Remote Viewing RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion list archives. Dojo Psi dot com / info
Remote Viewing info page spacer

The RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives

Dojo Psi Library, Archival Material, Remote Viewing and Psi

RV Oasis / PJRV List Archives Menu

RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion, Yahoo Groups.
Source Location: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/
Filetype: Archive. Topic: Remote Viewing. Blocked: by topic detail.
Archive Storage: www.firedocs.com/pjrv/ and http://www.dojopsi.info/pjrv/
Archivist: Palyne PJ Gaenir (PJRV, Palyne, Firedocs RV, TKR and the Dojo Psi.? )



begin archive





pjrv : Messages : 1?8?-1490 of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1?8??? ) ?
?3:05:39
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1?8?

Date: Fri Nov 15, ?00? 1?:04 am Subject: Frontloading & Rapport vs. Target Contact dennanm I almost responded to a post on another list, and then copied it out and decided to post it here instead. In generalities, a person asked about frontloading, and another person commented, and another person asked some questions. The following were just my two cents on a topic I think is worth talking about, which I think due to the brains and conversational abilities of many on this list are much better placed here. --------------- IMO most tasking that involves frontloading is a ?nd or later session issue and done for first session is usually a mistake. How about, "Describe the Target." Then, IF the viewer describes something clearly related to the lines of your focus, "Tell me more about what you said was _______." Telling someone the target is a building, if you don't know much more detail than that, means every remotely building-related piece of info they might come up with, you cannot really validate as psychic as much could be logic, mental stats, guessing, even sheer luck, et al. Skip the tasking for a proper doubleblind and anything they tell you about a building is likely to 'validate' that they indeed have made target contact. Which makes the % of faith you can place in other data in the session much more clear. Lack of validation of existing info may not seem relevant to people playing around but in operations where someone might actually want to USE that info in some way PRIOR to having a real-world answer for feedback, it's critical. The common argument I hear is that "it's faster" to tell someone "the target is a person (or a building? )" then have them do an initial session and tell YOU that before continuing. Since accuracy is the most important thing, not speed[1], that is really a pretty lame excuse. {[1] OK maybe once in awhile for people like McMoneagle someone could die if the answer isn't found in ?0 minutes. Who knows. Then again, by the time a person is experienced/skilled enough to do that level of work, they are frontloaded about 15 seconds into the session anyway. So then, FL is a constant practice they've learned to deal with. I've never seen it be necessary outside such a situation. Taskers who think it is, usually come to this conclusion because their "tasking intent" behind "describe the target" did not get the data they wanted. Hello. That means it wasn't a good session. Not that you now need to worsen the viewer's skill situation by frontloading them on top of it!? ) But IMO nearly all data/session experience's primary value is to increase the viewer's target contact. Nail that really hard and in 1.5 seconds the viewer can grok more info about the target than 7 sessions without half that contact. I believe frontloading can increase the "rapport" psi between tasker and viewer. I believe it can decrease or at least blur w/rapport the actual target contact. The rapport contact may actually make one "feel" it more kinesthetically in session, similar to magical rapport, which is very misleading, as rapport tends to create a great sense of validation- just-from-session-experience for the viewer. I believe this not only is greatly detrimental to accuracy if dropped into a doubleblind situation where the tasker doesn't know the target, but can even be harmful to the developing skill of a viewer, who really needs to tune to the clearest contact between them and the target (with feedback? ) possible just for basic learning theory and practice. I think the issue of rapport is a very important one in the "field" of RV, as it actually bleeds into issues in most of the RV groups, but is studiously avoided and dismissed. This is kind of funny if you think about it. We have groups who think accidental usage of the same tasking# 8 years ago will "pollute" your session; or that someone else viewing that target will (there are select circumstances where I'd agree on this? ); but some of the same people, who work constantly with a tasker who is not blind to the target, dismiss the issue of "practiced rapport" with the tasker being more of an answer for their sessions than remote viewing, as if this could not possibly be a consideration. Or funnier still, they then decide that maybe that is 'mostly' psi too, so is just as good. I guess as long as your tasker is OMNISCIENT this logic probably holds up pretty well, lol. The small number of good viewers I know hate frontloading like some people hate standing in line for 4 hours in a government building. I'm curious as to what people on this list think about frontloading a first session (or a second session based on anything beyond the viewer's data, for that matter? ). I'm curious as to what people on this list think about "rapport" as a form of information transfer, and the issue of (a? ) groups working together over a period of time, and (b? ) working with the same tasker over a long period of time. (If the tasker doesn't know the answer btw, then the rapport is not IMO an issue. Not that it can't happen, just that it's as much guesstimation on their part as the viewers -- not "accepted answers". This depends on the tasker's ability to suspend judgement of course.? ) PJ

