Remote Viewing Discussion Group, vwr@paradigm-sys.com
Alias: utdrag ur vwr mailinglista
Ett komplett arkiv för mailinglistan finns under PJ Firedocs collection
""[VWR] Remote Viewing Discussion Group vwr@paradigm-sys.com Moderated. Join-approval required. List Owner PJ Gaenir, pj@zmatrix.com VWR archives are at Firedocs: http://www.paradigm-sys.com/firedocs/ To Subscribe/Unsubscribe: Email to: majordomo@paradigm-sys.com in the body text put: (un) subscribe vwr youremail@here.etc
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:11:20 +0200 From: Liam <liam@zmatrix.com> Reply-To: vwr@paradigm-sys.com Subject: ""[VWR] Squids Viewer Email List ------------------------- >The problem - I missed the squid! >There was a big hole in the sketch where squid should have gone. >Instead, in my sketch, I hit movement, cold, black water - yep. >Squid - nope. Looking at the ideogram afterward, there was clearly >a recognizeable symbol for lifeforms. In almost every one, but I >missed it. So here's the question: (finally) Is it allright to go >back to the ideogram and add information to a sketch/analysis/both >(that isn't allready there) without risking AOL? Hi Eric; I will not make any snide comments about your squid target. It would be hard to top what your wife has undoubtedly said to you. I find ridicule and degradation is much more effective coming from a loved one than from a complete stranger. Congratulations!!!! I think you nailed the site (depending what your intent was). It is highly unlikely that squid is still swimming in the same place as when the picture was taken. Now if your intent was to view the feedback (and not the place) what you have is a stage one success and a stage 4 failure. Living creatures at the site are not something stage one is designed to locate (one exception I will cover in a moment). Stage four is where you normally find that information, after AI (atheistic Impact= your declaration of how the site is affecting you). In stage one you have one finger tentatively grasping the signal line and are trying to hold on before it slips away. By stage four you have both hands wrapped around the signal line and are riding it where ever it takes you. A possible exception is the ideogram taken after a stage three movement exercise. This will sometimes give you the information that there is life at the site. Of course by this time you have experienced AI and are pretty firmly locked unto site. The lesson here is to not expect to much from stage one. Stage one will not give you much more than the general gestalt of the site. IMHO it is the most difficult part of CRV. But it MUST be learned because it is your gateway to the signal line and the more fun stages which come later. Eric, please tell your wife that if she ever has any problems coming up with appropriate comments and insults for you, she should feel free to contact myself or Gene at anytime and we will be glad to make suggestions. I enjoy your posts, please keep them coming. slainte May the force be with you Liam
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:14:36 -0400 From: Joseph W. McMoneagle <mceagle@zmatrix.com> Reply-To: vwr@paradigm-sys.com Subject: Re: ""[VWR]-Digest: V2 #77 Viewer Email List ------------------------- > Is it true that Ingo Swann got a patent on his remote viewing >protocol? Can someone give me that number? Not to my knowledge. But I have to also say that in my own opinion the methodologies currently being used for teaching do not completely reflect what he (Mr. Swann) envisioned as a full teaching methodology--since many elements within his original methodology were later modified by others. As a general rule what is usually bought by the military is ultimately owned by the American Taxpayer. So whatever the military feels they purchased probably belongs to all of us--if you figure out exactly what that might be, let me know. :) If I understand things properly, the right of manufacture is somewhat different from the right of use. Like when the military buys the right to use an operating system that comes with the computers it purchases--but not the right to resell it. When it comes to the military and training, this may be the single greatest factor impacting on why so many changes have been made to the original methodologies utilized--so that it can be re-distributed as something other than. It is also possible that since the original processes (at least as I understand them from my observations while at SRI-International) were very complex in the extreme, so very few people truly understood what it was he was doing in the first place. I would add, that complexity or lack of understanding by others should not be misconstured as meaning they were in some way ineffective, as the way in which Mr. Swann taught them was very effective. It is sort of a problem of someone being taught to do and not being taught to teach. When someone is taught for the first purpose and not the latter, you do not necessarily explain some of the things you are doing and why. Hence some elements of the traning are never automatically passed on within the training. Unfortunately, many students are unaware of this and presume they have seen it all by virtue of the fact that they have been somewhat trained. In the final response, one really would have to ask Mr. Swann? Warm regards, Joe
