Topic [276] On blindedness TKR Remote Viewing Forum March 2004

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

EricT, somewhere around March 8, 2004

Hi all-

One of the more recent threads prompted me to think about the use of - double blind.  Are there instances where you think the use of single or even non blind RVing is useful, and if so, how?  I know for myself, being an athiest to all this kinda stuff for so long, I have to have it double blind.  Otherwise, my ego has an out to not believe in RV.  That said, I have, while training, done some single blind monitoring work.  (and failed miserably at the targets at times, hehe)

But there might be situations where info is needed asap, where you might want to trade time saved for some scientific validity.  Like time critical ops stuff.  

Any thoughts on that?

Now, I am not asking about frontloading per se, but feel free to throw that in as well, if you like.  My opinion there is that anyone who needs frontloading, well, should get better at RV so they dont.  Just my opinion.

This is a wide open topic- any thoughts welcome.

Eric

admin, somewhere around March 8, 2004

I consider a lack of doubleblind to equate to 'a bad situation'.  

That said, there are people who develop enough skill that they can often perform adequately in a bad situation.  Maybe not as well as normal.  

Or maybe the situation by its nature sparks other issues (a great sense of need and interest) in the viewer which will actually help compensate for the bad situation, or even improve results.  

Like any bad situation, it is something to be avoided--yet, it is something which happens sometimes, and you just deal with it as best you can.

There is some heavy frontloading which can be adapted to. For example, frontloading with "the target is a missing person."  This is difficult because it really gets your analytical brain going.  

On the other hand, I think if a person practiced enough in that situation--using a pool of targets that were all people, for example--they would eventually get a handle on this, at least a bit.  Like any skill or adaptation, I'm sure results are unique to the viewer.

I can often tune things via psi that are not RV, that are totally frontloaded, such as a person I wish to tune into. For some reason that works with my belief system I guess. When I try to tune into nearly anything else that is frontloaded, my brain gets analytical gridlock and my session is dead on the spot.  That's my own issue I guess; some people are surely better than others at dealing with frontloading or a lack of blinding.

RV even by good viewers is at best inconsistent.  I would not give much credence to any psi session that was non double blind (RV by definition IS double/solo-blind; I call it just 'psi' if the session is not) unless the viewer had been known to work under these conditions and do well.

PJ

Gene_Smith, somewhere around March 8, 2004

Hi Eric,

Frontloading...  Well I'm sure that I've said all of this in parts before, I'll try to do it a little more succinctly this time.  I do think there is a time and place for frontloaded work, but never as a prop; and in fact it is my distinct experience that doing any session frontloaded is, or at least should be a harder thing to do as oppossed to easier.

I can think of numerous situations where working frontloaded might be unavoidable, manditory, or simply a fast and  convienient solution that was available at the time.  Let me toss out a few examples.  It's my understanding the the military rv team was actively working many multiple sessions on the Iran hostage situation over time and in fact identified problems with the failed rescue attempt, real time, prior to anyone else hearing the news via "normal" channels.  Now I know that the team sheltered itself as best it could from the news etc, but as they were not being held in seclusion I know they had to be aware of the situation as it lasted for over a year as I recall.  Even though targeted blind, I can not imagine that most if not all of these highly skilled viewers did not recognize they were once again working on this hostage two minutes or less into a session.  In fact I think someone as skilled as Joe McMoneagle is in a way frontloaded once he's 15 minutes into most any good session.  I have been retasked blind, on a target I previously worked, and shortly into the session began to aol/recognize something like "Hey this is the same thing I did the other day" or some such thing.

From a practical usability standpoint I do think there is a real value to being able to work frontloaded.  If you or a family member has lost something and you know it's lost so the wife cueing this up and handing a target referrence number to you at that moment just isn't going to fool anyone as to it's content, then having the ability to do a frontloaded session on it could prove to be of practical value.  Now take that to something more serious like a lost pet or even a person and it's a valuable skill to possess if one HAD to operate in a frontloaded mode for some reason.  But given the choice it is absolutely, 100%, always better and in fact easier to work completely blind in my experience (I'm not a teacher, just offering my opinion).

I mean if a close family member came bursting through the door of Joe McMoneagle's or any other skilled viewers home screaming of some terrible emergency that RV could clearly help, yes they would surely prefer to work blind, but I doubt he/they would say something like "Heck I'm frontloaded now" and not even attempt to help.

Now there are differing schools of thought on this and several of them are quite contentious about the matter.  I am from a school that believes and teaches that frontloading does have some value and is a learnable skill.  On the other hand I've seen some horrid mistakes come out of it, and as such am of the belief that data screens and cautions have to be extrodinarily high if the target is something wherein wrong results could harm someone.  To that end I've always thought that HRVG's model of keeping everyone including the analyst blind to the target is one that deserves emulation.  Where I would dissagree with them is in that frontloading is NEVER EVER to be used.  There are certain situations where it's a logical or unavoidable thing to do.

