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 : 3567-3668 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3567?)
15:59:32
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#3567

From: "Glyn" Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:58 am Subject: FW: Retro-tasking experiment

#7 -

Part 1 glynis5799 Hi all, Well

#7 wa

s a good one. Here is my mail to Liz and her session at the bottom. I will be posting Lizs comments in Part 2 Glyn -----Original Message----- From: Glyn Sent: 14 December 2003 18:53 To: Elizabeth Hambrook Subject: Retro-tasking experiment #7 Hello again Liz, Well this is a really interesting one. Yes, I definitely remember that session of yours. It was when Eva was setting targets and a group of you were putting sessions up on Farview and I was also doing some analysis practice with them; before feedback was given. It was coord FV030115, and we had fun discussing it because everyone seemed to miss that particular one. Mmmmm, dont tell me I messed you *all* up :-). Funny,&I just went back to look for it, and the very first file I looked at was about that one, and the very next one I looked at was a session by someone else on the same target&(go back and look at the archives)&it mentioned an AOL of a tank with caterpillar tracks, but the words typed were large green caterpillar and it came out and hit me right between the eyes with a green messy splat!!. He he!! Oh Father Time you are mischievous old man. LOL!! I dont believe in synchronicity&but I am not even going to try and think that one out ;-). ( Ooooh BTW back to

#6 fo

r a second... You mentioned coils in your session, and I couldnt think of any a correlation with the Christmas party..&&.well you know those party blowers consisting of a coil of wire covered in paper which when blown at one end shoots out straight and hits someone in the nose? Well I we were doing that lots& Just thought Id mention that .). On to #7&. My photo is from an article in a magazine, and shows a large caterpillar on a leaf. The little creature is photographed attaching some silk thread to a leaf to turn it over and fix it down so it forms a shelter; a bit like the ropes holding down a tent. Now&and this is intriguing& could the major vein of the leaf which runs diagonally down the picture under the caterpillars head, maybe, just maybe, if glimpsed really quickly by you back there in the past&&.just look a little bit like wires coming out either side of a head?? Well, your session certainly fits my retro-tasking far better than the original target you did it for, but again is it any more than coincidence? What do you think? Great fun this time machine stuff isnt it? LOL! . -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth Hambrook Sent: 14 December 2003 04:54 To: Glyn Subject: #7 Hi Glyn, I kept pulling out long sessions this time so I was forced to go through my folder to find a shorter session that didn't have a load of drawings included. This one is a really crappy session too so it will be interesting to see what happens. The target was Carhenge tasked by Eva. There were grey painted cars placed in a circle like Stonehenge. Blue sky, puffy clouds, a circle of beige gravel within a field of grass. Someone else who did this target got something similar to my 'wires coming out either side of a head'. It turned out that the man who built Carhenge was called something like Mr. Reindeer. LOL rounded soft pudgy feel dough like feel sentient being intelligent buttons patch of black on top right of round object straight line on a 45deg angle natural smooth slightly salty smell of powder or smoke (thick air) warmth something like wires on either side of a head it is vocal green coarse texture crisp oval drops/drips swing curl hang fibrous tranquil feeling comforting feeling almost like love movement in a curve or circle hairy water Reply | Forward

#3569

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 8:23 pm Subject: Re: FW: Retro-tasking experiment

#7 -

Part 1 docsavagebill Hi Glyn, Liz, See it just happens..G. But really it is so much like ARV that I don't see why anyone is greatly surprised. In classic ARV..you do the session before even getting a target pair assigned. Then a second person picks out a target pair ( or more) and in effect RETRO TASKS YOU TO HAVE DONE ONE OF THOSE PAIRS ALREADY!. Already a time loop before you get feedback from the event the pair matches. So for this to work a time loop has to be made that that causes you to work a session that won't be tasked until later, for an event that occurs even later..a double time loop! Totally a mind blower. In retro tasking a similiar time loop is set up, by the second tasker overriding the first. I guess the question is what makes the second tasker more powerful than the first or vice versa..? Reply | Forward

#3570

From: "Glyn" Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:58 pm Subject: RE: FW: Retro-tasking experiment