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 19:07:18 +0100 From: MaryD <Ladyley@innerlightuk.u-net.com> Reply-To: vwr@paradigm-sys.com Subject: ""[VWR] Silva on RV Viewer Email List ------------------------- I came upon this reference from Jose Silva. The complete text can be found at http://www.talamasca.org/avatar/silvagovernment.html Thoughts anyone? Regards as always, MaryD. I quote parts of it. What do you think the United States government thinks of psychic ability? The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was willing to spend $11 million (some say it was actually $20 million) to see if psychics could help in the espionage game. We could have told them that 30 years ago. As a matter of fact, we did! On August 11, 1965, my birthday, I decided to give the U.S. government a gift worth millions of dollars. I wrote a letter to President Lyndon Johnson offering to give the government all of my research, free of charge. I had invested more than $500,000 of my own money and time, so it was not exactly a small gift that I was offering. At least they were polite enough to answer me. But they gave the wrong answer! "There is much yet to be learned about the activities of the human mind, " the letter from Randal M. Robertson, Associate Director of the National Science Foundation said, "and there are many unsettled questions about hypnosis and about para-normal activities. There does not seem to be any specific need at present for the assistance you have offered." Many benefits of right brain thinking Can you imagine, if President Johnson had known how to use his mind to get more information and make better decisions, he might have been able to prevent the deaths of so many human beings in Vietnam, and might not have had to give up the Presidency and return home a broken man who died shortly after. <SNIP> The CIA and the Pentagon got good results for their millions of dollars. Some reports say the psychics were correct 15 percent of the time, well above chance levels. On Larry King Live one of the people involved in the project said that in one instance the psychics located all 12 submarines that they were asked to find. As you know, Silva Method graduates are often 100 percent accurate on the cases they work. But not always. Their overall accuracy is about 80 percent, much better than the CIA's remote viewers. Instead of spending $20 million, they should pay us a few hundred dollars each to train their own staff people to use their clairvoyant ability. They are the experts in their own field, and they could do amazing work...if they would. Regardless of what the government does, we'll continue with our own work. In this field, our track record is much better than the government's! Remote viewing is just one of the many techniques taught in the Silva Method. In Friendship and Light. MaryD _______________________________________ Innerlight Dynamics for business and personal success. A unique system tailored to your individual needs. Email <Indy@innerlightuk.u-net.com> or visit http://www.innerlightuk.u-net.com -------------- Moderator's Note: You're dangerously close to "invoking politics on the list" with this message Mary. :-) In order to have any fair response to that, one would have to have an equal 20 years in the formal lab with Silva people, which we don't have for comparison -- only words and enthusiasm on the part of adherents or teachers, and there's a lot of that in RV as well. A number of friends of mine are well familiar with Silva methods as well. My impression from them is that they have learned useful things from all the stuff they've studied. Maybe one of 'em will speak up here. -- PJ
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:12:11 +0200 From: Steve Preston <spreston@cuci.nl> Reply-To: vwr@paradigm-sys.com Subject: RE: ""[VWR] RV with children Viewer Email List ------------------------- Hi all, had a strange experience with my 12 year old son.=20 He got interested in RV and started bugging me to teach him how to do = it. A few days ago I decided to let him do a site after explaining him the = method (stage 1 only). He got the basic gestalt very correctly (almost like a sketch), went = straight into stage 2, reported colors, smells, tastes, dimensions, = reported some things which would be stage 4, had an AI. I don't know whether he RV or did something else. But one thing I know = by looking into his face, he was way out there, it scared me quite a = lot. The strange thing was that when he was doing his RV (or whatever) one = corner of our dining room (there is a door there) started rattling, like = someone is banging at the door, and above the door were rattling noises = as well. He turned around and looked for a moment, but it did not seem = to bother him, he continued to report data from the site. It bothered me a lot!!!=20 He is a very intelligent and very emotional child. He knows and senses a = lot of things. Someone told me he is an old soul which makes sense = because he really surprises us with the insights he has about the world = and people. I wonder, if some one had made similar experiences and could give me = some ideas on that. I am also not sure whether to continue letting him do RV. Love and Peace to all Monika
