common mental picture of him and his surroundings.They meditated on his appearance, his food preferences, and mostly his ‘feelings’ towards his wife Dorothea and his gypsy lover Margo.
The experiment went on for months with absolutely no success. The group would sit around a table and merely concentrate - much like the spiritualists of the 19th century. And then one day it just happened. There was a knock on the table, which at first was felt more than heard. All of the group’s eight members felt the vibration. This was followed by a number of distinct knocks that were in fact heard and felt. Skeptical at first, the group felt that these knocks were perhaps inadvertently the result of one of the group’s participants. They quickly changed their minds when the table itself began to move around the room. When a startled member asked aloud, “I wonder whether Philip is doing this,” a loud knock was heard as if in response. Philip, a made in Canada ghost had finally arrived.
The group devised a plan in which one knock would signify a yes and two knocks would indicate a no. Soon after they began enjoying ‘spirited’ conversation with Philip. This ‘entity’ that they apparently conjured up “exhibited likes and dislikes, had strong views on some subjects and was hesitant on others.” They questioned ‘him’ on his personal life. And once when an apparently too personal question was asked in regards to ‘his’ wife Dorothea loud scratching sounds were heard.
It was noted that the ghostly sounds and movements of the table seemed closely related to the thoughts of the group. If they were in agreement to what an answer should be the resulting ‘yes’ knock was quick and loud. If there were doubts amongst the group’s members the result would be a corresponding hesitation in the sounds.
As their experiment progressed the participants would engage in teasing and joking with Philip. The table movements and knocks became more frequent and it was reported that the table would occasionally rush up as if in greeting to latecomers and even trap members in the corner of the room! Philip apparently was the cause of lights turning off and on by themselves and other strange anomalies as well.
The experiment captured the attention of local media with group and ‘ghost’ featured on the CBC television show “Man Alive” as well as other talk shows of the day.
A 16mm movie was produced by the group in 1974 entitled Philip: the Imaginary Ghost. It explains how the experiment was conceived, and what actually happened, showing tables movements and actual raps. Please see our note in regards below.
In conclusion the experimenters succeeded far beyond their wildest expectations. However, in the end they were never able to prove the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ behind Philip’s manifestation.Was Philip a direct result of the group’s collective subconscious or perhaps did they conjure an actual entity that simply latched onto the story? We may never be able to actually answer these questions in regards to this particular case. However, the Philip phenomenon remains not only a groundbreaking experiment, but an important historical account of para-reasearch efforts in Canada.
Footnotes:
Further experiments with a different group were carried out in 1974,.the story used with these was of a French Canadian girl by the name of Lilith who went to France during WWII and became a member of the French Resistance. She was however, caught and executed as a spy.
The Lilith experiments saw similar results to the Philip one in just 5 weeks. Perhaps this was due to the fact that the Owens were able to formulate shortcuts in method basde on the earlier experiments and the new group was able to sit in with the Philip group on an individual basis.
During the 1974 Christmas party held by the organization members of both the Philip and Lilith groups got together and in jest called out, “Is anybody there?” They received a knock in response and in further jest they asked, “Are you Father Christmas?” Reportedly a long conversation with Santa Claus ensued! According to the Owens this last episode “illustrates the wonderful child-like approach taken to the phenomena and the fact that in these situations you get what you expect.”
Sources:
Psychic Mysteries Of The North - A.R.G Owen (c) 1975
Conjuring Up Philip - Iris Owen and Margaret Sparrow (c) 1976

Dick, somewhere around August 22, 2003

The observation of the targeteer fuels the entrainment. And the mask is only good as long as someone is paying attention to it. It requires a robust analytical servicing to maintain the mask. But the targeteer is able to create for a short period of time a mirror that will give you a reflection of something else in the "matrix" or the "collective."

By the way this is a theoretical discussion, not meant to teach anyone how to do this. It is an increbily precise exercise, and if you don't really know what you are doing it probably won't work.  You also need a stable of experienced viewers and analysts able to extract data from their work.

Aloha,

Dick

jimk, somewhere around August 22, 2003

A lot of cool things can be achieved with NLP and so few seem to discuss it in relation to RV, or did I miss that train? :-)

Jim K.

Dick, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Polka dot wrote:

    "I mentioned military in another of my postings and you just did in your last one.  Maybe this should be in a separate topic, but I have wondered about what is being done, remote viewing wise, with Saddam and OBL...do you know??"

I have no idea what is being done "remote viewing wise" to find Saddam and Bin Laden.  I have no connection to the military, other than the fact that my instructor is a retired Special Forces Intelligence Remote Viewer.  He no longer has access to any classified information, and anything he knows that might still be classified- he doesn't share.

Polka Dot also wrote:     "I'm sure that all methods possible are being used to determine many things about these two and yet, the informed opinions still hang with they are dead to those who say otherwise.  This seems like an ideal useage for RVing, but of course, nothing is ever said about it."

Serious remote viewers don't engage in "target talk."  One should never wonder aloud about what target might be tasked, and one should never bring up current events in the context of remote viewing. It is hard enough to sit down with a clear mind and be ready for ANYthing when you RV. :-)

ALoha
Dick
 

Savin, somewhere around August 22, 2003

Trying to stay near the definition Dick gave is probably the best idea here. Gene’s question about the tasking and cueing seems easy enough. The target cue is ever only appended to the Overlay Mask never to the real target that was of interest to the Tasker. The Targeteer in a separate act designs and creates the Mask before any Target Cue or Identifier is applied. I suppose the mask could then be passed to a different blind Targeteer to append the target cue that would actually be worked by the viewers.
If the viewer does what he or she is charged to do then they will collect data from the Mask, as it is their intended target. Meanwhile the Mask itself by its design and formation is meant to mirror another location whose real identity, location, or origin can remain limited to only those who need to know. Jim’s 2 stories fit well into the raw mechanical possibilities. Conjuring up Phillip tells of the creation of something powered by the intent or will of a group sharing a common purpose. It opens a wide range of applications but sticking close to Dick’s definition I can in fact see the wisdom of it.

Savin

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 22, 2003

[quote]one should never bring up current events in the context of remote viewing[/quote]

Why is this so Dick?

Dick, somewhere around August 22, 2003

[quote]

Why is this so Dick? [/quote]

Let's move this to a different heading. It has nothing to do with masking and entrainment.

Look for a heading "target talk."

Dick

admin, somewhere around August 23, 2003

Hi Jim,

The first buddhist excerpt you posted (at least, I read that in a book on buddhist practices eons ago) reflects what I was taught to call a "thought form."

Thought forms, the way I was taught and have come to think, are behind a whole lot of stuff, some physical, some not--possibly behind everything.

I think RV can often pick up throughtforms just as it can physical things, because physical things are really just fully manifested thought forms.  

This is sort of metaphysics 101, right, that you can deliberately project pretty much any creative thing you want, either mostly-wholly creative (like the tulpa) or creative within the frameset of reality (like determining the outcome of an event based on pre-deciding that the behavior of the next bird to land, or the quantity of cars going past, or any other arbitrary view of reality (I guess, whether personX is on time for work), is going to reflect it).

I think this is one reason that targeting something which may or may not be real--such as religious icons, spirits, or super famous literary characters--will often get plenty of information just as if it had been a regular human targeted. Everything's a thought form, on some level.

This is a common topic in magick but as it is projective and not receptive, I've never heard it used in conjunction with what is technically called RV before.

Or if I have, I am sure someone jumped their case about it not being RV, lol.

I think I am not clearly understanding though, from the way things have been presented so far, how the creation of thought forms relates to the topic hrvg calls masking.  I hear you guys saying it does, but not how, and it's the how that would make it make more sense in an RV context.

It's been made clear in this thread that in the hrvg model, masking is NOT

(a) an issue of the analysts psi or perception being 'grafted on' to a session,

(b) an issue of a remote viewer getting data on more than one target merely because two have been assigned [shunted over to 'morphing'], because in this model one target "is never associated with the ID" (I don't grok that either, as to me the whole process indirectly associates it, but never mind that for now),

but instead IS (correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm trying to step it out so it's clear to me),

Choosing one thing, to represent another thing, and by "consistent application of intent and will" one "holds that mask" -- that connectivity -- between the two (so if aspects of Thing1 change, aspects of Thing2 would be expected to either change, or the viewer to pick up things in such a way anyway, that reflected Thing1's change).  

One then targets someone on one of them, which is given a number and gets feedback, with the intention of getting information on that one, but of getting information on it which "reflects" the other.  

And, this is said to be a process basically of the person choosing the target (who in some situations is also the tasker, in some not), along with analysis that is aware of the situation.

Am I getting a clue here?