#1?85

From: "Scott Ellis" Date: Fri Nov 15, ?00? 1:?0 pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & Rapport vs. Target Contact scottrver Hi PJ, > I'm curious as to what people on this list think about frontloading How do you know you're not fooling yourself if you're frontloaded? And isn't McMoneagle probably right that KNOWING you're not fooling yourself is the biggest part of psi development? This is the reason why I like doing ARV or having sessions judged against decoys. I am immensely grateful for the objectiveness of this experience and to be honest, the thought of frontloading generally scares me in that I don't think I could trust my session data. Maybe that will change after about 1000 more sessions. Speaking from the position of very little personal experience with frontloading, please take the following with a grain of salt: I'll hypothesize that for most viewers, their data gets lost in the noise already and picking it out is difficult enough. If you frontload them, I think that any real data not directly described by the frontloading will be discounted even further along with the noise. From what I've seen, the VAST majority of viewers do not produce sessions good enough to indicate a level of ability I presume necessary to be able to deal with frontloading. Their noise levels are just too high. Some good examples are in the CRV sessions I've seen posted on Stargate recently. While they get some data that is congruent with the target, it's pretty much lost in the noise. From what I've seen these are pretty typical CRV sessions. Also, on a recent TV show, Pru's whole team was tasked with Lindberg's landing and they got a crowd of people, probably indicating some target contact, but no airplane. I think that's another example of the noise. I don't think frontloading in these situations would have increased the breadth of their data but rather made them ignore what data they did get. (The interesting thing is that when you look at Greg K.'s sessions, which IMO are at a much higher level, he's another guy who does everything BLIND and typically against multiple target choices (also using ERV? ). So either some people simply have more innate talent, making results objective (no frontloading, multiple targets, blind, etc.? ) helps, or ERV is generally a better methodology. My personal experience and thus opinion is that it's all of the above, I guess that might be Joe M's too.? ) BTW, I don't think that Joe M. qualifies as being frontloaded once he's into a session - he doesn't hit all the time and being skilled is not the same thing as being frontloaded. He also talks as though he doesn't get the whole picture immediately and that he starts by getting disparate parts. This would be an interesting question for him. Scott

#1?87

Date: Fri Nov 15, ?00? ?:51 pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & Rapport vs. Target Contact dennanm > From what I've seen, the VAST majority of viewers do not produce > sessions good enough to indicate a level of ability I presume > necessary to be able to deal with frontloading. That is my observation as well. Then again, I'm not observing everybody who's anybody, and most of my info is ?ndhand or 3rdhand reporting or self- reporting (all of which is entirely unreliable? ). > Also, on a recent TV show, Pru's whole team was tasked with > Lindberg's landing and they got a crowd of people, probably > indicating some target contact, but no airplane. One of the problems with RV in the media is that they want a session and ta- da, they want an answer. With some exceptions, most RV is going to require more than one session, sometimes more than one viewer, in an attempt to gather enough data, which can be comparatively correlated with what little might be known about the target or its nature, for any intelligent conclusions. Media really wants the Magical Mystery Show. I think if I should ever feel remotely qualified enough to do such 'challenge' RV, I would probably do 1? sessions on the target prior to ever getting anywhere near the camera. :-? ) Of course, then if I was wrong, boy I'd be spectacularly wrong. :-? ) The one-session thing is part of the same usually-bogus mentality that makes people think if they hand over money to some alleged expert they, too, will be "nearly omniscient". (Ya gotta love how Courtney gave us so many quotables in his day. ;-? )? ) You know, like 40 minutes at a table and we've wrapped up the Deep Soul Probe, the Character Profiling, and allegedly sketched the blueprint of that Secret Underground Facility. ROFL. > (The interesting thing is that when you look at Greg K.'s sessions I love Greg's site, and he seems to be doing wonderfully. But there is really no telling how much data he got for anything. For all I know, he could have done 4 sessions full of off target stuff and 5 sketches, and one of them ended up being a lot like the target, it turns out after feedback, so that's what I see on the site. Was that his ONLY data? Out of the maybe dozen really cool examples, how many sessions does that encompass -- thousands? Greg, I am picking on you only because this represents an issue across the entire RV-internet field, and you are accessible and hopefully won't take it personally. ;-? ) Regards, PJ

#1?91

From: aeonblueau8008... Date: Fri Nov 15, ?00? 1:?1 pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & Rapport vs. Target Contact terri8008 > palyne writes: > With some exceptions, most RV is going to require > more than one session, I've only seen ? folks thoroughly nail that (a? )tgt in one session, both were "advanced" trained and years of experience under their belt. That's a good statement for the newbies to absorb, I see all sort of somewhat misses somewhat hits on the first session on net photo tgts or events I guess, and I see folks getting discouraged and or frustrated with themselves, when actually it needn't be. (such is do it your self or net RV?? ) It's simply the first session(usually stuck in S1? ), and they are trying to manage the whole ball of wax, wear all the hats all by themselves. The vast majority are on, and they just need re tasking. I pre-cog or pre-view as I call it all my tgts, I work a solo session before I have the coords. Then I work one or two off the "official" coordinates. all the best ~~Terri

#1?99

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Fri Nov 15, ?00? 9:?6 pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & Rapport vs. Target Contact Rich_crv For one of the targets I submitted to the MadDog group I asked for early session data so that I could retask each person individually. It was an interesting experiment and I hope to try it again. It does make things difficult in that most of us wait till the last minute. :? ) Rich > > palyne writes: > > With some exceptions, most RV is going to require > > more than one session,

#1314

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 4:?5 pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting docsavagebill Hi Richard, > --- Richard Krankoski wrote: > For one of the targets I submitted to the MadDog > group I asked for early session > data so that I could retask each person > individually. Retasking IMO is really not withing the RV protocol of staying totally blind. I'm willing to try it and it may well work in practical situations....but it involves serious frontloading issues IMO. Best Regards, Bill -------------------------- Moderator's note: You realize that retasking doesn't actually mean you were right about whatever you're retasked on, though it often does. It can also mean, "We have no idea what the hell you are talking about here!" or "this sounds like two things and we don't know which it might be, if either" or something like that. The retasking itself can STILL be "describe the target" and nothing more in fact, with the "intent" changing -- you don't even have to know it's retasking. If you do, even if directed, one should only be directed by the data they already provided. E.g., "describe the "swift" you wrote down here." That really doesn't give you any more frontloading beyond you MIGHT be on-target with something swift. That means it could be a rollercoaster, a galloping horse, an airplane, an olympics runner, a speedboat, the fall of a building, a sudden change of major circumstance, someone or a company or product NAMED 'swift' or anything that conceptually relates -- well you get the idea, it could still be damned near anything in the world. In this case you are not so much frontloaded -- that would infer ACCURATE data was pre-given you -- as you are "at much higher risk for AOL" I would say. My $.0?. -- PJ