#7 -

Part 1 glynis5799 Hi Bill, > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Pendragon > See it just happens..G. Just!? Just!? ;-) But really it is so much like ARV that I don't see why anyone is greatly surprised. No I'm not surprised it happens. It's just getting the conditions right for it to work on demand that is the big fat hairy problem. :-) > In classic ARV..you do the session before even getting > a target pair assigned. Then a second person picks out > a target pair ( or more) and in effect RETRO TASKS YOU > TO HAVE DONE ONE OF THOSE PAIRS ALREADY!. Mmmm let's think about that sort of thing from a FM point of view... A. I do a session and try to access the memories which will be in my mind in the future after I have received the feedback connected to that session. When finished I tell you I am ready. B. You pick out two pictures with different gestalts and randomly assign a 'Yes ' or a 'No' to each and give them to a third person. C. I send that third person my session and they match my impressions with the pictures from you and pick the closest match. They (or you) then make a bet.. depending on whether the result reflected 'Yes' or 'No'. D. The event actually happens and it is 'No' E. I am shown (by whoever) the feedback corresponding to the actual result. Never, throughout the whole of my life, must I ever, ever, know what the other picture was, or even its major gestalts....ever..not a hint.or it may have even led to me having had a spectacular hit on the wrong picture! :-). It may even be a good idea if I never even know what the event was. But I guess I must trust you enough to send me my share of any winnings. LOL! So in the above scenario, I go from A to E directly, and from my point of view (excuse the pun :-) ), stages B, D and E are just not relevant, no matter what your intent is. It is my (the viewer's) intent to pick up impressions of the picture which will become associated (in my future mind) with my session.. that is the important thing. Then of course there are those who think that the tasker 's 'intent' is the important thing, and additional feedback not needed, but I will have to agree to disagree with them there; for the moment anyway ;-). I don't think retro-tasking is the right form of words actually Bill. IMO it is nothing to do with the tasking, and everything to do with the feedback, whether that feedback comes in the form of a picture, text, or actual experience; but it is a word that adequately conveys the concept of being mentally 'confused'. I think people need to be worried not about being retro-tasked without their knowledge, but with being 'retro-feedbacked' ..which is probably a lot harder to prevent, seeing that IMO we all do it to ourselves, unwittingly, just by speculating about our results and not keeping our feedback 'clean'. We'd have to be half-asleep or distracted to prevent our own mental speculation...which is of course what the ERV/CRV procedures were designed for. 'Clean-ness' of feedback however is not given enough attention I believe. Contamination by retro-taskers is the least of our problems I think..we do that to ourselves every time we discuss our results or search for additional facts on the web..compounding feedback on top of feedback and making more memories. Still, learning to overcome such obstacles is probably good practice, and discussion and speculation, mentally and with others... is a heck of a lot of fun, and probably the only way to improve. May not be advisable to discuss anything with anyone at all, ever, if you want to make serious money out of it though ;-). I think that Viewer intent is very important, and a decent Rver can probably learn to 'thwart' a deliberate retro-tasker, while getting 'cleaner' impressions anyway.. just by focusing on the 'desired' feedback and ignoring other, more indirect, information. Which is perhaps why those with oodles of experience and more disciplined minds (including of course the military types) seem to make the best Rvers. My opinions as always. Would welcome comments. Kind regards, Glyn Reply | Forward

#3571

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:40 pm Subject: RE: FW: Retro-tasking experiment

#7 -

Part 1 docsavagebill Hi Glyn, After 3-500 or more ARV sessions I'd have say "feedback is highly overrated". It's totally clear to me that the RV mind can find information even if it is never fed back. It's the intention that makes the difference. IMO you can NEVER hide information from the RV mind. I've seen to many cases of an ARVer exactly matching the wrong target even when he never sees the "wrong" target to believe that. Nothing is invisible to the RVer IMO. The viewers mind usually starts out obeying the "rules"..but seems to eventually find a way around being blind, by "reading of the judges mind". Even using a computer to judge failed to thwart displacement according to Greg K and he has done 1000's of experiments . More than any other ARVer in my opinion. Feedback is a very easy hyppothesis to swallow..but it just doesn't produce what it's hyped up to. ..G Reply | Forward

#3573

From: "Glyn" Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:46 am Subject: RE: FW: Retro-tasking experiment

#7 -

Part 1 glynis5799 Hi Bill, Thanks for that, it's just what I need. I haven't swallowed the feedback idea hook line and sinker, oh no. I am testing for it. Of course 'feedback' (re FM theory) would not only mean the viewer did not have, or was not given, the original intended feedback, but never ever even a hint of what the target was throughout the rest of their lives; not an itty-bitty smidgeon of a gestalt even, not a rumour, not a mention. If you can guarantee that then I would love to hear of instances..but of course if you give me these instances in case the Viewer may somehow somewhere get to know ;-). That of course why this feedback thing is so hard to prove or disprove. I'm being lighthearted here, but that is the problem with this Bill :-) However Dunne's theory was that time was serial.that we may be getting the information from the memories in our own minds in different time-lines; still of the feedback however. So I fear we may never be able to disprove the feedback idea. I absolutely agree with you though, Viewer intention is *all*. Kind regards, Glyn Reply | Forward

#3578

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 11:51 am Subject: RE: FW: Retro-tasking experiment