PJ

Damien, somewhere around August 23, 2003

[quote]....what is being done, remote viewing wise, with Saddam and OBL...do you know??[/quote]
   
    My concerns of RV being associated with the term 'Martial Art' here are evident.  If either Saddam or OBL are found they will most assuredly be killed/assasinated.  If they are found via RV, the viewers will be implicit in their deaths.  While some may say "Oh damn them man, they should burn in hell...blah blah blah"  Where does this stop?  This is a huge question of ethics.  While you may be finding a terrorist that could kill more people, you will still be responsible for a death.  Also, how do you know when you are really searching for the bad guy?  Because our media or government tells you so?   Things to consider....
    As far as Entrainment and masking go, it seems to me its a form of ARV.  While ARV is usually associated (no pun intended :P) with predicting the future and gambling, it doesn't stop there.  It sounds like you guys have a slightly different twist going on over there at HRVG.  I think with more advancement ARV/E&M could evolve to get a hold on timelines and more.  Glad to see this kind of thing going on.  If the devious gets dropped out of this I think RVers as a whole could benefit from these or similar methods.  Thanks for introducing the topic Dick.

                                       -)amien

Glyn, somewhere around August 23, 2003

Hello all,

How very sneaky ;-). If I've understood it correctly, yes it seems the tasker (or whoever puts the target together) has definitely got to do the lion's share of the work here though, and it's probably not at all easy setting it all up. Not only associating one thing with another in their mind, but enabling the mapping of movement and change etc. I would really love to see an example.

Sadly, on the surface it may put paid to my own favourite idea of future memory playing a part in RV; damn!  ;), because that hangs on a viewer seeing/hearing some 'true' feedback; even if years down the line. However, on thinking more about it maybe FM could *still* play it's part, because if the true target were masked well enough, as long as the NET feedback ('not exactly truthful' feedback....LOL!!),  was  given then it might not make any difference to the viewer anyway because the mask would 'fit' so well it would be as good as 'true'.

If FM is not a factor however and RV works in a different way (which of course it's bound to :-))......and if the masking is badly done, then the viewer, when presented with the NET feedback, may think they have 'bombed out' and lose motivation; even if the tasker was delighted with the results (?).

This sort of thing shouldn't be avoided just because it may be considered unethical, because that is tantamount to hiding and hoping a  nasty in the bedroom will go away. If the 'technology' is out there it will be used.  Only by experimenting  will we not only be able get a handle on how RV actually works, but also be able to find out how to counter this sort of thing.

Regards,
Glyn

admin, somewhere around August 23, 2003

Scientists I know theorize that we probably get psi information from *every* imaginable source.  Our own future included--but not limited to that.  I think the FM theory can be workable without having to be the sole source of explanation. ;-)  PJ

wizopeva, somewhere around August 25, 2003

Let me put it simply.
Masking is not retasking.  

Pru's concept of "retasking" has nothing to do with masking and target overlay.

Has anyone ever seen any documented examples of "retasking?"  Has anything ever been published to support the theory?

Hi Dick, well if you want to get technical, I could ask you the same about masking!  Even with posted sessions, there is often a great deal of debate as to how to interpret and explain why certain things happened.  I guess that's to be expected considering the rv is so new and because there is so little serious published rv research.  (by 'research' I mean typical doublebind protocols with experimental and control groups and the whole 9 yards.  Anything else I consider to be case studies and examples, which although they have their place and often help to generate ideas, are generally not considered very reliable beyond that).  


You seem to be taking something that is a real application of remote viewing (masking), and using it to justify something else entirely (retasking), which has never been proven to exist.  If it has been proven you will have to show me how and where.


I consider them both to be theories.  I haven't seen any proof on either, nor any research anywhere near to what could be considered a scientific study.  But I also find them both fascinating to consider as far as their differences and similarities and how they relate to rv.    

Now let me give you one more example of how masking might be employed.  When HRVG worked the Kennedy Assassination target (and produced data of a gunman behind a wall on a hill ) Glenn mentioned casually that the Kennedy Assassination was one of the targets military viewers were forbidden to work.  They did put these guys on lie detector tests on a regular basis.  So there were targets they were not supposed to mess with.

Let's say you had some nosy officers looking in on your unit and you didn't want them to know what you were doing. You show them the target work.  Oh, just a validation target, sir.  Look- we remote viewed Ala Moana Beach Park as a practice target.  But maybe that was a mask and the target was really something else.  And the movement of people in and out of the concession stand at the park really mirrored something else analytically.  When are the drug runners going to show up at such and such location?  When activity at the beach park is mirrored in the overlay mask.

Yes Dick, I can definitely see the uses of being able to hide info from others in an intel situation.  Heck, that's the game they are in after all, ie hiding stuff and finding hidden stuff.  In such a situation, I could see the advantage, but here in the civilian world, I find it more difficult to think of a use for it.  

In the example of Lyn B.'s AWP program, as PJ said, tasking can vary across the map from weapons, to description of cars and envirnments, etc etc.  Add to that the fact that LYn often speaks of the advantages of tasking away from the most horrible aspects of any event, especially when the police already know that anyway.   For instance, they generally know what the missing child looks like already, so it's unlikely that any viewer would often be tasked with the missing child as the target.  If the tasker were to not only mix up the tasking but also to add a few practice sessoins into the mix, a viewer would be hard pressed to guess the tasking.

In the example of the man arriving early and late to work, 5 minutes early or 5 minutes late, that seems to make a leap that you have not really discussed here.  That goes from paper and pencil type rv stuff to the actual influencing of a man's actions.  I find myself hard pressed to call that anything other than remote influencing.  Perhaps you would care to explain that a bit further.  How does that relate to masking and entrainment as you have so far described it?  It seems to make a leap from information that a viewer gets in a session to that of behaviours of stranger.  

Or are you saying that the viewer is viewing in a session and that in the session, the viewer describes a man coming early or late to a store and that this info then means something to the real target beyond just early or lateness?  If such is the case, is the viewer actually viewing an actual man arriving early or late, or is that 'target' a completely fabricated one and there really is no man arriving early or late to a store and that idea of a man's arrival time is merely a mental heuristic for the viewer?  

-E

 

admin, somewhere around August 25, 2003

I think the part I remain most confused about is the workability in a legitimate remote viewing protocol.  It seems you'd have to know the target already.

By this I mean, say you "map" elements of TargetA onto TargetB, and you task (and feedback) TargetB to your viewer.  

You "intend" strongly, consistently, that TargetB is going to 'dynamically' (meaning, reflect change) represent TargetA.

The idea is apparently not that interpretation arranges this, nor that the viewer is also accessing TargetA, but rather, that the "force of intent"--a projective psi--of the targeteer is basically making (influencing) TargetB 'match the pattern of' TargetA.

So when the viewer tells you something about TargetB, you will (secretly) know something about TargetA.

But the problem is, you would have to already know TargetA and have a limited set of probabilities, right?

I mean, say in TargetB, a plane falls out of the sky and crashes into your target, and the viewer describes that. What does that mean to TargetA?  If it wasn't planned ahead of time, it wouldn't be in the 'mapped intent' of the mask.

Or say, inversely, a plane falls out of the sky onto TargetA.  How is TargetB planned so that this would clearly show up and be recognized for what it is?

One can't say that such analysis is done intuitively because then you get back to the retasking model, which it has clearly been explained this is not.

Has the "targeteer" as hrvg calls it, plotted the probabilities of EVERY THING that can happen in TargetA and mapped it to TargetB, and vice versa?  

Because if not, it seems unworkable.  And if so, it seems incredibly complex--not to mention dependent on what amounts to magick or reality construction, not RV--it seems there would be many far clearer ways to task anything, no matter how secret, than this complexity.

If one would have to map out at least all the major probabilities in order to be able to analytically match up the two targets, have we not just gotten back to an ARV-model (known outcomes affiliated with something else), except using elements of a single target instead of multiple, and with more than 2-3 options?

I find them all to be interesting ideas.  But RV always seems to benefit from simplicity, so I'm still trying to get a handle on why this elaborate schema wouldn't be more harm than help in the end.  It's an intriguing thought, though.

PJ

Savin, somewhere around August 25, 2003

Dick,

It looks like each aspect of your theoretical model has been summarily discounted. That is unfortunate. It makes one wonder if such a venue as this or other like venues are suitable for advanced RV discussions.

Savin

admin, somewhere around August 25, 2003

Both questioning and debate are part of the free world, Savin.  It's not discussion with others when people cannot question, it is a commanded audience, and that's something different. Besides, we are church ladies compared to the debate that even the most tentative comment tends to bring in the PhD world.

It is not discounting to debate--it is stating one's thinking based on what one sees thus far, and waiting for the opposite site to consider that and more clearly define their point in this new context.

That is a great deal of how anything gets "fleshed out"--the back&forth.  Usually even experts have something to learn sometimes, even from newbies-- questions and quibbles draw out explanations on aspects of things not previously addressed.

"but I don't get it."
"but isn't X a problem?"
"but how is this different from Y?"
"but this seems unworkable because of Z."