#1316

From: greenmn900... Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 1?:48 pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting greenmn900... Hi. You're right PJ. Bill is correct to worry about the frontloading issue as well. Retasking is an art and not every tasker can do it properly and sometimes those that can, don't understand how to do it effectively so that the most information possible is gained from each follow-up session. The best way is to simply write out a question on a piece of paper, seal it in an envelope, and then toss it into a practice pool so that the tasker still doesn't know when it comes up again. This keeps it doubleblind. The question doesn't alway have to be based on data the viewer already came up with. It could be just a better way of framing the question or or just a question that more clearly reflects the taskers intent. Sometimes, especially in applications, the taskers' intent may change as events unfold. Regardless, doing it this way insures a doubleblind. ANYTHING said to the RVer before a session constitutes frontloading, as does even a written question that the RVer might see. This is why in applications, I think it's best if the tasker is kept blind to that target as well from the very beginning. That way, when the raw data is given to the client, the client can then ask several questions of the tasker or tell the tasker what piece of data they are interested in - without telling the tasker why. Now only the tasker is mildly frontloaded. The tasker doesn't even know what the end goal of the RVing is. Now, at this point, if the tasker asks the RVer to elaborate on something, the tasker doesn't even know why s/he is doing it. So the frontloading issue is cut back a little more. It's important to remember too that just because an RVer is asked to give more data about some piece of information they got in a previous session doesn't neccessarily mean that piece of information was correct. Let's say the goal is to try to discover if a house in Florida that burned down last summer was the result of arson. Now the RVer comes back with some data that describes cold, wet, etc. It doesn't fit the target at all as far as we can logically tell. So, the RVer might be retasked on that part of their previous session just to see what the hell they were referring to. Later, after several more sessions, it becomes clear that those descriptions were just plain wrong. The first internal rule in RV is also the final rule: assume nothing. Just doing that will protect the viewer from a lot of both intentional and unintentional frontloading. Always keep in mind that the person who is tasking you, even if they know what the target is, may be making assumptions based on what they know about the target, even if it's just a picture target. Bearing that in mind, you can see that sometimes even well-intenioned and careful frontloading can be wrong and can even lead an RV toward a long unneccessary aol-battle. Best Regards, Don ------------------------------- Moderator's note: Good post. When I said 'data that had been produced', I meant IF one was going to verbally TELL the viewer a tasking much like you'd give a movement exercise as a monitor, as opposed to hide the tasking. If they don't see the tasking (to avoid AOL/FL? ), it wouldn't matter of course. -- PJ

#13??

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 8:?9 pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting Rich_crv I don't see how. All I did was give the RVers another reference number. Any front loading was limited to their own session data, which they would have if they decided to reRV the original task. All it should do is focus them as would any tasking. > Bill Pendragon wrote: > Retasking IMO is really not withing the RV protocol of > staying totally blind. > PJ wrote: > are not so much frontloaded -- that would infer > ACCURATE data was pre-given you -- as you are > "at much higher risk for AOL" I would say. I would say only in the same way that the risk occurs at anytime you are going over your data, probing ideograms, sketches, column headers, etc. Rich ------------------------------- Moderator's note: I didn't know you didn't task specifically. That's a good way to do it. I was sort of responding to the topic in general. I think most people who think of 'retasking' think of a "specific directive" for a ?nd session often based on specific data in the first one. -- PJ

#1380

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Wed Nov ?0, ?00? 11:46 am Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting docsavagebill I think its just find Rich..G I only mentioned it because of Joes apparent dislike of retasking. He feels it can be like a game of ?0 questions if abused. But he is concerned with proving psi in a 100% information leak proof situation. But in application situations, why not.. no reason not to proceed....:-? ) Best Regards, Bill

#13?3

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 8:47 pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting Rich_crv > Don wrote: > The best way is to simply write out a > question on a piece of paper, seal it > in an envelope, and then toss it into > a practice pool so that the tasker > still doesn't know when it comes up > again. This keeps it doubleblind. In this practice group there was only one double blind target that I know of. I gave a target that someone else had given to me many many months ago that I had never done. As a rule, members alternately provide targets for the others to work. ( I am sure you would be welcome to join in.? ) > I think it's best if the tasker is kept blind to that target as > well from the very beginning. That way, when the > raw data is given to the > client, the client can then ask several > questions of the tasker or tell the > tasker what piece of data they are interested > in - without telling the tasker > why. Now only the tasker is mildly frontloaded. > The tasker doesn't even > know what the end goal of the RVing is. Why even tell the tasker? Why not write the matter of interest in the famous sealed envelope and let the tasker you want more info on the previous target? > PJ wrote: > If they don't see the tasking (to avoid AOL/FL? ), > it wouldn't matter of course. -- PJ yep Rich

#13?4

From: "Sharon Webb" Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 10:46 pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting sharwebb_3051? Hi, Please pardon my RV protocol ignorance, but I am having a hard time understanding what the problem is about frontloading. The way I learned...and operate...is not RV, so I'd really like to understand what the hangups are about it. I just don't understand how practical psychic work, as opposed to grokking pictures, can be done without it. I mean, if the police tell you, "So and so was murdered and what can you find out about it?" what's wrong with that? How else could you approach this sort of situation? I'm not arguing, btw, I'm just puzzled. :-? ) Sharon sharwebb...t www.fractalus.com/sharon [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

