Ett komplett arkiv för mailinglistan finns under PJ Firedocs collection
""[VWR] Remote Viewing Discussion Group firstname.lastname@example.org
Moderated. Join-approval required. List Owner PJ Gaenir, email@example.com
VWR archives are at Firedocs: http://www.paradigm-sys.com/firedocs/
To Subscribe/Unsubscribe: Email to: firstname.lastname@example.org
in the body text put: (un) subscribe vwr email@example.com
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 09:11:20 +0200
From: Liam <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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?
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
I enjoy your posts, please keep them coming.
May the force be with you
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 1998 10:14:36 -0400
From: Joseph W. McMoneagle <email@example.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
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
In the final response, one really would have to ask Mr. Swann?
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 19:07:18 +0100
From: MaryD <Ladyley@innerlightuk.u-net.com>
Subject: ""[VWR] Silva on RV
Viewer Email List
I came upon this reference from Jose Silva. The complete text can be found at
Regards as always,
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
"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
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.
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
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
In Friendship and Light. MaryD
Innerlight Dynamics for business and personal success.
A unique system tailored to your individual needs.
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: ""[VWR] RV with children
Viewer Email List
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 =
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 =
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 =
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
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 18:40:36 +0200
From: Liam <email@example.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
>>>>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.)
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
May the force be with you
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: ""[VWR]-Digest: V2 #74
Viewer Email List
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>)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 10:45:49 +1000
From: Mark <email@example.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
> 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
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
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. ;-)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 09:45:51 -0500
From: Craig Hogan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: ""[VWR] AOLs in CRV
Viewer Email List
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.
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
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.
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:09:06 -0400
From: Joseph W. McMoneagle <email@example.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
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.
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 98 22:22 BST-1
From: Daniel Wilson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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
> 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 !
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 12:08:59 -0400
From: Joseph W. McMoneagle <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: ""[VWR]-Digest: V2 #82
Viewer Email List
>From: Curran2106 <Curran2106@aol.com>
>From: Paul H. Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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,
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.
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.