These are all the typical kinds of comments one finds in a discussion about nearly anything.

It's a discussion board.  Not a billboard.  If one seeks agreement and quibble-less acceptance, it should be a term paper or advertisement, not a discussion.

Besides, if Jonina had actually responded to Dick's gauntlet, you don't think he'd have debated anything she said for accuracy and detail until the next ice age arrived? ;-)  Come on, we should agree that we all debate too often but ought to talk more, have some humor about it, and continue in a more positive spirit.

I'm glad to have Dick posting.  I know it's a pain in the butt when people obviously don't understand what you're talking about, but the effort to better explain or explain in the context of this or that question or debate is usually as good for the presenter as for the audience.

PJ

PS  Not that I want to discount your inference that maybe nobody except those who agree are advanced enough to discuss it.  ::) Any expert is surely capable of explaining well enough to be understood.  Let him try. Unless you're here to buy him a doorway out.  In which case... that's his decision.

Gene_Smith, somewhere around August 25, 2003

[quote]Dick,

It looks like each aspect of your theoretical model has been summarily discounted. That is unfortunate. It makes one wonder if such a venue as this or other like venues are suitable for advanced RV discussions.

Savin

[/quote]

I don't see that Dick's model was summarily discounted.  There were and are a lot of questions and theorizing with things like, if this is so then that is so etc.  But I didn't see anyone being overly picky or brutal.  It was and is one of the most interesting posts on the site and therefore is going to draw questions, speculation and discussion by a variety of people, all with the freedom to say pretty much anything they want to.  I didn't see any that went over the line or were nasty.

In this field anything that is basically unknown heretofore is certainly going to be looked at closely.  I can't honestly imagine that you'd expect otherwise.

With that said I sincerely hope that Dick, yourself, or anyone else knowledgeable with the matter will continue to post information about it.  I for one am fascinated with the subject and will no doubt also have more questions in the future about it, if given the opportunity.

Best regards,
Gene Smith

EricT, somewhere around August 25, 2003

[quote]Dick,

It looks like each aspect of your theoretical model has been summarily discounted. That is unfortunate. It makes one wonder if such a venue as this or other like venues are suitable for advanced RV discussions.

Savin

[/quote]

Hey Savin-

Instead of insinuating that this board isnt up to snuff, you could instead discuss the topic at hand, shed some light on any of this?  Or ask questions if you have any?  Seems like it would be time better spent.

If I am taking your comments out of context, feel free to PEM me here to discuss.
(see emil in sig)
EricT

Savin, somewhere around August 26, 2003

I don’t think you look at the perceptions that others might see as you reacted to Dick’s posting of the definition of Entrainment and Masking. The surge of rejection of the theory was fairly strong and mutually supported by the majority posters in the forum. An example of what Dick had to face after posting his definition follows below.


*Pardon my stupidity... but this sounds complicated. What would be the positive uses for it in RV'ing?

*Or... is it yet another test of the minds abilities for use during another time for another purpose?

*Pardon our stupidy, but I gotta side with S_B on this.

*Some of these masking concepts (and you're using entrainment in a way that it pertains to masking) have been touched on long ago in RVland, but not to an active-implemented degree like you describe.

*I'm trying to merge this above with say, McMoneagle's comments on keeping things as simple and as clean as possible, and his comments on multitasking. Which all suggest that the simpler and cleaner any process is, the better by far, and that mucking it up with all kinds of other things generally just muddies results.

*I mean RV isn't perfection and omniscience to begin with, so adding layers of misdirection or complication surely wouldn't help make anything clearer in the end would it?

*a) They better a hope a viewer isn't really good, or the viewer may pick up the "bait & switch routine" as I'd prefer to call THAT process (not as impressive a secret-technical sounding term, I know!) and not appreciate it--more devious plots have been tried with viewers who knew about them, and it did not endear the tasker to the viewer in those cases.

*(b) The tasker in this "theoretical example" is either hostile to the viewer, or the viewer is not classified for the "real" targets in question, either of which are a real problem and both of which either endanger or insult the viewer in my view.

*(c) Not even sure we should start on the issue of feedback on one thing when the psychic target is another and how this blows much of the Learning Theory in feedback all to hell and might be more harm than help to a viewer's ongoing development.

*It sounds like you/Glenn are describing what amounts to a way of "subversively using viewers" -- getting viewers to describe what they think is target A when really the psychic tasking is target B.  They never even know.

*I guess if any of us ever wanted to be intelligence viewers working for one of these people, that might cause rethinking, but fortunately few if any of us will be.

*To me, this is another area of ethics, beyond the merely tasking someone on an inappropriate target; this is in its own way, to me worse, since the target could be anything and the viewer is misled and, as you point out about your own sessions, unaware even after the fact of what sessions they think were on what they saw as feedback but were really on something else.

*To me this sort of renders viewers into rats running a maze for a covert agenda they may not even be aware of, tasked by people deliberately deceiving them.

... but from a viewer standpoint, I don't think I'd want to take tasking of any kind from anybody who thought all this was a cool idea.... worth studying & teaching.

*Used to be one just learned to only take tasking from people one trusted to know what they were doing.

*Now I guess one also learns to only take tasking from people one trusts not to be covertly using their viewing for something else.

*Criminy. Maybe Prudence wasn't just paranoid! This field gets weirder by the day.

*So you are saying there is some kind of imposing of will and intent upon the viewer in a continuous fashion is needed to accomplish this process.

*But maybe I misunderstand.  Because I'm getting that "Run, don't walk..." feeling, LOL!

*Sounds like this is going toward ARV.

*To me this goes back to shamanic traditions and symbols and signs.

*In other words, in formal RV--where analysis is blind--I'm not sure how useful this is.

*The more complicated anything becomes, the more prone to flaws and problems it is.

*These ideas may be fun to explore and great for a verbal discussion but I have to wonder what the real value is in reliable practicle application.

*As far as Entrainment and masking go, it seems to me its a form of ARV.

Well I think that’s enough to get my point across. One certainly doesn’t need a Rand McNally to realize that they are in the wrong place for rational discussion. Each point in the definition, refuted, each aspect of the theory denied and maligned.

It never really had a chance for fair consideration.

Savin

energycritter, somewhere around August 26, 2003

Point considered Savin  ;), still, overall, this thread is another good day in class for me.

BC/EC

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 26, 2003

    That's quite a list you have there Savin...
I remember most of them.

The problem is, by listing them this way, out of context, it disallows for the fact that many of these statements/questions in fact were useful by eliciting other information, which either added to clarity or more confusion.

It took many many postings to finally get to the gist of the matter.  I'm sorry you feel it turned out poorly.  I see it as having everyone who was interested having the opportunity to discuss what parts about the issue that they needed better understanding with.

While maybe these statements are incorrect in your opinion, they never the less were valid in the minds of those who made them. At the least, it can be said, that those who took part in the discussion were able to give/make their opinion(s) based on understandings as they understood it and compared to other factors in order to determine the original concept.

It can't be said that the idea was tossed out due to not even being considered...I'd say the topic was gone over with a fine tooth comb.  What more can be done in a conversation??  You get all that you can out on the table and then take a look at what you have.  Seems ok to me.

   ....and how do you know just how this topic was received in the final analysis???....you listed the comments made by a handful of peope when in fact, there are over 150 members who might have followed the discussion.  You might find that they totally accept the idea/concept.

energycritter, somewhere around August 26, 2003

Good point pdPJ,

Hang in there Savin and Dick, others may jump into this thread just the way you had wanted or expected. Give it a little time.

BC/EC

Fire, somewhere around August 26, 2003

Howdy, Savin!,

Yep, a long list of questions and quibbles and thoughts and debates and confusions.  Oooh!  Sounds eerily like a discussion to me! ;-) Especially about any "new" idea (they always have more initial resistance than old ones after all).

Without the courage of conviction I could see talk with the slightest debate could make a guy feel victimized. But I assume Dick is pretty healthy in this regard, given he's a communicator by profession.  He'll live. ;-)

I am trying to imagine a blackbelt taking on a new class, bringing up something new, encountering confusion and some resistance in the group, and maybe... oh I dunno, breaking down crying?  Leaving the mat??

Telling them sulkily, I think you're just resisting!  It's not fair!  I speak for The Expert and you are just supposed to believe me!  You don't have to understand.  It doesn't have to make sense to you.  Why can't you just have faith?! -- Aha. You continue to debate and question.  You clearly aren't qualified for my advanced ideas.  I'm going home.

It would be both hilarious and unthinkable... well, in any subject except remote viewing I guess. ::)

If the theory has merit, it ought to be easy to explain until he (or you) gets it clear.  How come you're so against him trying?