#1389

Date: Wed Nov ?0, ?00? 4:44 pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting dennanm Howdy Sharon, > I am having a hard time understanding what > the problem is about frontloading. RV is just a different approach to psi is all. It's the same psi used since the dawn of man; but RV has its own protocol (way of going about something? ). > I mean, if the police tell you, "So and so > was murdered and what can you find out about > it?" what's wrong with that? How else could > you approach this sort of situation? Well one thing I notice different between RV and psychic work is that psychic work tends to be a lot more general. It is often a lot more like, "describe something about ___." Pretty much anything. RV is more like, "Describe the target" (blind? ) but the private tasking might be, "The target is the murder weapon. Describe it and its location." The psychic can spend days getting info on anything and everything related to the overall crime, which may or may not include that; the viewer is expected to spend somewhere between 40 minutes to a few hours and _specifically_ describe that murder weapon and its location. They might also get other stuff about the murder, as most things come in context. But you see in psychic work, 3 days of data relevant to the murder would be great stuff; in RV work, the data might be 'relevant and indicative one has target contact' but if you don't SPECIFICALLY describe EXACTLY what is desired by the tasker, then frankly, it wasn't a good session. This doesn't mean the project manager can't use your other data. Just that the whole point of tasking specifics is so you can -- well, task specifics, lol. In RV, if the viewer does not describe a heavy blunt object and the police know THAT much but not any detail (was it a bat? A trophy? etc.? ) then the analyst knows they are probably not on target. Had you told them they were describing the murder weapon, there's pretty much a small number of 'main categories' most of those fall into, and it's hard for an analyst to be sure the accurate data is really target contact and not stuff more analytically derived, even if subconsciously. This being said, I happen to believe that sometimes, data may function as the 'witness' in psi. By this I mean, that the data itself (the knowledge of this murder? ) might act a bit like the tea leaves or whatever, and SOME people, in SOME circumstance, can get accurate psychic info from how their mind "peers into" what little data they have. If a pot of boiling beans can provide a pattern the brain feels it interprets as psi data, then I suppose anything can. I suspect that your own channeling background makes you more used to having some information and then just 'opening up to your intuition about that subject'. I think practice helps with that because most people would still be so left-brain that intuition would be overly- clouded with analysis. You can see this in people learning to channel, sort of the "too much of THEM" in the data that as they get more experience gets out of the way for more intuitive, less personality-influenced information. RV protocol is structured in such a way as to try and get as much of the 'influence' of the logical mind out of the way right up front. Also, psychics often work Ops or people, which are usually more interesting, more important, and as you find in RV, often the best contact targets due to the viewer's psychology just being more vested in the outcome and the experience. But they don't usually work on the *detail* such as what you see in a photograph for feedback; and what constitutes a 'good session' with photo feedback for a psychic vs. a viewer is probably different. This goes back to the first example of viewers trying to be fairly specific about whatever the 'specific tasking' is. I'm no expert on this, just trying to flesh out my thoughts. I think both psychics and viewers probably have a little to learn from each other. There is an emotional connection psychics have that often brings a lot of conceptual data that is invaluable in RV as well. PJ

#1450

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Thu Nov ?1, ?00? 7:51 pm Subject: Re: Re: Suggestions for telepathy anyone? docsavagebill Hello PJ, Pru had some interesting suggestions for doing telepathy. In fact as mentioned earlier..she read me blind in such a way that I was shocked! Now desptite having at least some success with all of Pru's ideas .. I have not gotten the telepathy method to work for me, although I have only tried with a lot of targets yet. Do you or anyone else have a telepathy protocol that you feel works well? Best Regards, Bill ------------------------- Moderator's note: Not I. I can think of no way to separate, in study or practice, telepathy from RV(clairvoyance? ). -- PJ

#1453

From: "Elizabeth Hambrook" Date: Thu Nov ?1, ?00? 11:16 pm Subject: Re: Re: Suggestions for telepathy anyone? ozblueriver > Now desptite > having at least some success with all of Pru's ideas > .. I have not gotten the telepathy method to work for > me Hi Bill, Are you asking how to read someones thoughts? Here is my suggestion. Use the same method you use for normal RVing because it is just information like everything else is. Focus on the person you are using as a target and then go blank and wait for the information to flow through. Oh, and be prepared for surprises! :? ) I'd be very interested to hear what Pru suggested. Cheers Liz

#1475

From: "Eva" Date: Sat Nov ?3, ?00? ?:17 am Subject: Re: Suggestions for telepathy anyone? k9caninek9 Pru has a specific method to help with it. SHe uses it for both healing and just finding out more about the biological in question. You start with drawing a gingerbread shape for the biological and then you probe for whatever info you can get all around the body. Probing is just your standard poking with a pen onto the paper. After the gingerbread, you draw a circle that symbolized the mental activity and divide it into 4 sections: conscious condition, conscious thoughts, subconscious condition, and subconscious thoughts, and then you pull out info for each category. If you are doing a healing, then you can also at that point send whatever is needed back into the subject in question. -E

#1488

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Sat Nov ?3, ?00? 8:03 pm Subject: Re: Re: Suggestions for telepathy anyone? docsavagebill Hello Liz, Pru uses a method which is an extention of a remote healing technique. I've used the remote healing part successfully, because it was a kinetic ( feelee ? ) input. The telepathy extention involves drawing a persons head.. denoting the subconcious and concious thoughs and feelings ( separately? ) and they probing with a pen..and as in RV receiving thoughts as one probes. Since people are often full of diverse or conflicting thoughts, I think this is a good method.. I just have a hard time getting the thoughts flowing.. the latter is a word oriented method.. Bill