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 18:40:36 +0200 From: Liam <liam@zmatrix.com> Reply-To: vwr@paradigm-sys.com Subject: ""[VWR] AOLs in CRV Viewer Email List ------------------------- >I'm not that familiar with the protocols for CRV, but, if I'm >understanding you correctly, are you saying that CRV is not meant to >produce visuals? >>>>In CRV you know that if you get a visual it is AOL. >Can you clarify that. Hi Jason and all; Liam here. As I recall Ingo had three rules for identifying AOLs (Paul, you have the manual, so please feel free to jump in here and clarify if I get off base.) Ingo's rules: 1. If it is a visual it is AOL 2. If the information contains the word like it is AOL (i.e. it is rough like a mountain) 3. Information that is out of structure, or is not justified by previous information (i.e.; Stage 1. flat, across, flowing, B. AOL Break mountain) Jason, when I first heard that this process would not be visible, I was terribly disappointed. I did not think it would be possible to experience a site without visualizing it. Trust me this has not been the case. When you are locked on to a site you are experiencing it far deeper than if you were actually there. It is possible to perceive and Know the site better than a person who has spent all their life at the site. RV is really exciting. Enjoy the magic. The fun is in the trip and not in reaching the destination. The downside is that RV is hard. It takes work and dedication. There are always learning plateaus. There is the feeling I am just guessing. There is the feeling "I know other people can do this, but I can't." and then one day there is the feeling "man, I really nailed that site. Good luck and good hunting slainte May the force be with you Liam ----------------- Moderator's Note: It wasn't STATIC visual? Dynamic visuals with me at least are usually dead-on, while static ones pretty much never are. I thought motion in the visual was part of the categorization of it -- but then I've had sort of a hodge-podge of teaching, from formal classes with Lyn and one with Paul, to email and telephone talks with others, so I kind of have a lot of different stuff all melted into one vaguely coherent system. (Of course, if Paul and Lyn had their way, I would be CRVing IN STRUCTURE! YES, SIR! like the RV fundie we all hope to be. :-) But, if I CRV'd at ALL lately that would be an improvement..... -- PJ
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 00:53:12 From: Paul H. Smith <phsmith@rviewer.com> Reply-To: vwr@paradigm-sys.com Subject: Re: ""[VWR]-Digest: V2 #74 Viewer Email List ------------------------- Joe-- At 10:14 AM 4/23/98 -0400, you wrote: >Also--I still don't understand what ERV is anyway?! I have never >heard an agreed upon definition for it. Who invented it? What is it >based on? And/or what does it mean? In response to this plaintive cry, I'm pasting in a description/discussion of ERV (with some minor editing) that I posted awhile back to PJ's bulletin board, upon which at the time there was quite a spirited discussion of ERV. Perhaps this will clear the air on the ERV question (though I'm not getting my hopes up...;-) ================================================================ E(xtended) R(emote) V(iewing) was understood in the following way: The viewer would go over to the operations building and make him/herself comfortable on the bed in the ERV room. The monitor would equip the viewer with a lapel mike, would turn off all lights in the room, and would wait for the viewer to become deeply relaxed (sometimes Monroe Inst. Focus 10 tapes would be used). When the monitor determined by the breathing pattern of the viewer that he/she was asleep or close to it, a few quiet questions were asked to ascertain the level of relaxation and approximation of hypnogogic state. If the monitor was satisfied, he/she would turn on a dim red desk light to allow questions to be read (if some had been written down before) and notes to be taken. The monitor would direct the viewer to go to the target (usually by reading the coordinates aloud), and then would talk the viewer through whatever intel questions needed to be answered. At the end of the session, the viewer would be coaxed back to body-and-mind-awake state, and if appropriate would be further debriefed on what he/she remembered. Sketches might also be executed at this point. That's ALL there was to it as far as format was concerned. It did require a great deal of experience and skill on the part of the monitor to avoid inadvertant cuing, AOL generation, etc. And, though Joe doesn't seem to use this style of RV anymore, he did indeed use it extensively while at Ft. Meade. I know this because a) I observed and/or listened in on a number of operational sessions he did this way in 1983-84; and b) at the direction of the boss, I listened to and in some cases re-transcribed a number of tapes of other such sessions Joe did previously. Now, as I said, Joe has apparently gone beyond this style, but he did indeed spend a lot of his operational RVing time flat on his back in a dark room on the verge of sleep talking like he had a mouthful of mush. Ask Skip Atwater--I borrowed the mush remark from HIS description back then of how Joe worked. ""[I |should emphasize here that Joe wasn't the only viewer to use this |approach; near as I can tell--and further data from those that | were there then could prove me wrong on this--it was more or less standard |for the other viewers during that time as well.] At the time Joe was at the unit, this process wasn't called ERV. There was no other name than RV