Seems to me Dick is doing fine so far.  Your representation of what we should expect from hrvg people makes 'em seem kind of pitiful and seems real unfair to them--do you represent them?  You obviously are a walking encyclopedia on everything hrvg as well as six years of BBS history, so it seems like you do.  -)on't you think they have the courage or the intellect to have a discussion in any environ where people are not just the wide-eyed drooling faithful?  Where others in their field are certainly going to question and debate until it has been explained to their satisfaction?  I give Dick a lot more credit than you do.

You also suggested that the debate indicated maybe a bbs wasn't appropriate for 'advanced' topics--(oooh, aaaah)--perhaps seeking out a BBS for any PhD level subject would enlighten you. They not only discuss advanced topics (some quite mind bending), but are VERY hard on each others' ideas--and a good thing, as what ideas survive that environment, are strong and have been put to the test against many people, many perspectives.

One of the differences between an insecure student and a graduate professional is that when they put out a paper with a new idea, and the whole field comes down to question and quibble and debate and sometimes even outright doubt, instead of crying in their dorm at night about how mean everyone is being to them, they endeavor to explain it better, as they have confidence that they know what they're doing and their ideas are sensible and workable, and in a way they enjoy the challenge of further fleshing out in themselves the details and the presentation.

People will 'debate' as part of this sort of conversation.  It's the real world.  Maybe you have been living in a cave--or on an island--where nobody questions anything or anybody, but in the world I live in, debate is a normal part of discussion.

Back to the academic model, it does require that people "discussing advanced topics" (...), be emotionally capable of doing so in the real world. That means outside the coddling of the university where they are expert, and in the outer world where other people have their own experience in that field, and will debate and demand clear logic and a thorough explanation before easily accepting a new idea.

So give Dick a break.  He's a big boy and a good communicator.  I don't think he is going to run and hide just because a few people questioned him.  It's just a sign that if it's a complex theory, it obviously needs more fleshing out to be clear to others.  I mean if his posts addressing it were verbal, he'd have so far spent about 4 minutes on the topic.  If it's really that complex a theory, it clearly requires more.  But, since he did demand and expect Jonina to show up and expound on the BBS to the satisfaction and clarity of others, I'm sure he can do so.

I don't know if you're trying to buy him excuses or discourage him from continuing, but it's making you both look bad.  Give him a chance.  He's professional enough and enough of a teacher by nature to be tough enough for this little discussion.  Maybe he's as fragile and easily 'victimized' as you seem to be, but I think more of him than that.

PJ

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 26, 2003

[quote]others may jump into this thread just the way you had wanted or expected.[/quote]

...or maybe not.  I'm sure there are other members who have their thoughts and opinions about this topic, however, they may not be willing to have to go 'toe to toe' everytime they speak their minds.

    When interesting topics turn into battlefields, not everyone wants to be a soldier for the cause.  I have a feeling that there are others who would like to be part of these postings but are reluctant to become involved due to the 'temperments' of those who walk around with their guns loaded and ready.....

Fire, somewhere around August 26, 2003

Morning pdPJ,

That's what separates researchers, scholars and adventurers from the audience.  Some get in and mix it up... and the rest of the world watches it go by. ;-)

I have faith in Dick.  He's probably just been busy.  He has explained lots of things quite clearly over time, and I'm sure he'll do as well with this.

PJ

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 26, 2003

Morning back attcha  ;)

yup....it could just be that he is in fact mulling over all that has been listed by Savin and is in fact, using those very points in order to present the information in a way that addresses them.

It is a complex concept and requires a lot of considerations. Id say, that the point of where the topic is now, is that we are just now getting down to the final conclusions.  People have had the oportunity to work this over in their minds and to incorportate new information.  

Why, I think we are in the jelling phase !   ;)


modified to add:

Savin....there is nothing in this world that is perfect..why would this concept presented by Dick be any different?  Even the BEST of things have the flip side to them.  Maybe Dick is considering some things HE hadn't factored in before.  This discussion isn't all one sided.  Since nothing is 100 %, I'm sure he has had reason to examine some of the things that have been said and has had to factor them in.....and I'm sure if he can show where the thinking has been incorrect, he will do so.  In the end, we all learn.  This is progressive learning.

Discussing the pros and cons before reaching any type of conclusion just seems intelligent to me. Consider cloning ~ a controversial subject for sure...lots of pros and cons.
Wow!  Organs for everyone !!  YEA !
oh...I don't know who will be responsible for the deformend babies  ???
OH, She's a beautiful little girl...how wonderful !
awww...she will only live to 5 years old??? gee.....

and on it goes.

Maybe Dick can relate to how Christoper Columbus felt when he proclaimed the earth round... the scoundrel ..

yup, this is like making jelly allright..

gather the berries
pick off the bad spots
rinse them off
toss them into the pot
turn up the heat
simmer until thickened
add some pectin, sugar and salt
cool it all down
pour it into containers

and savor the fruits of your labor....

WE ARE JELLING !  This is a good thing...the best may be yet to come.

admin, somewhere around August 26, 2003

When it comes to new ideas, the first process that happens is, people go through all the existing ideas they have, and determine in what ways the new thing is NOT like what they already know about.

Or as some say, "the box" of an idea is as much defined by the space around it, as the space inside it: seeing both has to happen before the box borders are clear.

Or in art, they might say, 'the negative space' around the form of something.

That is the norm in human behavior and models of learning.

I reread this whole thread before posting this, and my impression is that Dick has a vastly more open environ here than Jonina would have had with him, had she tried to explain to his [clearly hostile] satisfaction here on the bbs, at his demand. So in a way, there's not much room to complain.  If she could do it on a bbs, he can do it on a bbs.  For all the questions and quibbles, there's also been plenty of question marks and comments of interest, and it seems like a pretty normal discussion thread to me. -- and I might add, one of the more interesting ones.

This thread has been great for opening up several of the ideas that already exist.  I believe RV is new enough that there are zillions of things we've never thought of, yet even those we have, are pretty intriguing.  

Some of these things are difficult to grasp, not because they're too complex, but because there are so many probabilities in each step, each of which changes the formula of what you're talking about.  It requires fleshing out which of many options is coming into play at each stage.  

Without that fleshing out, that delineation of one thing from another, there is no way to differentiate RV from ARV from Retro-Tasking from ThoughtForms from RealityTasking from Morphing from Masking from whatever.  It's in going through the "steps of the logical theory" -- from beginning to end -- that defines and separates at each point and makes clear.

Many of the assumptions that it was X were because those steps weren't gone through, so people were left grasping to understand it based on the models they already know.  When it's spelled out "how it differs from" the models they know, then things are that much clearer.

I think it's a worthy discussion.  We are all probably learning something.  I know there is often resistance to new ideas (from everybody, including the one now facing some of it :-)), but in reality, new ideas are the rare lifeblood of this field.  Worth pursuing, worth discussing, worth debating, worth fleshing out, worth experimenting with.  That's what makes us--and the field--grow.

PJ

admin, somewhere around August 26, 2003

That reminds me, that the hrvg.org server has been down--or at least, inaccessible to some mainland connections--for at least a day now.  Hope everything's alright.  PJ

energycritter, somewhere around August 26, 2003

From what I have read, overall, not just this thread, it appears that the more complex the target set up or whatever it is called, the more difficult it is to know what is going on.

With all of the already complex ways of considering RV session results, it would only seem natural that the easier the target arrangement, the better.

Even if working under detailed micro-management of the session by many people trained in all aspects of this technique, the complexities would hinder clear understanding of what took place and how it all fit together.

Someone else mentioned the idea of keeping it simple.

I tried to not get lost in the explanations of this technique and then figured that the sessions would be even more difficult to keep clear and understood without getting into error.

BC/EC

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 26, 2003

,,,hmmm   I'm still thinking about all of this

Seems to me only a handfulf of things are left to happen:

Dick will either conclude that he can't further address the comments that have been made ~  enough so to clear up any confusion and therefore, he has said all he's can say   or

he's going to teach us, with valid conversation & statements, where we just 'aren't getting it'

     Something bothersome for me Savin is why is it you only post in the 'heated' topics??  You seem to know so much.  There are many of us here who are so willing to learn and would be grateful to have someone ,with seemingly more knowledge than we newbies have, help us out.

Why don't you join us all and play with us in some of the more mild topics and teach us something by contributing what you know, or by asking questions of us that will stir our minds?  

wizopeva, somewhere around August 26, 2003

That was a really interesting list of quotes that were taken out of context.   I agree some of them had a rather challenging tone to them.   However, I think others really didn't and certainly none of them called the theory things like baloney, hogwash, fantasy, or any of the other less than kind names that I've heard used in many other locations besides here.  

Also, I think it all depends on how you look at it and what you are looking for.  On the other side of the fence, I would argue that there have been plenty of encouraging and friendly statements.  For intance:

-Those who have or will have the benefit of personal instruction have an advantage over those who do not.

-Personally, I thank each and everyone of you who has taken the time from your busy lives to share what you have.