#7 -

Part 1 docsavagebill Hi Glyn, LOL...When a model needs this kind of interpretation to stay believable..maybe its getting senescent... C'mon an "itty bitty smideon of gestalt". Now how could that produce a good session unless the mind had other ways to get it..G. Hugs, Bill > not an > itty-bitty smidgeon of a gestalt > even, not a rumour, not a mention. Reply | Forward

#3589

From: "Glyn" Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:49 am Subject: Those itty bitty words :-) glynis5799 Hi Bill, Re the offending words. In the mail that I was responding to, you had said (in so many words) that, you knew of situations where viewers had not received feedback but nevertheless had good results. Do you actually know that, or have you just heard that? I cannot dispute what you say, I just wanted you to say more about it. What I was trying to convey (using purely layman's terms, which were intended to be humorous, sorry ;-)), was that *in the light of FM theory*, to be sure the viewer does not get the information from far down their mental 'time-line', then they must never have even the smallest idea of what the feedback (or alternative feedback in ARV) would have been. Bugger-all in fact..sorry again. LOL!! To factor out FM, then experimenters are faced with never being able to discuss their experiment with others; in any useful detail. If detailed examples of this happening are in the public domain, or ever likely to be, and there is any chance of the viewer(s) ever getting to know about it, then their FM is not removed from the equation. I am saying, in a round about way, that if you give me details then it could still be FM, but if you don't but still maintain it happened then FM may not be a factor, but I will have to take your word for it or try it for myself.....which I have...but if I tell you about the results I'll have to kill you. LOL!!! Forgive me, I am not a trained scientist, nor will I pretend to be, but I am definitely not playing here. I am actually trying to shake my own 'belief' in FM rather than convince anyone else about anything. If I do use a model at the moment then it would be JW Dunne's. These are informal experiments that may go some way towards that result. 'Senescent'. now is that me or Dunne's ideas you are referring to? It could definitely apply to me, physically at least ;-) ...but not to Dunne I feel; although he formulated his theory pre 1927 of course, so it is a bit long in the tooth I guess. Old does not necessarily mean wrong however :-). Regards, Glyn Reply | Forward

#3601

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:10 pm Subject: Re: Pat Prices correct viewings that weren't fed back to him ever. docsavagebill Hi Glyns, In that URL that Liz posted were two situations where Pat Price viewed targets in great detail..and the results were not even known until after he died. I can't find the URL now..but maybe Liz can repost it. Quite interesting, and would seem to end the idea that feedback is essential. BTW I certainly was not saying you were senescenct! I was referring to a hypothesis like "feedback is necessary" that starts to require so many conditions and extensions to make it believable that it becomes untestable. Such as requiring not even a "smidgeon of a gestalt" of feedback. I'm sorry I'm not aiming this at you at all Glyn. I just feel the idea that psi manifests only by future feedback is the wrong direction, and is slowing development of newer ideas.. Best Wishes, Bill Reply | Forward

#3603

From: "Elizabeth Hambrook" Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:54 pm Subject: Re: Pat Prices correct viewings that weren't fed back to him ever. ozblueriver > ..but maybe Liz can repost it. Hi Bill, here is the URL for that article about Pat Price and an excert from the article. cheers Liz http://www.p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue21/Intuition_21.htm Although we were happy to receive this confirmation, unfortunately, Pat Price had already died two years earlier. So, from the point of view of the experiment, he made his perception of the sixty-foot spheres and "gores" without any feedback at all. Price's drawing of the sections of a sphere he psychically saw are shown in Figure 6. This shows that Price's remarkable perception was a direct experience of the site. He was not reading the mind of the sponsor, because no one in the United States knew of the spheres. Nor could Pat have been precognitively looking at his feedback from the future, because he received none. Reply | Forward

#3608

From: "Glyn" Date: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am Subject: RE: Pat Prices correct viewings that weren't fed back to him ever. glynis5799 OK, rub it in guys ;-). LOL! Glyn > Nor could Pat have been precognitively looking at his > feedback from the future, because he received none. Reply | Forward

#3605

From: "Glyn" Date: Tue Dec 23, 2003 1:52 am Subject: RE: Pat Prices correct viewings that weren't fed back to him ever. glynis5799 Hi Bill, > BTW I certainly was not saying > you were senescenct! I know you weren't Bill, no problem :-). I do understand what you mean, honestly. I don't think FM theory requires anymore conditions and extensions in thinking than the very modern multiple dimensional thinking of some quantum theorists. LOL!! It's ironic that Dunne's theory of Serial Time is, believe it or not, very similar ;-). I think a part (a very big part) of the problem is because I cannot explain what I mean very well. Face to face I may be able to, but by email it is so difficult. If one day we meet then we can have a good discussion over a drink or three. :-) Our memories are not made necessarily of direct feedback, they can be the result of logical deduction based perhaps on 'smidgeons' of this and that over a lifetime. I guess the word 'feedback' is putting you off..just think memory. Still, you are right Bill, I will back off a bit. I am not closed minded or in a cul-de-sac, it just fits for me, Pat Price et al, but I'll cease rambling on about it..for a while. LOL!! All the best Bill, and a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Big Grins from, Glyn Reply | Forward