Now assuming that having the ability to work frontloaded is a worthwhile skill to possess, then learning to do that is something that only comes, like all of these skills do, with practice.  Which means that somewhere along the line, and AFTER one has spent a substainial time working blind verifiable targets then things like semi blind targets need to be put into ones practice mix.  By semi blind I mean the viewer knowing the target and that being something like what is a Christmas gift is going to be, where are my keys, or what is on top of someone's computer, etc.  The aol's can get intense, and it's something that has to be experienced to be believed, but it is doable and there are beneficial skills learned in these sessions that carry over to ones normal blind work as well.  But I would aver that frontloading should never ever be used as a crutch or to get better results for themselves or their students, and in my personal experience I've never seen it used that way.  I mention this in that I think there is a misconception in the field by some adamantly opposed to ANY form of frontloading, that teachers who believe it to be a learnable skill are doing things like handing their students a target number, telling them it's a major tourist attraction in France that might give them vertigo; then marveling at the incredible work everyone did by getting the Eifel Tower...  Well nothing could be further from the truth, IF done correctly as it has been in my experience.

Well, I guess I better get to the succinct part, as promised and end this thing..  Just my two cents.

Gene
 

EricT, somewhere around March 11, 2004

Those were some very well thought out replies guys.  Good for the archives I think, on frontloading.  Thanks.

Its surprising in this field, how simple the concepts can be, yet how intricatly layered and detailed at the same time.

Anyhow, good stuff, thanks.

Eric

Member#247, somewhere around March 11, 2004

Just adding a little bit since Gene covered it all. With the groups associated with Hirschman Mind Institute we  are very often operate in a frontloaded manner (So much so that the I was thrown for a loop by the reaction to  my test request).

But just as Gene said we work and work and train and train and as such the results become more reliable and those we work are more able to dismiss "untruths".

kboyken, somewhere around March 12, 2004

Hirschman Mind Institute?  I've never heard of it.  Google brings up nothing.

Karl

polkadotpuhjommies, somewhere around March 12, 2004

[quote]Hirschman Mind Institute?  I've never heard of it.  Google brings up nothing.

Karl [/quote]

I too have searched on many options & variables. I too come up with nothing. However, perhaps in this case 'nothing' = 'something'.

Member#247, somewhere around March 12, 2004

Of course you don't. We do not have our site listed.

admin, somewhere around March 17, 2004

Ya know, the primary value of NOT frontloading -- of having the viewer work double blind -- is analytic.

If the viewer is truly double blind, and the target is a man in a mining quarry, and the viewer is describing stuff that clearly meshes with what is known, then there is a good chance that the viewer is going to be accurate about the items that are not known, also.

Without the double-blind, there is no easy way to track how much information a combination of mental analysis, physiological info transfer, luck and sheer guessing has put into the mix.  It is not nearly as easy to see "how well the viewer is doing" from a PSYCHIC perspective, vs. the other ways to get info that happens to match.

In the end, it doesn't matter how good the session is, if the person using it has zero idea of its possible credibility.  And even the best viewers can be off.  So it's incredibly important, when possible, to ensure that ONLY PSI is responsible for the information.  Because then the user has some guideposts to look at.

Aside from that is another more subtle factor.  Let us say the client thinks a person is responsible for sabotaging certain vehicles at the dig site, and they ask for a description of that person and how they're pulling it off.  

The tasker might start the project with a tasking like say, "Describe the cause and method of the equipment failure," or something like that.  Hopefully no tasker is silly enough to start with an 'assumption' by including the person, of course, but let's say they do.

Now, if the viewer were frontloaded to know that things like mining, machines, or a person were involved, then you wouldn't know how much of their data was totally accurate, especially when they start describing the person.

But what if the cause is NOT a person?  What is the 'sabotage' of the machines is, in fact, a side-effect happenstance occuring due to a small change made months ago in a related process, which is in turn greatly increasing the risk to the machines of say, the puncture of an undercarriage during this one part or place, which when later found makes it seem like someone "did it", but that isn't the case?  

In that event you have completely screwed up the process if you've frontloaded your viewer for the person responsible, because a person wasn't responsible, or maybe the tasking actually then becomes the person who initiated the small change in the process months ago!  And now your viewing makes the guy look like a saboteur.

Sometimes the most perplexing questions end up at RV's door because all other forms of inquiry have failed to help.  That might be why, sometimes, the answer to  a seemingly simple question turns out to be totally unexpected, or in fact, when you start viewing on it, you eventually realize that you asked the wrong question to begin with.

One seldom has a chance to realize this, or to get a totally out of the blue surprise different answer, if the viewer is frontloaded.

PJ

end of messages

[END Topic 276] On blindedness TKR Remote Viewing Forum March 2004