-Well I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about it.  

-Dick, I have to say I am also personally very interested in Entrainment and Masking.  I would guess almost everyone here would love what you have to say on the subject as well.

-well, count me in....I'm all ears too....let's learn...

-Please share what you know.  Thanks

-I do feel that this is a very worthwhile thread about something that many rvers are not told about

-it sounds interesting and  I'm fascinated.

-Please tell us about it.

-Thanks a bunch for sharing that info.  Its obvious a lot of work and thought has gone into teasing out all the nuances of the RV process.

-Thanx for sharing it.

-As far as does this method actually work??  I'm guessing it would as the intent would be to view the target.

-Dick I think you have succeeded with a nice technical explanation, and I'm glad you took the time to do so, thanks.

-Thanks Jim, that's interesting--a perspective I hadn't considered.

-I sincerely appreciate the reply.  BTW my questions, at this point, have nothing to do with morality as I don't know that I could make a judgement on such without an understanding of the mechanism first

-Again I really appreciate your time and responses on this.

-This is a fascinating subject.  

-A lot of this stuff is very subtle, and it intertwines with many other related things.

-OK.  Sure, why not address that specific aspect: that sounds pretty interesting to me.

-I'm not questioning what you are saying, meaning I'm not arguing with you, but am simply stating how I'm viewing this in hopes you can use that to better explain the mechanics of it to me.

-Hi Dick, I appreciate your explanation

-If you explain the specific point Savin is making, which you only mentioned very distantly -- rather than explaining what it is not, explain what it IS -- I am listening, I am interested.

-Yes Dick, I can definitely see the uses of being able to hide info from others in an intel situation.

-If I've understood it correctly, yes it seems the tasker (or whoever puts the target together) has definitely got to do the lion's share of the work here though, and it's probably not at all easy setting it all up. Not only associating one thing with another in their mind, but enabling the mapping of movement and change etc. I would really love to see an example.

-Only by experimenting  will we not only be able get a handle on how RV actually works,

-Glad to see this kind of thing going on

-Thanks for introducing the topic Dick.

 



 





 




   

Glyn, somewhere around August 26, 2003

Hi PDPJ,

[Quote]  I'm sure there are other members who have their thoughts and opinions about this topic, however, they may not be willing to have to go 'toe to toe' everytime they speak their minds. [/Quote]

Yes, I agree.  It is not a weakness to try to be polite and considerate when 'talking' to others, whether on this Board or elsewhere. I do my best to do that, and I expect the same in return. If respect is not returned then the price is too high. It is not worth being in a situation where you have to tread carefully around those with short tempers, because you end up pandering to them, and it stifles progress.

I am eager to learn from those who have something to contribute or teach, and I will try to understand and maybe have something to contribute in turn.....that's all we can ever try to do.

I want to be able to ask questions though; even some stupid ones, without the risk of being insulted........but most of all I want to be able to ask "Why do you think that way? "

Isn't that fair....on a discussion list like this?

Glyn

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 26, 2003

Hi Glyn

[quote]I want to be able to ask questions though; even some stupid ones, without the risk of being insulted........[/quote]  ....you mean, for instance,like having one of your questions being answered with 'it's like farting in front of the Queen'?....or feeling like you need to present your resume along with your question or statement?

I agree, we could do without this sort of thing.  Those of us who feel we can make more progress by being courteous and respectful will have to be on our toes to help those who are still lurking, but have their questions and comments, to jump in and join us.

With a little effort, we can all find a way to agree to disagree, to say what it is we need/want to say or ask without having rudeness and or aggression being the main core of the discussion or response....just takes a little polish is all.

admin, somewhere around August 26, 2003

We're doing ok.  In fairness to everybody, do be aware (those new to RV) that there are personal politics in this field, some of which go back a long time, or fairly deep, or are just a fairly recent sort of spat.  

These things contribute to everybody being too quick on the trigger and a little oversensitive sometimes (including me).  If we can recognize it, maybe comment but then let it go and move on, we can end up having some good discussions, I am sure of it.  

In the end, most of us have much more in common than not.

TKR has lots of diff methods used by the staff, which is on purpose (including hrvg by the way), and that's part of a nice chance for all of us to work on improving both ourselves and the whole field by more inter-method communications and a more workable field-wide social environment.  But even our staff is working on working with each other without occasional offense.  It's good for us.  I think it's improving all of us.

We're all kinda new to the TKR model.  We are used to everybody having their own separate safe place to bicker and bitch about everybody else.  ;)  Letting go of the feelings of defensiveness or annoyance takes a little practice.  That's what we're doing.

Some of our threads, while TKR is still pretty new, are as much a gradual experiment in "integration" in the RV social field, as they are anything about the topic under discussion.  

We are all slightly 'spikey' and it shows.  But at root, most of us have pretty good intentions, or we wouldn't bother making the effort all over this board.  

As Joe is always telling me, "This is supposed to be FUN!"  He's right.  It is.  We should certainly be able to discuss this subject without any dark thoughts, lurking suspicions, or grudges held.

Dick, if my thoughts and debates came off as confrontive, I apologize.  Technically, I didn't mean it that way, though I imagine my recent grumpiness about other things w/you and Glenn related.  I'll try to be more... diplomatic in the future, although questions and speculation (whether in favor or in doubt of anything) will always be part of discussion.  

It sincerely is my goal, and the goal of all the TKR staff and probably several members as well, to work toward a positive social integration in the RV field.  We are not adversaries--we're all the good guys!--we're on the same side here, so to speak; there's enough resistance to psi functioning in the world, both culturally and governmentally, that those of us serious about it, even if we have different roads, oughtta stick together on some level.  It makes a stronger community and more resources for everybody, in the end.

Best regards,
PJ

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 26, 2003

:)

admin, somewhere around August 27, 2003

But we're still waiting on some more real discussion from your end about entrainment and masking Dick. ;-)

energycritter, somewhere around August 27, 2003

:)

mindchild, somewhere around August 27, 2003

PJ
I get a feeling from this group that is very different from any other I've visited, and I like it very much.  Thanks for the post explaining this aspect of the group administration, I respect this effort enormously and it must be part of why I keep coming back here, even when people get spikey  ;-)  
Laurie

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 27, 2003

[quote]I get a feeling from this group that is very different from any other I've visited, and I like it very much[/quote]

    Hi Laurie !

Me too!  I've said it before that I find this group to be
on a different level.  Having spent a little time here, I have found the members to be intelligent, curious, knowledgeable, well spoken, poor spellers AND LOT'S OF FUN!  

    Glad you are with us !  

mindchild, somewhere around August 27, 2003

Hi Polka Dot,
Thanks!  I'm sure glad to be here!  

I enjoy your posts very much too, nice to have a chance to talk  ;-)
Laurie

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 27, 2003

yup.....  


[move] doin the happy dance again !   ;-)  [/move]

Don_Williams, somewhere around August 28, 2003

I agree  with all the positive comments made about this board.  I'm very enthusiatic about it.  I think it's the first step in the right direction regarding shaping the future of the RV field that I've seen in quite a long time.

Open and honest, questioning discussion is bound to be an integral part of RV if it is to have any collective future at all.  The very subjects and theories that some feel have been discounted and discredited out of hand were, I'm sure, developed through the very same process.  When anyone proposes concepts that are relatively unknown or unclear yet seem to be stated as factual and undeniably real, the first natural, rational reaction of anyone in any field is to inspect these concepts, to try to understand them fully, so that we can then discuss them further.  This way, each individual is able to reach his/her own conclusion about theese concepts, to decide within themselves if the concepts are able to stand on their own.  If the concepts cannot withstand questioning and examination, they are not likely to be real or to be of any consequence.  

The ideas that Dick and Jim have tried to explain are fascinating and I appreciate their efforts to help us understand them.  Questioning and doubt should be seen as an expected and rational reaction, as an opportunity to throw even more light on these concepts - not as an attack or as a summary dissmissal of the ideas or the people putting them out.

I'd still like to have some of my questions answered as i am very unclear about what these concepts entail.
Don

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around August 28, 2003

Yours was a good posting Don ...points well put.

Rocheleh, somewhere around September 14, 2003

I just read this topic, and while everyone's waiting for Dick I thought I might give my 2 cents, as the things described in here really remind me of something.

Back just when I got into RV, I had this idea: what to do with RV that hasn't been done before? My brother's hobby is constructing Linux firewall systems, so I thought um, how about cracking root passwords with RV. (Yup, I know I was a small naive girl at that time. BTW, I still am. ;-) )

I thought it'd be doable this way:
get the ASCII code table (or whichever set of characters can be used in a root password, I don't know offhand, but there is one), assign something simple and visual to every symbol in there, and RV that. To solve character order, these um, things would be placed from left to right (I'm a lot better with left/right/foreground/background than I am with NESW, but I guess that only depends on practice. Since I practice with photos, this is intuitive for me, but if I were to practice with actual locations I could visit, NESW would be better I think.).