because there really was only this process, with perhaps a few individual variations from it. It therefore didn't need a name until CRV came along. ""[CRVers didn't |become operational until after Joe had left the unit.] At that point it became necessary to differentiate the two, so ERV was coined for the more altered-state approach. We viewers were never quite sure what Extended referred to. Most of us decided it just meant we were extended out on the bed ""[that's a joke, Liam! ;-] Also, no one is quite sure who coined the term. Skip says he doesn't remember using it. I myself am now pretty sure it was the unit's division chief at one point--Fern G. But it may even have been our good buddy Liam. At any rate, this term was coined AT the Ft. Meade unit WHILE I was there ""[and after Joe had left]. Most/all of the viewers at Ft. Meade at least tried ERV, so we all have some experience in it. I myself may have done a dozen or so such sessions. They were not my favorite type of viewing, since (as I've said before elsewhere) it ruined a perfectly good nap to have to answer annoying requests like "describe the contents of the grey room you mentioned a few minutes ago... (<snore> Hmmm? Whuh? Uh, dthere's uh philing cab'nut... ......huh? ...uh, oh, uh, yeah...mmmm...pennnncil sharp'ner..." <snore>) ==================================================== Enjoy! Paul
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:45:49 +1000 From: Mark <bud@sphynxlinks.com.au> Reply-To: vwr@paradigm-sys.com Subject: Re: ""[VWR] AOLs in CRV Viewer Email List ------------------------- Hi Liam, I`m very surprised that Ingo Swann`s rule no 1. should be so be so inflexible coming from a man i believe to be quite the opposite. have a nice day mark Liam wrote: > Liam here. As I recall Ingo had three rules for identifying AOLs > (Paul, you have the manual, so please feel free to jump in here and > clarify if I get off base.) > Ingo's rules: > 1. If it is a visual it is AOL > 2. If the information contains the word like it is AOL (i.e. it is > rough like a mountain) > 3. Information that is out of structure, or is not justified by > previous information (i.e.; Stage 1. flat, across, flowing, > B. AOL Break mountain) -------------- Moderator's Note: Mark, I think you are taking all this a tad too seriously. :-) Swann is notorious for insisting his students stick precisely to rules and so forth. Whether that makes him inflexible personally I have no idea, but I wouldn't dare speculate.... I think there may be some misunderstanding of AOL. People who haven't had a teacher pounding it out to them in detail are probably understandably missing a few pieces of info. An AOL (analytical overlay) is any piece of data that is -- OR is likely to be -- affected by assumptions, associations, imagination, et al. Data may come to you as one thing but is affected by YOU, when processed by your mind, and by the time you write it down, that data may be something else. Many AOL's have certain commonalities. These are just types of datas found over time to have a higher incidence of analytic (or other) overlay than others. Static visuals are one. Comparators are another. In CRV, you are taught to recognize data that has been, or MAY be, affected data, ala AOL. The common response to this, since AOLs are avoided, is to assume that AOL's are wrong. That's not necessarily true. It is true that they are avoided, because one of the points of teaching somebody CRV is to help make them aware of how they are processing data. Obviously the point is to learn to avoid interfering with (messing up) your info as much as possible. But AOLs are not necessarily wrong. For instance, something which in an early stage is a label and not a descriptor (e.g., "The Eiffel Tower," or LIKE the...) would be considered an AOL. But it may be totally accurate as far as the data goes. Categorizing something as AOL does not mean that you are saying "It is wrong. You are simply saying, I have this information, and based on the structure I'm working in, there is a high probability that this information has been affected by me in some way and may be inaccurate in part or in whole." That is first and foremost to cause the student to recognize their own processing and to pay attention to how things are working internally to them. It makes them recognize that they have deviated from the planned structure of the session. That may not be a BAD thing; it is simply something that needs to be recognized. It is second to train them into a more fundamental way of processing, where they tend to allow components rather than complete 'things', something that is a learning curve for all viewers (e.g., students finally begin to say, flat, flowing, glistening, wet rather than "a river," which is good, since it may be all the former but may not be the latter). The mind tends to want to package data into a labeled thing and hand it to us, providing us a label rather than detail, and it takes some work to train your mind into simply presenting the literal components of data it receives, instead. This is part of that training. Thirdly, it is to point out to the monitor and later analyst what is going on with the Viewer. If you say green garden because you had a static flash of that, like someone just hung a picture in front of you for a split second, that may not have the same probability of being accurate as if you received