#1454

From: greenmn900... Date: Thu Nov ?1, ?00? 6:?7 pm Subject: Re: Re: Suggestions for telepathy anyone? greenmn900... Hi, I agree with PJ on this. Pure telepathy is hard to prove. It's like trying to separate psychokenesis from precognition. But, on a macro scale, if you can "will" a tank to levitate 50 times in a row, it would be pretty hard to argue that it was precognition and not PK. Similarly, if you can correctly tell someone distant from you their current thoughts, and repeat this 50 times in a row, it would be hard to argue that it's not telepathy. As long as you don't write it down that is, then it could be precog clairvoyance. No, wait, if they even verbally agree that what you are saying is exactly what they are thinking, then it you could always be precoging the words you both speak via clairvoyance.... Yep, there must be no way to absolutely seperate telepathy from clairvoyance. Seems like I've thought all this through before...... or maybe THAT was precog clairvoyance! LOL! Seriously Bill, I did a session today that involved telepathy and it was a direct hit - so I'm feeling pretty smug tonight - which probably means I'll miss the next ten targets! My subconscious usually slaps me down that way when I start thinking I'm pretty good. Once I feel like I've perceived a person, I often will just think to myself something like, "Okay, what is this person thinking, what's going on in their head?" Then, if it works, their thoughts come through sometimes like I'm hearing them talk and sometimes like just pure thoughts, really fast. It's that simple. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I'd like to hear if anyone has a really good method for doing it though. I just use this one because I don't know any others. Best Regards, Don

#1490

From: "Elizabeth Hambrook" Date: Sat Nov ?3, ?00? 10:11 pm Subject: Re: Re: Suggestions for telepathy anyone? ozblueriver Hi Bill, thanks for the info. It sounds like an interesting thing to do. I think it was E who pointed out Pru's gingerbread man technique. I might test it out. A good way to get thoughts flowing is to pretend you are on the phone listening to someone talk to you. Maybe start the 'conversation' with a question like "What are your thoughts", and then listen for the answer. It might work for you. Cheers Liz

#1467

From: "Eva" Date: Fri Nov ??, ?00? 8:?4 pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting k9caninek9 > PJ wrote: > This being said, I happen to believe > that sometimes, data may > function as the 'witness' in psi. > By this I mean, that the data > itself (the knowledge of this murder? ) > might act a bit like the tea > leaves or whatever, and SOME people, > in SOME circumstance, can get > accurate psychic info from how their > mind "peers into" what little > data they have. Of course, one also has to be careful to not assume that accurate nonrv psychics are successful just because they are the rare skilled ones, while at the same time saying that the accuracy of rv is due to something in the methods instead. It could just be that some people skilled and can get the info no matter what method they practice and others aren't as skilled. Or it could be that the method that works best might be dependent on your personality. > Also, psychics often work Ops or people, which are usually more > interesting, more important, and as you find in RV, often the best > contact targets due to the viewer's psychology being more vested > in the outcome and the experience. But they don't usually work on > the *detail* such as what you see in a photograph for feedback; and > what constitutes a 'good session' with photo feedback for a psychic > vs. a viewer is probably different. This goes back to the first > example of viewers trying to be fairly specific about whatever > the 'specific tasking' is. Interesting concept. It brings to mind the little informal study done at the IRVA conference that compared blind rv to frontloaded psychic work. The frontloaded psychics did a bit better it turns out. Who knows if that would hold up in a rigorous study but I thought it was interesting. It occurs to me that nonrv psychics regularly do answer very specific questions like 'Describe the murder weapon." They just do it frontloaded. > I'm no expert on this, just trying to > flesh out my thoughts. I think > both psychics and viewers probably have > a little to learn from each > other. Which is probably true of all people in general if you think about it. -E

#13?6

From: greenmn900... Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 6:05 pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting greenmn900... Rich, The real point of the doubleblind is that, once the target is chosen, there is no contact between anyone who knows what the target is and the remote viewer until after the session is completed. You're basically trying to rule out any kind of accidental or unconscious information transfer so that nothing possible is left but psi. So it sounds like you guys may be working essentially doubleblind anyway - as long as whoever sets up the target posts nothing but the target number, that is. Of course, this then doesn't rule out pure telepathy between the tasker and the RVers, but that's probably getting a little nit-picky. :-? ) It sounds to me like you guys have a pretty good system set up. You wrote: "Why even tell the tasker?" You're exactly right, that would be the best way. But in applications you're usually dealing with clients who no zip about all this stuff and sometimes it's inevitable that the tasker will learn something about what the client is after - hopefully very little, though. Of course, if you have a team of people (and not just ? as in my case? ) working together, somone else can handle the clients. But you're right, the tasker should also be kept completely blind. I'm glad you pointed that out, Rich. It's nice to see others who are as fanatical about the protocols as I am. Listen to this: I use to try to do everything so perfectly that I wouldn't even let my wife (my tasker? ) leave a practice target (sealed in an envelope? ) in the same room with me when I was RVing. I'd say, "Get that thing outta here! I could cheat and you wouldn't even know it!". One day I realized these practice targets were for me. I wasn't trying to prove RV to anyone but myself. I can get a little obsessive. :-? ) Thanks for the invitation to join. I better not, though. My wife is my tasker and we've been working together for 4 years now.. Besides being very good at intuitively knowing what kind of targets I need to keep me interested and improving (and knowing how to retask me very well? ), she might get a little upset if I toss her aside! :-? ) Best Regards, Don

#13?9

From: greenmn900... Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 6:34 pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting greenmn900... Rich, You're right. That's a clean, no-frontloading way to do it and well within RV protocol. Actually, that's probably the BEST way to retask. Best Regards, Don

#1330

From: Weatherly-Hawaii...m Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 11:11 pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting maliolana Aloha PJ, Rich only sent the target ID #...The tasking was blind to me...I was just wondering about the telepathic thing...since Rich was not blind to the target... I might have just got it straight from Rich... rather than a double blind type signal line...I don't know how to put this right...but I do have a question!hahahha My session was never retasked...Just the original TID...and resultant data... Love & Light & Laughter Mali'o...aka...Dawna