Of course, these assigned whatevers need not be visual whatevers, it's just that I'm best with the visual modality. (I'm usually thinking in pictures - even counting in my head visually -, if something comes to me in session NOT in pictures, I mark it, there's so few.)

Of course, someone else would need to do this mapping, if I were to do the session, so that I'm not frontloaded to hell.

Since I didn't find anyone to do this with, I put it on hold and it's been that way ever since. Maybe we could make a project of it here.

Mapping would have to be designed very carefully so that all features remain easily discernible. I have multiple ideas on that, none of them really elaborated though ;-) It was just a passing idea since I never had anyone to try it out with.

For now I'll wait for the experts in here to take this simple beginning idea apart. Does it even belong in this topic? I'm sure some will say it isn't  ;-) But that's not a problem as long as I have explanations.  :P

Gene_Smith, somewhere around September 14, 2003

Hi Rocheleh,

What you are describing is commonly reffered to as Associative Remote Viewing or ARV for short.  There are whole sites just devoted to it and a lot of people have spent varying amounts of time with it, me included.

It's definately something that can be fun and incredibly frustrating to play with.  I think it was Prudence Calabrese who in her experience with it ended up reffering to it as just plain evil or some such thing, and in my experience that was surely as good a description of "displacement" as I've seen.

In any event I wish you the best of luck with your research into it.

Gene

admin, somewhere around September 15, 2003

Hmmmn.  Well, I don't want to sound cynical or anything, but it's been 23 days since Dick posted on this thread (24 since posting on this actual topic), and that's an awful long time in internet-land; it's looking like he ain't coming back on this.   PJ

admin, somewhere around September 15, 2003

Rocheleh, here's a firedocs link on ARV, fwiw as info. -- http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/faq024.cfm
-- PJ

Rocheleh, somewhere around September 15, 2003

"While there is life, there is hope" or so they teach you in an English class.  ;-) (I have never heard this sentence outside the classroom, so I'm not sure such an expression exists in modern English...)

And if he comes back it's cool, if he doesn't, we still have a lot to discuss.

That being said, back to ARV.

I admit, I've never done ARV, but I got the impression ARV tasking was mostly binary (the price of silver goes up/down, etc), or with very limited options. This is what PJ writes, too (in the link):

"The multiple-options is a great idea, but usually runs into severe difficulties in practice, mostly because matching sessions to 3 different potential targets is difficult enough (try it and see); trying to separate and properly match for 12, for example, is ridiculously hard."

So this is what I'm trying to find a way around, to allow short sequences of text/numbers/etc. to be RVed. This whole situation reminded me a lot more of what I read here about overlay targets, than ARV, because of this. I wouldn't set the different outcomes to diff targets, I'd set parts of the outcome to parts in a single target (the overlay, only in this case, the overlay would be artificially constructed). So, if somebody knows that password, and knows this system, they can draw a nice picture of the password, a single picture, which then could be RVed. But that doesn't happen, as sysops don't go off drawing stuff like that, so I just make the system of connections, then have someone RV the password as if it were put through this system. * Which it isn't, but it could be, and only in one single way. There's a single target I'm tasking them on. (Well I'm not tasking them on anything yet, since this is only a very very preliminary conceptual idea and I don't know about the practical parts yet. I can't overstress this :) )

I guess I just ran into the language gap, or maybe the sleepiness barrier. Do the above make sense at all? I understand what I want to say, I just don't know how to say it.

Rachel ???

---
* Of course they don't know it's in my system they're RVing in, because it's still only "describe the picture". This method would make RVable pictures of short character strings.

Gene_Smith, somewhere around September 15, 2003

[quote]Hmmmn.  Well, I don't want to sound cynical or anything, but it's been 23 days since Dick posted on this thread (24 since posting on this actual topic), and that's an awful long time in internet-land; it's looking like he ain't coming back on this.   PJ[/quote]


It became apparent almost immediately HRVG was very uncomfortable with questions of any type on the subject. Their last statement was fairly clear, that they considered any public venue, such as this one, wherein questions or opinions could be put forth uncontrollably was simply not a suitable forum for them to discuss their "advanced rv".  

I hope they'll change their mind, or barring that will simply post on their own site an explaination or description of this "interesting aspect of remote viewing" that Dick brought up on the board as a sort of yard stick to measure others abilities or knowledge.

Gene

Tunde, somewhere around September 17, 2003

Dick watch....

Alas he has spoken !!!  :o

http://www.hrvg.org/cgi-bin/hrvg_bbs_hotwax/webbbs_config.pl?read=18869


Peace,
Tunde

energycritter, somewhere around September 17, 2003

Tunde, thanks for referencing Dick's post...wait, that sounded funny....

Dick, that was amazing, what a cool session.

You did a good job explaining it too.

Wild stuff....tennis courts in Rome and Tornados in Texas.

What an interesting (not refering to the Chinese curse... ;) ) way to set up an RV target/s.

It sounds like it all went according to plan, nicely done HRVG.

BC/EC

PS, is that anything like a Tesla watch, probably the same, just a smaller band? JK, I couldn't resist.

admin, somewhere around September 17, 2003

Glad to see something on it -- though, in his territory where nobody can discuss except to agree, LOL.  

I considered not discussing it here, since he has obviously chosen not to discuss it here, but then changed my mind.  Why not.

It's an interesting belief system.  

I don't believe that the research they're doing on this is objective, as I believe the group itself is very psychically and psychologically interdependent, which can arrange results quite different than a lab situation with lab-level viewers.

However, I am all for research of any kind, and creative ideas of any kind, and in that light, it's cool.

Thinking about it, I feel this requires viewer dependence, psychologically, though. The viewer must 'politely oblige' the tasker by ignoring the subtask (real target); something that can easily be done as part of the tasking, if that hypnotic modality (wanting to please the director) is in place.

The idea that the subtask is part of the tasking intent but is not associated with the tasking number in any way, is just funny.  Not that numbers matter anyway, but ANY intent that relates to the target or session is associated with the number, even if indirectly.  

But, as long as viewers are not fiercely independent, this might work.

A slightly different but related account, true story. A viewer I know and trust told me an interesting story from the days of stargate.  A person from a well known agency came in with an allegedly 'hot' target that needed viewing.  -)ouble blind of course; a number assigned, written on an envelope; brought to a certain viewer well known to the agency.  

It was taken and the viewer sat down with it in the other room while the guy was still there.  A short time later, the viewer came out and had a quiet talk with the man.

The number was assigned to a given target.  All very well.  However, the target that the data was to be presented [to the agency] as representing, was not in that, as the guy was actually hoping would NOT be described, he was actually hoping to give the data back to the agency and have them be misled.  

The viewer described the cover target, and then described the real target, and then described the agency man's motives, while the color drained completely out of the man's face.  He grabbed his papers and stormed out and was not seen again.

The viewer in this case was working on his OWN intent; not psychologically or emotionally subservient to the whim of whomever was doing the tasking.  In this case there was even far less relation between the 'real' target and that assigned; that assigned was a legit target, and the 'real' target was deliberately excluded--so the guy thought--from the whole process.  But tasking isn't about a number, it's about INTENT.

I believe that had the viewer been part of a group of which the agency man was in charge, depending on that man for validation in several psychological ways, the viewer would probably have described exactly what the fellow wanted.  Remote Viewing can function a lot like hypnosis on psychic levels, in practice, when it comes to trainers/taskers and viewer results.

I like the idea a lot.  But, other than deliberately keeping secrets from viewers, which is not a situation I'd ever want to work in as a viewer, I'm not sure of the point of it.  None of the explanations we heard in this thread, about 'complicated' or 'frontloaded' tasking, would ever require that kind of tasking double-speak.  

I am still not clear on the reason for pursuing it, other than armchair interest about how one can impose stuff on a viewer by mucking with the tasking.

I might add a tasker can impose ANYTHING 'additional' on a target or session, whether or not it's a different target or aspect of a different target, whether it's to be considered part of the target or separate.  

You can even program sessions (this works better the more interdependent the tasker and viewer are of course), such as, when the viewer gets to describing thing X in the target, they will clearly hear and write down the sound of a bell, or something along those lines.  I remember talking with a canadian researcher in hypnosis and RV about this eons ago, like in 1995 or 6, doing this kind of work both locally and remotely from the viewers.

You can also task two targets (morphing I believe hrvg calls that), but instead of both in entirely, task only one element from the second, to be found in the first--very similar to what Dick described, though without the 'masking' of turning a tornado path into humans and their arrangement.  

Because RV operates on INTENT, technically almost anything is possible if the original INTENT -- meaning, the tasker or someone involved in the target/tasking process -- is designed that way, and the viewer is willing.