that data via a 'sensed impression.' (Or, it may; it might depend on the person; but we are working on usually and generally's here.) If you make it an AOL because of how you received the data, that is telling both the monitor and the analyst something about that data which may be relevent. In CRV, the first real rule is that you have to write down EVERYTHING that you are able to consciously access or notice. That means everything, even stupid stray thoughts, even conclusions, whether right or wrong, in structure or out of it, you MUST write it down. And if it doesn't fit in the structure for whatever reason, it is an AOL generally. That doesn't mean it's wrong or even bad necessarily. Just that it is out of the planned structure of data acquisition. The rules of CRV aren't there to beat people into psychic submission (though some may disagree <g>) but to work as a support for the Viewer. In training (and some of this depends on your instructor), there is right and wrong -- but that is concerning the structure itself. Once you're into regular RV, there is only accurate vs. inaccurate -- and you don't know that till the feedback. Once you've demonstrated, as a student, that you work well in the structure (have learned to process and communicate according to those rules), from then on, YOU are the Viewer, and YOU are in charge. If you want to list 17 AOLs in each stage of your session, fine -- but in that case, you'd just better be RIGHT. ;-) -- PJ
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 09:45:51 -0500 From: Craig Hogan <rchogan@ilstu.edu> Reply-To: vwr@paradigm-sys.com Subject: Re: ""[VWR] AOLs in CRV Viewer Email List ------------------------- To All: PJ wrote "list 17 AOLs in each stage of your session, fine -- but in that case, you'd just better be RIGHT." I feel a little presumptious in making statements when I'm new to RV (sit down and be quiet, grasshopper). So I will ask rather than tell. Doesn't it seem that any AOL will contaminate the psi signal because it contributes to noise? The mind is impressionistic. It will fill in gaps with suppositions based upon a person's field of experience. If I'm riding down the road and see a black object in the distance with a raised narrower portion, I may say, "That's a big dog in that field." If I stop and don't get closer, I will populate that impression with fur, eyes, ears, legs, until I have made it into a dog. That is almost against my will--as a human I must categorize and interpret data based on a recognizable whole. If I didn't, I'd have to reassemble and reinterpret everything in my field of vision, which would slow my perception and action to zero. Then, if I resume my travel, I will come closer and see there are no ears or eyes or fur. Laughingly, I might say, That's just a rock, and populate that impression with feelings of hardness, smooth surface, weight, history, geology, and so forth. But as I get closer, I can see it's a garbage bag someone threw out of a car. I was wrong on all counts, but each time I had an AOL, I populated the object with all sorts of impressions, which would have led to other impressions if I hadn't corrected them. >From my limited experience, I believe we need to accept the psi signals and when an AOL intrudes, step back and quiet our minds. One of my positions was teaching medical faculty how to teach. I had to help them teach students not to settle on a diagnosis too quickly because that would result in mistaken diagnoses. The students would stop looking for alternatives. The quick diagnosis would color (contaminate) their view of test data. The same is true here. I believe from what I've seen of RV that AOLs have no place in remote viewing, although they are interesting conjecture afterwards. . . . you'd just better be RIGHT. The problem is that even right isn't right. The right is a reorganization of the psi signals by the memory. It may be a great guess, but it is still a reorganization by memory. If the psi signals themselves somehow labelled the target, then it would be appropriate, but I don't think they do. Even if the remote viewer sees the target as clear as a slide, it is the memory that is organizing the impressions into an identify (AOL), not psi. It is very entertaining conjecture, but still non-psi. Craig Hogan ------------------ Moderator's Note: Hi Craig. Some interesting points you raise. >Doesn't it seem that any AOL will contaminate the psi signal >because it contributes to noise? An AOL is merely something you declare on paper. That does not mean that it IS data definitely badly affected by you. It means it is LIKELY TO BE. It is just a flag, not a judgement. It is important to understand that data is often called AOL merely because it's out of stage or out of sync with other data or received a certain way or whatever. Data perfectly valid in stage 4 may be called an AOL if you get it in stage 2. AOL is simply a structural notation. Making any assumption about the AOL is itself an AOL. :-) When you get right down to it, EVERYTHING that you are capable of communicating is, to some degree, processed information -- it had to be, just to get put into words. Even a simple descriptive allowable in CRV structure can also be an AOL. This emphasis on AOL as a thing instead of as a recognition of process is kind of a 2-D version of the overall meaning of the structure IMO; once you work with CRV for awhile