#1335

From: greenmn900... Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 7:10 pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting greenmn900... Hi Sharon, Well, remember first off that RV was developed within a lab, so they used stringent rules to make sure no cheating was going on. The doubleblind, where no one who comes in contact with thr RVer knows what the target is, is probably the single most important thing that seperates RV from all other forms of psychic information-gathering. But when it comes to practicing RV, trying to develop and get better, the doubleblind is important for several reasons: The first is that it creates a situation where there is absolutely no way you could have gotten the info except psychically. As an Rver develops, it's amazing what this knowledge does for the RVer. It removes absolutely any doubt from your mind that you can really do this, that you really ARE psychic. This changes forever your whole view on reality and how it works. And in practice, everytime you get a hit, you are proving it to yourself over and over. This is great for your confidence and really great at helping you to learn to understand your own subconscious symbols. The second is that it actually makes it easier, though it seems like it would make it harder. This is because when you know what the target is, the mind is flooded with input from the conscious, logical part of the mind. Using your example of finding a murderer, the average persons' mind will immediately try to start jumping to conclusions; it's probably a man, it was probably done for money or jealousy or drugs, it probably happened at night, etc. Just knowing what the target is causes the mind to do this and then you have to fight off those thoughts because they get in the way of psychic information. And it's been proven that's it's impossible to seperate consciously-derived deductions from real psychic data. So, you can never be sure if your success is based on psi, logical deduction, or a mixture of the two. When you practice, if you always do it doubleblind you have no choice but to use psi and so, you get better and better at using it. It makes you develop into a good psychic much faster. Another reason is that even if a cop just said, "Sharon, I have a case for you to work on", you can pick up all sorts of clues about what he might want just by the way he says it, the way he stands, the look in his eyes, etc. This is reading body language and we all do it all the time, even unconsciously because we're such a social animal. so, you might unconsciously pick up on what the cop thinks or suspects about the case - and he could be wrong. So, your unconscious reading of his body language would then lead you down the wrong track and make your remote viewing that much harder. There are probably many other reasons that aren't coming to mind right now, but those are some of them. So, what we do is have someone write out the question, "Give information about the murder of so-and-so" or something like that. This is then sealed in an envelope and a number is wtitten on it. Then the RVer is only given this number. As the RVer goes to work, the subconsious mind knows what the question is just as well as it can know anything, so it starts giving you the answers to the question in the envelope. It's kind of a ?-step process, if you think about it. First, the mind ascertains what is wanted (what the questions is? ), then the mind starts giving you the answers. The Rver doesn't learn what the target is until after they are done with the session. Hopefully, the Rver will be right and then their information can be used to find the murderer. Since the RVer didn't know what the target was, if their information seems to match the subject (a murder? ), then you can be pretty certain most, or at least part of their information will be right. So, the doubleblind is also a good way to tell if the psychic is likely to be accurate. I'd suggest you buy the books "Mind Trek" and "Remote Viewing Secrets", both by Joe McMoneagle and then read them in that order. They are really good for teaching you the rules of RV. That's how I learned. And the rules of RV can be applied to any form of psi info-gathering - to what you already do now. If you're pretty good now, I can almost guarantee that working under the RV protocols (the doubleblind situation? ) will make you even better. It's tough at first because you'll feel like you have nothing to go on at all, but you'll soon see that you can get good data with no one telling you anything about the target. Basically, you'll get to where someone doesn't even have to ask you the question. You'll be able to figure out both the question and the answer to the question! I hope this makes sense and helps you understand why we do it this way. Let me know if I can help or explain anything better. btw, what do you do now? What methods do you use? Best Regards, Don

#1336

From: "Eva" Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 3:0? am Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting k9caninek9 You know, this is an interesting question. Now before I say anything more, let me say that I like doing my targets blind and find frontloading to be stressful for me. I get almost all my targets off the net as blind targets and most of those are even done wildcard, ie before they are even tasked, so there is no way I get any 'clues' about what the targets might be. However, I do have to wonder if a person started from scratch learning to always do stuff partially frontloaded, if one might over time reach the same ability as if they had learned it via rving blind. Heck it seems to me that as it is, there are a lot of inaccurate rvers and also as rumor has it, there are a lot of accurate police detectives like the late Bevy Jaegers. SOmehow, all these police detectives managed to still get good data despite all the pitfalls that are often mentioned. Have their been any studies comparing accomplished rvers with accomplished psychommetrists for instance? I suspect that a lot of it has to do with what you are used to. I am used to doing it blind so I hate it when I have any clues. Maybe if I had started from day one doing it the other way, I would have developed at the same rate and would hate doing it totally blind. Also, let me go through these points one by one. First, I agree that it definitely looks more impressive in a demo if the viewer works totally blind. But that is only a major issue on the rare occasions when someone is trying to impress a skeptic. Most of the time, the only important thing is accuracy of data, not impressiveness of the process. As far as impressing yourself, I guess that depends on just how stubborn you are to accept it to start with. Some people are instant believers and some will never accept it. I am in the middle and given a reasonable amount of evidence that can't be explained away, I will start to get convinced. And I am not so skeptical to think that just because I knew something was a 'place' for instance, that that could explain getting other specific and sometimes unlikely bits of info. This would be even more the case for police detectives who would often work on cases in which no one knew the answer until after the case was solved. My point is that I think this arguement depends on the person in question and may not be such a universal rule. As far as making it easier, again, that may depend on what you are used to doing. With the blind method, instead of the analytical mind jumping on known data and guessing, as it is blind, the analytical mind just likes to jump on the stuff that was just written down two lines ago and then guess on that instead (aka castle building? ). It's still almost the same freakin prob! In fact, it could be worse because when blind the analytical mind may be more likely to be pouncing on bits or assumptions that are wrong. If frontloaded with a murder, well at least the analytical mind will be pouncing on something that is likely to be accurate as long as the police didn't make some kind of really bad blunder. Now this last arguement is a good one, ie that if the viewing is done blind and the session talks about what it should talk about, one would assume that's a pretty good sign that the session might be accurate. But on another issue, it may be that blind sessions might be harder to analyze. One thing about any lab testing is that it usually cannot go in all directions and once. Decisions are usually made in the beginning and research branches out from that point. Every single variance cannnot be tested and viewers once trained one way may not be able to do a completely different thing and still be expected to do as well. IN addition, there is time and financial pressure to get results fast and also meet certain preconcieved expectations of the higher ups. How long did it take them to simply figure out that a random string of numbers could replace the outbounder? Now all of the assumptions may in the end prove to be true. However, I am leery of quoting them as fact with the field still in it's infancy and no empirical evidence that I can lay my eyes on. -E