I find it all very cool as an intellectual interest.  But I seriously wonder, given RV is enough time and work to get right even done properly, why the process needs to be made so overcomplicated.  Well, aside from keeping secrets from viewers, of course, reasons elude me.

Operating in this environment would have the nice side effect of training viewers to be more dependent on tasker though. If thingB is tasked, but only thingA gets feedback, and the viewer thinks that thingB is therefore inaccurate (at least in time, if not space), the learning theory part of action-feedback-correction is now working against the viewer instead of for them.

PJ

wizopeva, somewhere around September 17, 2003

Well at least they did post something somewhere, even if it did take a while.  Actually, I can see the uses of this technique in certain situations.  I could probably think of other ways this same info could have been obtained, but it may be this way was easier.  It would be interesting if we were to know exactly how many viewers turned in sessions, how many drew people and how many drew them in the correct orientation.  If the results were robust, then it could be a useful tool in some situations.  And frankly,  I find it interesting to hear about anything new whatsoever in the field of RV, since that so rarely happens.  (and by new I mean about rv itself and not just about reputations and squabbles among viewers)

I find PJ's idea interesting about a certain willingness on the part of the viewer being necesary.   ON some levels that does make logical sense.  I guess I'm just not sold on how much control a viewer can have on their sessions when it comes to small things like the orientation of a subject in a sketch.  Now it makes sense to me that if a viewer is of the caliber to be able to know exactly what is happening on all levels of the target, including the tasking, well then obviously it's going to be hard to put anything past that viewer.  But most viewers, although able to obtain useful info, are not quite that good.  So I think most of what we are talking about is usually more about those types of viewers.

Now I figure most viewers will probably sooner or later figure out if someone is doing illicit things with their sessions.  But this may not happen right away and it may take even longer if the person on some level doesn't want to realize it.  I know I for one have a few times failed to see a truth that would have been totally obvious to anyone that did not have an emotional investment in it.  

Probably the best solution would be that after the project is over and the need for subterfuge is passed, the viewer is then told about all aspects of the tasking, including the previously hidden ones.  One possible exception would be if there were paying clients involved and confidentiality was as issue.  IN such a case, one could probably just inform that there was a secondary tasking and maybe some general info like that the orientation of the subject was to indicate a path or direction, and perhaps leave out specific details.  If that is done, then I can't see any ethics problems there.  OTherwise, if I were the viewer, I would probably be leary of the situation.  
-E

Gene_Smith, somewhere around September 17, 2003

Hi All,

I was and am glad to see the additional information posted and will watch for follow ups to it.  I can think of a number of questions etc I have but am going to hold those for now, as I do really want to know the entire procedure, and any questions might spook them.

One thing that this does bring to mind, for me, is when Pru Calabrese gave her last sort of dropping out notice and mentioned the retasking of sessions etc as part of it.  Now I do NOT know Prudence at all but honestly the retasking thing just seemed insane or completely paranoid to me.  (I am not accusing Pru of being insane or paranoid at all here by the way, just a manner of speaking for me is all).  Looking at this, and assuming everything is as it appears to be given I'm not so sure she wasn't correct.  

In the past I have chosen to only work sessions cued by someone I knew personally as I was cautious of getting something like Satan or worse yet a lost animal (I've worked several of these and just get too personally and emotionally involved in them).  Now there appears to be the legitimate concern of being tasked on something with multiple levels wherein one is never given complete and honest feedback.  And if another level can be added to the cue by just the intent of the tasker, then why couldn't another level be added by someone completely outside the process but one with the ability to form unusually strong intent.  In fact if "future memory" is a real thing then why couldn't the multi layered or masked tasking also take place after the fact. As a sort of side issue on this I know Glenn and the HRVG are adamant that TOL absolutely 100% does not exist, but I can't see that this work does anything but bolster the idea or mechanic of it's existence.

Well as Eve said, something new, anything new, is a welcome thing right now.

Best regards to everyone,
Gene Smith

energycritter, somewhere around September 17, 2003

[quote]
And if another level can be added to the cue by just the intent of the tasker, then why couldn't another level be added by someone completely outside the process but one with the ability to form unusually strong intent.  In fact if "future memory" is a real thing then why couldn't the multi layered or masked tasking also take place after the fact. As a sort of side issue on this I know Glenn and the HRVG are adamant that TOL absolutely 100% does not exist, but I can't see that this work does anything but bolster the idea or mechanic of it's existence.

Well as Eve said, something new, anything new, is a welcome thing right now.

Best regards to everyone,
Gene Smith[/quote]

Good notion.....the FM thing and tasking after the fact.

BTW...what is TOL...sorry...I am being little dumb at the moment.....

BC/EC

Gene_Smith, somewhere around September 17, 2003

[quote]

BTW...what is TOL...sorry...I am being little dumb at the moment.....

BC/EC
[/quote]


My understanding of TOL is as follows:  Telepathic Over Lay.  This would be where you would psychically read the mind of (so to speak), or tag in the words of HRVG, the person who did or knew the cue as opposed to getting the information via RV.

An example would be I cue up a target for you, I hand it to you and sit quietly over in the corner of the room.  You get some or all your data directly from me as opposed to getting it from RV.

Gene

energycritter, somewhere around September 17, 2003

Thanks, that is understandable...I just didn't realize that that was the acronym for that Tellepath stuff.

I have heard of that and would figure that as PJ mentioned, it would be too easy for that TOL to be an issue, especially if the RV group's dynamics were such that RVers wanted to please the director or tasker, if I understand that correctly or if that is how PJ meant it.

Anyway, I got it now.....Tele-over-lay....cool

BC/EC

wax, somewhere around September 17, 2003

[quote]as I was cautious of getting something like Satan or worse [/quote]

Now that is scary.   :(

What about RV target databases and trusting which ones to use? anyone got any advice?
This excact issue came up for me this week, Ive just started to view again, headed for the target database and then started to get really worried if I was going to pull something nasty out the hat. I did a target once before and got the gates of Auswitzh (sp?) But I got alittle more than the gates, it was horrible, I was looking through a little girls eyes watching everyone I had ever known and loved die. Its like a bad image been etched in my mind,like part of my memory. Sorry I don't mean to put a real downer on here. On the positive side, its helped me to understand why some people are the way they are.

:) Anyway... could targets work like psychometry? like a recorded history of everything/everyone that comes into contact with it?  

Gene_Smith, somewhere around September 17, 2003

[quote]

:) Anyway... could targets work like psychometry? like a recorded history of everything/everyone that comes into contact with it?  [/quote]

Hello Wax,

This brings up something I had exposure to and witnessed some years back.  When I first began learning TRV there was this fellow I became friends with via the chat room where I was a student.  To make a long, though somewhat interesting story shorter, he was a full blown empath.  Could not only not attend movie theatres as he would pick up on everyone's emotions simultainously but he was beginning to have the heartbreaking experience of not being able to be out in public at all without some serious problems and experiences.  As part of our training there would be a target posted weekly that everyone would work, then post their results for comparision and critique by the instructor.  If this person did not do this target before anyone else got to it he would pick up on what they had gotten in their RV sessions as part of his.  Sort of a Telepathic Over Lay on steriods.

Gene Smith

admin, somewhere around September 17, 2003

Hi wax,

I'm responding on another thread since this is a different topic, ok.

PJ

wax, somewhere around September 17, 2003

Thanks Gene thats really interesting, I worked out a while back I am really empathic myself. I suppose the 'emotional'i s just another type of information and probaly why I am always getting sucked right into targets.  Sorry I am off topic, I'll be quiet now  :-X

:) Hey PJ Excellent thanks!

Tunde, somewhere around September 17, 2003

Gene says:

And if another level can be added to the cue by just the intent of the tasker, then why couldn't another level be added by someone completely outside the process but one with the ability to form unusually strong intent.  

Hi gene,

well said, i wanted to raise the whole retasking
thing over on HRVG but i dont think it would
sit well with them until their masking process
is explained in full and the sessions made public.
Iam glad this is being worked by them
actually and the results they have come up with.

Alot of people thought pru was taking nonsense
when she gave the reasons she did for pulling
out of RV it just seems weird that HRVG should be the ones to lay some verification on prus theory
in their overlay/masking project.

Its a very scary senario IMO and i cant see any
real benefical use of the masking/retasking
process but i do see alot
of nefarious reasons for its use if it proves to be
real at the end of the day.

Peace,
Tunde

admin, somewhere around September 17, 2003

What I find most interesting -- but also most humorous -- about nearly all these interrelated topics, is that eventually everybody is going to realize that it has ALWAYS been about "intent" -- and strength of intent/will -- it IS always about that, and it WILL BE always about that.

In other words, it's MAGICK.  It has always been magick -- sorcery -- shamanism -- kabbalah -- mysticism -- metaphysics -- etc. etc. etc.  

Remote Viewing is about people who wanted to put a little bit of it in the lab to study it.  The RV term was coined to mean 'psychic functioning within an approved protocol' (in other words, something scientifically legitimate, and not 'woo-woo').