it ought to cease overshadowing the rest of the structure in seeming importance. >I believe we need to accept the psi signals and when an AOL >intrudes, step back and quiet our minds. I think you're on the right track with this, but it may be overstated. If you are really on signal line, quieting your mind for any length of time would probably kill your session or require you start again. This isn't really like meditation. When data starts coming in, the main problem is slowing it down enough to catch it and get it all on paper. There is however another version of that, the AOL Break, where you drop your pen and breathe for a second to kind of 'let go' of that train of thought or impression, then pick up your pen and continue. It isn't really a meditation to clear/empty/quiet the mind, but a deliberately abrupt interruption of that one thought. >I believe from what I've seen of RV that AOLs have no place in >remote viewing, although they are interesting conjecture afterwards. Craig, it's an interesting idea, but the fact is you will never get rid of AOL. As long as humans are the Viewers, you're going to have it. If you want to exclude it you'll also have to exclude anything with a brain from being involved in the RV process. It can be almost anything, is often unrecognized or disguised as descriptive data, and as I said, is merely a structural observation about how you are processing something. All this talk about structure sometimes loses sight of the fact that the POINT to RV is learning about yourself and how you process. We don't categorize something as an AOL just because the structure commands it. We do it because it is part of being aware of what's going on with us, and it helps us pay attention to that kind of thing. That's why the structure was designed -- to teach people to become aware of what was going on with themselves. As far as I am concerned, the CRV structure is not the end result of RV, it is a training kata FOR RV. When it becomes a doctrine (end answer) rather than a kata (structure to make you aware of how you move and train your muscles) it has lost something crucial. >The problem is that even right isn't right. The right is a >reorganization of the psi signals by the memory. ... Even if the >remote viewer sees the target as clear as a slide, it is the >memory that is organizing the impressions into an identify (AOL), >not psi. It is very entertaining conjecture, but still non-psi. When you find a way to take insivible signals that as of yet cannot even be deciphered by physicists, and get it into data form without running it through a brain to process it, you will really have hit on something awesome! In the meantime, ALL data communicated in CRV or any psi is processed. It is merely a matter of what effect that processing has had on the data. Sometimes the processing is what allows us to provide accurate information, whether that is in the form of structure or not. Sometimes it is what causes us to provide inaccurate information. The point of RV is learning enough about how you process things in your head -- EVERYBODY processes things in their head, it is part of having a head -- that you begin to have more accurate than inaccurate data. Because you either minimize incorrect processing or begin to recognize your own symbology etc. Nobody can make a decision about that with a label or rule. Every human is different. So, you can't really make a judgement about AOL across the board, especially since important and valid data in one stage, such as 4, is what you may be calling AOL in stage 2. Again (I keep repeating this, I know) AOL is merely a structural notation. It is there only to help the Viewer note what is going on with them. It is not a judgement about the data. You don't know whether the data is right or wrong until you get the feedback. You cannot stop AOL entirely, ever, you can only minimize the more overt types of AOL such as labeling in the first 3 stages. You'll probably have AOLs you never even recognize anyway, even if you think you got rid of them all. And you'll have AOLs that are only called that by nature of the fact that you got them 4 minutes earlier in the session. So there is just no point in making AOL a thing and a bad guy and trying to kill it. It is merely an observation, that helps you to reorgnize your way of thinking so that hopefully you can minimize some of the more obviously error-prone processing. PJ
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:09:06 -0400 From: Joseph W. McMoneagle <mceagle@zmatrix.com> Reply-To: vwr@paradigm-sys.com Subject: Re: ""[VWR]-Digest: V2 #83 Viewer Email List ------------------------- >I came upon this reference from Jose Silva. The complete text can be >found at http://www.talamasca.org/avatar/silvagovernment.html >Thoughts anyone? ""[snip] As regards accuracy. I myself have used terms like 15 percent, twenty percent, sixty percent, and eighty percent. To be honest, they are all taken out of context when quoted and have no meaning when out of context. They all represent different things like; about as close to a miracle as you can get, near perfect photographic overlay, on target, and accuracy when on target--all said at different times and in response to different questions. I don't want to get into any kind of a pissing contest with Silva, so I will stick to what I know to be true. I know of no correlation between Silva techniques and RV (any RV method), I also know of no Silva method tested within the parameters of a remote viewing protocol under acceptable lab conditions. If anyone does, please refer them to me. I believe the Silva techniques to be quite effective and efficient in their own rights for what they are meant to do. I wonder why the government RV program has to be put down or equated to Silva in order to bring focus there? Silva may have deserved a better reception back in 1965, I don't know, I wasn't in the decision loop, but the reasons RV was pursued are quite apparent and have nothing whatsoever to do with Silva. regards, Joe