#1339

From: aeonblueau8008... Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? ?:?0 am Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting terri8008 With RV there should be zero frontloading (unless your quite advanced and practiced? ), with "other" form of PSI-seeing I guess frontloading works, many clairvoyants I've worked with require frontloading to work 'their own' form of RV. with "more traditional" RV IMO- There would be no more data, verbal or written with the second task. The second being the same as the first just a simple set of coords, perhaps include a number two to indicate second session. UNLESS you are training or teaching folks, then you help the folks along and hold their hands a bit, till they get the hang of it and their confidence up, in training or practice there needs to be quite a lot of validation and verification. Tasking can be very simple, on the other hand complex, IMO it's a fine art that requires practice and it's a heck of a lot of fun, there's no end to what you can do or manage. A set of coords can be very basic, or in general(haphazard? ), or they can be painstakingly in depth and very precise. Via the net, (which can skip the/a monitor, even the tasker can be long gone? ), your working with net/new/solo/self taught RV/ers, a good way to task is first session, 'to locate or location', then second session 'to investigate', third session from tasker can even be more direct or precise. Practicing training RV via the net is a bit different from being trained (tasked-monitored? ) first hand, so (many? )adjustments are made. In ERV you may work more sessions (it's harder, slower? ), with CRV, the old format or original structure, it tends to pull(cover,go over? ) most of the data up or out, that's the way it was designed, it repeats back on it's self over and over in various ways or stages so you get the/more detail. Yes, working with the same monitor and tasker does build rapport and from what I've observed produces the better sessions (and viewers? ), RV has a lot to do with self trust and confidence(all'round? ), being able to or trusting and depending on tasker monitor is a boon. That's why I don't take many/any or in general 'net' taskings, god only knows how what or why they were or are tasked.. not that that's bad but a net tgt can have you stuck, or doorknob-ing or all over the place or no place at all. In tasking I don't write anything down, don't put anything in an envelope or folder.. I have had the odd(rare? )viewer, RV, locate and describe the envelope and it's location.Such is the viewer who is trying to view, or possibly mistakenly RVing the feedback instead of the actual site/siginal. (which is being psychic, very much so, but not what I'm after? ) all the best ~~Terri

#1346

From: "Sharon Webb" Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 3:?7 pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting sharwebb_3051? Don, Thanks for your answer. What I am learning from it is that the double blind protocol is primarily for two reasons: 1. to convince the seer that he/she is REALLY doing this. ?. to convince skeptical outsiders of the same. Is that correct? I am not being facetious when I ask this; I really want to know. I can't help feeling that no front loading is similar to handing an object to a blindfolded person and saying, if anything is said at all, "Do something with this," while the other option is saying to the blindfolded person, "Here is a tail. Pin it on the donkey." If the donkey ends up with a tail more or less in place, regardless of method, isn't that the ultimate reason for the exercise in the first place? In other words, isn't the End more important than the Means? I have read some of McMoneagle's work, including his latest book and enjoyed it very much. The body language thing is valid, IMO. However, in the largest part of this sort of work that I have done, the request has come by phone (usually conveyed by an intermediary? ) or email, so body language doesn't figure in. In the majority of the in-person requests I get, they are conveyed by an intermediary as well. Someone concerned about a friend's family for example. Many of these requests come from former instructors. I'll give you an example based on the "murder" I wrote about. I was told by an intermediary that the subject was a murdered woman whose body was thrown into a culvert. What I got initially (there were weeks of work to this one involving me and two others? ) was that the "body" was still alive when she was thrown, head down, into a vertical drainage shaft. I saw her fingers and her nails were broken and there were claw marks, traced by blood, on the rough walls of a concrete culvert. Dead people don't bleed. We didn't get any feedback...just lots of questions...during a three week period. We were asked to checkout various suspects, locate the prime suspect, detect his motives and plans, find material evidence, determine his escape plans, and on and on. We didn't actually get any feedback, other than what we gleaned from the nature of the questions, for over a year...on the day the guy was found guilty. In view of the above, it seems to me that if we had been forced to operate without questions, that it would have hindered our efforts and slowed things down. If, for example, the police were wanting to know if persons B and C were involved, and if they hadn't specifically asked for info about them, then we probably would have kept on keying in to person A. I could be wrong about this, though. In the case above, the police were checking out another person. They wanted to know where he was the morning of the murder. We all, separately, found him reading his Sunday paper and eating breakfast in a local cafe during the time of the murder...so (as we later learned? ) the police crossed him off their list when they corroborated this. The method I was taught is the Silva Method, which involves going to "level"---an alpha 10 cps altered state. I use time-shifting to pick up past data. I "see" the data I get in the form of pictures which are sometimes like movies, sometimes like still shots. I also get emotions and sometimes hear snatches of dialogue. But most of the time it is objective viewing. My bias toward Silva is because 1. that is what I was initially taught, and so it is more natural for me. ?. Silva is hands on...and most of the cases involve healing. Practicing Silva grads don't just observe; they actively intervene to effect change. Sharon sharwebb...t www.fractalus.com/sharon