In stripping RV of all the religious, spiritual, cultish baggage (much of which really is garbage, so that's a good thing), I think RV has also been stripped of quite a few things that are a legitimate part of the psychic functioning experience.

This includes first and foremost the understanding that personal INTENT drives everything; and that intent can be "competitive" between people.

But psi stuff has no defense except a strong character or strong WILL (intent).  So, the whole concept makes a lot of people really frightened.  They won't even consider anything that might infringe on the idea that any person can affect any other person.

Heck, TV commercials affect me, my grouchy neighbor affects me, my cat affects me, I don't know why people not physically present, if I don't believe in time or space, should be any different--unless I choose to make it so.

PJ

jimk, somewhere around September 17, 2003

"I am still not clear on the reason for pursuing it, other than armchair interest about how one can impose stuff on a viewer by mucking with the tasking. "


PJ,

I thought I outlined 3 scenarios for you all where this could come in very handy...

All,

Why does everyone keep mentioning the nefarious reasons for using masking and not the obvious benefits this model has for certain scenarios instead?

best regards,

Jim K.

Gene_Smith, somewhere around September 17, 2003

[quote]
All,

Why does everyone keep mentioning the nefarious reasons for using masking and not the obvious benefits this model has for certain scenarios instead?

best regards,

Jim K.
[/quote]

Hi Jim,

I think some of it is simple human nature (They show car chases on the five o'clock news as opposed to people driving their kids to school), some of it the sharp elbows that exist in this community (mine included), and lastly a knowledge that has come over time that anything that can be used/abused for nefarious purposes will.

But there is a sincere interest in the topic and hope you will continue discussing it.

Gene Smith

wizopeva, somewhere around September 17, 2003

Yeah, I have to agree that anything that can be abused, probably well be abused somewhere by someone.  And so it's viewer beware.  RV is a tool and like any tool, it can be used for both good and evil.  The scary part about this particular tool is that it's abuse is much more easily hidden.  Once a viewer gets the presented feedback, they would tend to think that they then knew everthing, but that may not be the case.  

Of course, HRVG is not the first group to present ways that sessions could be misused.  I heard whispers of it from the CRV camp over a year ago and then came PRu and now HRVG.  It's a difficult issue because by warning people of it, you are also inherently also teaching them how to do it.  But in the end, I feel it's more fair for the knowledge to be given out.  RV should not be like a cult in which you have to hurdle 9 stages of strangeness and/or cought up countless piles of dollars welded together with huge dollops of brown nosing in order to be bestowed with the sacred knowledge, LOL!  (oh yeah except I forgot that's how most of the rest of the world already works anyway darn it..)
-E  

 

admin, somewhere around September 17, 2003

Howdy Jim,  
 
Well your examples were useful, and thank you for going to the trouble.  
 
There are already existing ways in remote viewing to deal with the example situations you gave, most of which are far less complicated (and in something that isn't 100%, like RV, reducing complexity as much as possible in process is incredibly important).

Some of the examples weren't situations any taskers I've known would even be in (like the suggestion re: a group like AWP) though I'm not saying they might not be somewhere in time; the example(s) assumed on certain tasking problems that any decent tasker should already know how to get around, in a far more direct or simpler manner, without resorting to masking.

Since such issues can be dealt with differently, and the whole 'difference' point to masking (vs. doing tasking differently to begin with) seems to be keeping the subtask a secret, then suggesting that the main point of it is to keep things secret from viewers--well, I'm not sure why that is overly "nefarious"?  I'm not saying that has to be an evil thing, just that it seems to be the thing.  After all, if that was not the goal, why not just do tasking in the several other ways it can be done which are usually simpler and don't involve 'hiding' one target behind another?

Even lots of positive or non-biased comments and questions on this thread have not been dealt with either well or in most cases at all.  Even if I am obnoxious (it happens) and ignored (it happens), there are lots of other people on this thread who haven't had any response to a lot of decent questions, and some were polite to the near-point of groveling about it.  

I'm interested in everything RV. Enough to listen and theorize. And I admit it's a good thing we're all different anyway, or the world would sure be a lot smaller.  I'd like to hear more about the topic.

In any case, that's a response to your question.

Regards,
PJ

Tunde, somewhere around September 20, 2003

Well i raised a few questions of my own
on HRVG and Glenn has kindly responded to a few
of them.
I think they felt Dick got a bit of a roasting
while entertaining the subject here but hopefully
he may come back and post more on the subject.  

http://tinyurl.com/o1we

Peace,
Tunde

----
Note added 1/15/04: that link doesn't work anymore. See the post below for two links that do.

Tunde, somewhere around September 21, 2003

And finaly...
Some more thoughts on E & M from Dick

In the process of asking  my own questions I
Had to take a few pot shots from
a couple of Bol's "Bitter Old Ladies" over there
as i fully expected whenever the name
pru is mentioned but it was worth
it in the end  8)

Also some interesting comments about TOL
but i'll leave you CRV dudes to handle that one
here on  another thread someday somewhere ;)

http://tinyurl.com/o3y9

Peace,
Tunde


---------------
That link doesn't work anymore.  You can view a thread by Dick that examples 'Masking' here:
[url]http://devel.hrvg.org:8080/mod-bin/bulletin-board-message-archive/print-thread.pl?cn=c6673b983d179aa8a8dca2002b00c5a6[/url]
And you can read a longer thread about the topic here:
[url]http://devel.hrvg.org:8080/mod-bin/bulletin-board-message-archive/print-thread.pl?cn=b6e20c8d9220be2ca802ca5a71af6bda[/url] although do be warned that like most threads which feature some of the posters on that one, you kinda have to get through 80% flamewars before you run into actual discussion on the topic.
Those are the two threads from this time period on the hrvg bbs that are now archived; both links are the archives there, since the individual post links no longer work. -- PJ

joanie, somewhere around September 21, 2003

HI ;-) All You Wonderful People at TenThousandRoads!!!

I just wanted to introduce myself.  I am one of the "BOLs": Bitterful Old Ladies to which Tunde refers.  At least I _think_ he's referring to me..ya neva know. :o

Just thought I'd say HI ;-) since I was passing by.

Cheerio and In the Spirit,
Joanie

Rocheleh, somewhere around October 1, 2003

Er, I know this is wildly off topic, but did Joanie unsubscribe after one single post?  ??? Or did I miss something?

admin, somewhere around October 1, 2003

Well this thread had potential Rocheleh but didn't live up to it as you see!  

(I don't think people can 'unsubscribe' from a bbs, it's not like an email list -- they can just not come back, lol.;))

Rocheleh, somewhere around October 1, 2003

You're right, I should have said "deleted their user" as I can't get her profile or no. of posts or anything. She did delete her user, did she? Whichever, it doesn't matter now.

Anyway, I still don't get why the password-to-image method is ARV, I replied explaining why it was not, and why it was more like masking (I think) but no one replied to that, but maybe it's so clearly ARV it doesn't even require an explanation.

I guess I need to get some sleep. (I wonder why all my posts end with something like that... I guess I should lead a healthier lifestyle ;-) )

TestDood, somewhere around October 2, 2003

Well, not unsubscribe, but Delete emselves.

Lu

Tunde, somewhere around October 5, 2003

>Well, not unsubscribe, but Delete themselves.

>Lu

you mean she's gone ?

You know how that Kool And The Gang Classic
R n B tune goes...

"Ceeelebraaaation time come on
..da da da da da da da da... whoo hoo!!!"   ::)

Peace,
Tunde

wizopeva, somewhere around October 5, 2003

Tunde,

I should warn you.  I don't want to see flaming incidents from other boards restarted over here and especially  one that has no actual rv content in it.  All it does is invite others to come over here and join in baloney that probably should never have started anywhere in the first place.  So it's a really bad precedent, if you know what I mean.  If  this thread is to have no further useful content to it, may as well let the poor thing retire and rest in peace!  
-E

 

admin, somewhere around October 5, 2003

Or "Rest in Pieces," as the case may be.  ;-)

Tunde, somewhere around October 6, 2003

>may as well let the poor thing retire and rest in >peace!  

Hi E,
Your right
I should know better :-)

Tunde

admin, somewhere around November 3, 2003

I vaguely recall wondering how some of the comparisons to ARV got into the targeteering/masking discussion if the concepts were really so far separated. I just happened to run across this today while looking for something else that explains the 'masking' concept in a great deal more degree than Dick did here, and also explains the relationship to ARV conceptually.  Just for whomever might be interested.

[url]http://devel.hrvg.org:8080/mod-bin/bulletin-board-message-archive/print-thread.pl?cn=31c89589cca4ded69aeaca41a0c6d1e4[/url]

end of messages

[END Topic 126] Entrainment and Masking TKR Remote Viewing Forum August 2003