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 98 22:22 BST-1 From: Daniel Wilson <dwilz@cix.compulink.co.uk> Reply-To: vwr@paradigm-sys.com Subject: Re: ""[VWR] Silva on RV Viewer Email List ------------------------- MaryD quoted from the Silva web page: > What do you think the United States government thinks of psychic > ability? The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was willing to spend > $11 million (some say it was actually $20 million) to see if > psychics could help in the espionage game. > We could have told them that 30 years ago. As a matter of fact, we > did! ----snip---- > At least they were polite enough to answer me. But they gave the > wrong answer! > "There is much yet to be learned about the activities of the human > mind, " the letter from Randal M. Robertson, Associate Director of > the National Science Foundation said, "and there are many unsettled > questions about hypnosis and about para-normal activities. There > does not seem to be any specific need at present for the assistance > you have offered." This is par for the course, really. Winston Churchill was extremely open-minded about these matters and when during WW2 a dowser presented him with a list of that night's locations of all British submarines, sent it on to the First Lord of the Admiralty with a demand for an immediate answer. There was a fearful fuss because about 80% of the locations were correct (some of the submarines were actually in dock and the dowser had not allowed for this). The Admirality was split between genuine interest and disbelief paradoxically mixed with extreme fear of the accuracy. Nevertheless Churchill had the pull to get the dowser onto a minesweeper during exercises and he consistently tracked the two subs being hunted. As soon as WC lost interest, the dowser heard nothing more. His 60 or so U-boat reports proved after the war to have been around 90% correct but there was a high staff turnover in the Admiralty and the thread of interest was lost. It was inconceivable to most high-ranking naval officers not having personal experience of it that such things were possible. Much the same thing is happening in oil companies, though there the complication is that two-thirds of the expenditure goes on highly-paid geologists who, once exposed to the potentials, mysteriously lose all interest in furthering research into dowsing. Oil companies' public ridicule is not all camouflage ! Dan Wilson
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:08:59 -0400 From: Joseph W. McMoneagle <mceagle@zmatrix.com> Reply-To: vwr@paradigm-sys.com Subject: Re: ""[VWR]-Digest: V2 #82 Viewer Email List ------------------------- >From: Curran2106 <Curran2106@aol.com> >and >From: Paul H. Smith <phsmith@rviewer.com> The only reason for my earlier response, is that I didn't want to see large assumptions based on a lack of fact. I also didn't want to see statements which perhaps apply in training, also being applied to the basic overall understanding of this stuff we are calling RV. As there is a difference. There seems to be a great assumption about ERV taking place here. This assumption being, that someone who does ERV, is or has to be in some form of hypnogoggic/hypnopompic state; and therefore is somehow out of control. Which is not true. If it were true, then the drawings which are done as a matter of course within any ERV effort--and which in some cases constitute a majority of the valid information collected in an ERV session, would be bogus. I offer most of mine, and many of the other ERV'ers drawings (Mel, Hartley, Ken's especially) in counter-argument. Also, it implies that somehow the ERV form of RV is less than adequate as the remote viewer requires someone who is able to steer them through the maze of AOL pitfalls. Whereas in CRV, the viewer is more able to identify these AOL pitfalls themselves. Again, not true. I have observed just as many times, someone being smacked up against the side of the head while attempting CRV because they had strayed from the given format and slipped into AOL. I have also observed these same slides into AOL while someone is doing CRV after training. I think that sometimes you may forget that CRV was developed within the hollowed halls of SRI and was taught there for years. I saw very little difference in the AOL pitfalls with CRV and other methodologies. I did see that to some extent it was a highly polished technique which was more easily transferred through training. But just because someone has a greater familiarity with one than the other should not denegrate the other method as inferior, during or following training. There were and are times when ERV has proven to be superior to CRV for targeting and collection purposes...and times when other