#1356

From: greenmn900... Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 1?:40 pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting greenmn900... Hi Sharon, I've studied the Silva methods a lot too - just by tapes and reading, though. I still have a Silva tape that has the alpha sound on it and I use it quite a bit for light meditation. It gets me there very fast. It works well for RVing too, actually I used it just a couple days ago. In your scenario, it shouldn't have taken any longer to do it blind than doing it frontloaded. That's always been a general misconception. See, the RVer operates mainly by the intent of the tasker. You don't have to be told what the question is, you'll answer it without knowing. Here's an example that shows how it works that happened to me several years ago: I was out of practice targets, so I asked my wife to make a few and I'd do one - not a perfect situation, but I was in a hurry and wanted to get a session in. So, she made several targets, put them in envelopes and sealed them up. She numbered one of these and laid it aside. Then she called to me from the next room and told me the number. I started doing the session and began getting data that seemed like a greenhouse with a red floor and mostly dead plants inside. Suddenly, everything changed and I was seeing a mushroom cloud and then a building getting torn apart by high winds from an A-bomb blast. It seemed odd at the time because the data changed so radically so suddenly. After the session I found out what happened: My wife thought she knew which target I was working and thought it was one about the first series of A-bomb tests. She had left out a page with some photos on it, so in the middle of my session, she laid this page next to the envelope I was working on so I'd have it for feedback later. But she was wrong, the photo in the envelope WAS a greenhouse. What had happened was that my data changed when her intent changed! Right in the middle of a session! This really demonstrated to me just how important the taskers intent is. Other than convincing yourself and others that this stuff is for real, there is probably a more important reason for the doubleblind and that is that it makes it easier, far easier, to get good results. THAT'S the most important reason for the controls. You no longer have to fight off or deal with as much input from the conscious mind. We can all work however we want to and you should probably do what you're comfortable with. But I would encourage you to try working under the doubleblind for ?0-30 targets. When you get a really good hit, it's a whole different feeling than when you do the same thing frontloaded. Try it and you'll see what I mean, it's an amazing feeling. And I bet you'll become even more accurate. Most people, no, everyone I've talked to about it agree that they are mpre accurate when they work doubleblind. It's just hard to get used to in the beginning. Btw, I really liked Joe's last book as well, but for instructional purposes, I think the other two are the best things I've ever read. Sounds like the murder case was some very interesting work. The application stuff like that is a lot more exciting than just doing practice sessions. Best Regards, Don

#1366

From: "Glyn" Date: Wed Nov ?0, ?00? 5:17 am Subject: RE: Frontloading & retargeting gebega Hi Don, > What had happened was that my data changed > when her intent changed! Right in the middle of a > session! This really demonstrated to me just > how important the taskers intent is. Intriguing, and to me that sounds like a prime example of 'future memory' at work, but that is just my opinion and I'm not going to bore you all with that ..again :-? ). Besides there are still 'holes' in FM theory that I am not happy with, so I can't really enter into a constructive discussion with anyone until I've filled them up, to my own satisfaction anyway. ;-? ) > .... even more accurate. Most people, no, > everyone I've talked to about it agree that > they are mpre accurate when they work doubleblind. > It's just hard to get used to in the beginning. I absolutely agree with that Don. I prefer it if even the tasker does not know the target, but unfortunately that is not practical all the time. However, I don't really like to be given even a 'teensy-weensy' frontload. If someone says 'its an event', or 'it's a person', or tasks me near to the time of a major media event which I suspect may be the target..then probably because of my inexperience, that causes all sorts of associations and castle-building in my sessions, and rather spoils it for me . Rightly or wrongly I am not interested in proving anything to anyone else, I want to prove it to myself and develop my abilities as far as I can, and that sort of thing definitely doesn't help me. The trouble with most of the data I get in my sessions is that I can often see that I was on target because there are plenty of 'bits and pieces', but there are just not enough specifics for me to be able to say 'Yes! I really hit that'. Much of the data I get could be applied to so many other targets too. I've had enough results to know that RV works for me, but it's quite weak, and I just want to try to go to that next stage now...more *detail*. That's a hard one, and I believe high interest targets are a must! For instance in your example above, you were definitely provided with a target to remember IMO, even if unintentionally :-? ) :-? ). Kind regards, Glyn

#1358

From: "Sharon Webb" Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 10:1? pm Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting sharwebb_3051? Don, Your greenhouse/A-bomb story is amazing. And very neat. :-? ) And...please understand...I'm not knocking RV protocol...just trying to understand it and perhaps reconcile it with what I do. But then, maybe the two methods are just too different for that? Sharon sharwebb...t www.fractalus.com/sharon

#1373

From: greenmn900... Date: Wed Nov ?0, ?00? 7:55 am Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting greenmn900... Glyn, It sounds like you are definitely on the right track. Practice and more practice is EVERYTHING! Something that seemed to help me a lot when I first started, was doing outbound targets. You don't really have to have a beacon person, just have someone take a picture of a location and maybe write down the street address and put it in an envelope. Make a bunch of them. Oh, be sure it's understood that you are targeting the site at the time you will be going there for your feedback! That way, you might get things like a certain-colored car or something. Then when you go for your feedback and see that same car sitting there, it really blows your mind! Maybe it's just that picture targets get boring after awhile, I don't know. Several months after I first started RVing I did quite a few of these and they seemed to suddenly propel me to another level. I became more accurate, started getting more details, more conceptuals, etc. Maybe it will work for you too. Best Regards, Don

// end archive

Top of Page

Remote Viewing info page spacer

RV Oasis / PJRV List Archives Menu

Dojo Psi Library, Archival Material, Remote Viewing and Psi

The RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives


Remote Viewing RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion list archives. Dojo Psi dot com / info