methods prevailed. As an example, without dowsing, no one would have found the TU-122 Bear Bomber, Dozer, etc., etc. I would add that formal testing in the SRI Lab showed that regardless of technique or methodology utilized, most viewers were unable to consistently identify AOLs when asked to identify them prior to feedback. I have to say most, because a couple viewers were able to do so during significant runs--but this is inherently talent based and not the general or common rule. All of you have implied and you all have voiced a distinct distrust in visuals as a result of these beliefs regarding methodology. Which may be an appropriate stance to take during training for any methodolgoy, but certainly not one you should take following (in either CRV or ERV). If one continues to hold this belief, then they would be discarding significant amounts of information which could and do sometimes have near overlay accuracy relating to specific targets. I remind you all of what is termed the AH-HA. If it were not for the Ah-ha's, there would not have been a program. Instead I would offer that the degree of monitor interaction is most certainly a difference in style, but essentially the same amount of interaction is required in either CRV or ERV training. One may seem to be easier than the other--but only as regards an individual's preference. The degree of AOL which occurs is significant in both--but again, only as determined by individual preference. It is not displayed in double-blind testing. In the testing (post-hoc training) of RV methods, that is the actual collection and evaluation of information using CRV or ERV or other methods, following training, I have seen no significant difference in the number of mis-identified AOLs, reported AOLs, or AOLs following analysis. They all spike all over the place. Giving someone an impression that there is a significant difference is essentially saying that one method is better than another, which again isn't true. One method may be individually preffered over another, but it just simply isn't displayed in testing. I've always viewed ERV and CRV as different stepping stones in trying to understand how one's mind works with regard to information processing or production. Both have their value, but neither are ends in themselves. From a training standpoint, I do agree that one should stick with whichever they have chosen to get round the bases, especially at the initiation of their journey. But, ultimately, the person's innate talent and ability to sort and fit what works to their own internalized mechanism of processing is the telling differentiation in demonstration. At the end of the road, almost anything is right when you have finally come to understand that it is an inherent part of our nature and then you just simply can do it. Did someone say Magic? I agree imphatically that it is. Less any of you out there trying to learn all this think that this relaxes the rules, it is just the contrary. Pick whatever method you intend to pursue and stick to it like glue. CRV is an excellent way of cutting through the ash and trash in getting around the bases. ERV is probably a bit more difficult, but only because it requires a highly trained or qualified monitor. In either, AOL is a fact of life and this will always be so. Those of you who can eventually see your way to controlling your inner-driven or more personalized prejudice while internally processing will probably improve somewhat in reducing AOLs, but AOLs will never entirely go away. As always, the above is subject to change in the next three to five minutes. Warmest regards, Joe P.S. I have to comment on this continued Need to Test RV. I can understand that Proof in principal is still required from time to time by those who can't for some reason or another accept what general science now agrees is probably true--that paranormal functioning exists and is real. That's fine. However, if that is what they are after, they should understand that setting up a simple RV test over the internet is filled with protocol problems, and is probably the least effective way to go. This almost automatically tells me that they haven't done their homework. They should also understand that what they are testing vis-a-vis the internet is the least common denominator in a very weak anomaly to start with (that is, they are having an expectation that the average human on the street will display a significant varience from the norm), again an approach which seems preferred by the skeptics and debunkers, but not by those who are truly interested in the outcome. Historically, the argument has been--if it is real, then the subjects selected for study shouldn't matter. Well, that's like saying we can determine the batting averages of a professional baseball team by testing the batting averages of ten people selected at random then stood up against a pro-pitcher. Paranormal researchers are already moving on to the the very significant problems of determining how, from where, to where, psychic transmission might be taking place. In my own humble opinion, if there is an expenditure of money, time, energy, and effort, it should be taking place there and no longer being wasted in the proof of pricipal arena. There are seven or eight labs with tens of thousands of examples that can be studied post-hoc. As regards current research, let's just get on with it already.