#3651

From: "Glyn" Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:31 pm Subject: RE: Pat Prices correct viewings that weren't fed back to him ever. glynis5799 Hi all, Phew that was a long Christmas break...so many emails to read so little time. Poor Kristen was ill over Christmas (hope you are OK now Kristen :-), and so were we....me, my husband, and the dog too. We all went down with different things on Boxing Day, and have only just got our energy levels up; fortunately none of us needed a vet ;-). No it wasn't my cooking either. :-) (BTW I've just posted up the feedback photo re Retro-tasking Experiment #10) Bill, there was a past mail which I didn't reply to properly.... > > I just feel the > idea that psi manifests only by future feedback is the > wrong direction, and is slowing development of newer > ideas.. What new ideas Bill? Serious question. How can discussion of FM theory (and let's face it I am one of very few that admit to giving it any credence anyway), slow down development of new ideas? Hopefully such discussion stimulates thinking; especially by those who disagree? :-) Let's face it, FM and Serial Time theory is just someone's idea of how what we call precognition may work. If there is another theory, a model, out there that goes as far towards trying to explain psi (and that doesn't just mention 'precognition' without trying to go further), then I would genuinely really love to hear about it. I would especially like to hear about one that can attempt to jump that 'hurdle' presented by Pat Price, and others over the ages, who had, well documented, highly accurate fore-knowledge of events which would occur only after their death. Kind Regards, Glyn Reply | Forward

#3653

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:01 am Subject: RE: Pat Prices correct viewings that weren't fed back to him ever. docsavagebill Hi Glyn, Well I've heard people of the high scientific caliber such as Dean Radin trying to explain all psi activity in terms of future feedback model, and it just stuck in my craw as a real reach. I think the attraction is that it is a testable and logical model, but just doesn't pan out as a causal model. Also it attempts to explain away interesting psi phenomenae ( such as ghosts, and entities) as mere misinterpretation of future feedack. I've heard other models..multiple universe models, models based on tachyon-like propagation of information backwards thru time, Quantum models. But unfortunately none I know of that lead to a testable conclusions yet. So don't let me discourage you from adhering to FM....G Reply | Forward

#3662

From: "Glyn" Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 4:40 pm Subject: RE: Pat Prices correct viewings that weren't fed back to him ever. glynis5799 Hi Bill, > Bill Pendragon wrote: > Also it attempts to > explain away interesting psi phenomenae ( such as > ghosts, and entities) as mere misinterpretation of > future feedack. I have never seen a ghost , or anything odd, outside a lucid dream or OBE-type experience (which may be different types of the same thing), but when I entered my mother's bedroom just after she had died, after they had taken away her body (this was back in 1988), I strongly 'felt' that my mother was still there. There was a strong smell of burning in the room ( apparently it is quite common to smell burning or perfume when having this type of clairvoyant experience, or so I have read). I then felt something softly brush up and down my right forearm, like a hand . Then I remembered something Mum had told me happened when my first husband had died, 12 years before . She thought he had come to say goodbye to her. She said she was in her bedroom (300 miles away), and had suddenly, out of the blue, felt his presence. She had described to me how she felt a 'ghostly' hand stroking her arm, and just *knew* that it was him (she and he had been very fond of each other). Well I was not thinking about that at all when I entered her bedroom ... but it would have been just like her to do the same thing to me, just to demonstrate that she was still aware. I may have told you this before Bill, but it is just my way of saying that FM theory, future feedback , and indeed precognition itself, does not go any way towards explaining that sort of thing IMO, and many people have had similar experiences. Some would say it was imagination on my part of course, based on a subconscious memory of a past event, and need. But I don't think so. I don't think it was anything to do with electromagnetism, memories held in walls, ultra-sound, infra-sound, or whatever sound. Dammit, I think it may even have been what it appeared to be. :-). I actually I think we may agree on this one ;-). Kind regards, Glyn Reply | Forward

#3665

From: Bill Pendragon Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 2:02 am Subject: RE: Is the Bible code a form of retrotasking? docsavagebill Hi Glyn and All, I just watched the History channel show on the the Bible Code. I realize that there is much scienfitic skepticism about many claims, and for instance other researchers find similiar patterns in Moby Dick. However, I wonder if something similiar to RetroTasking may not occur in the Bible and other works? If we assume the composers of various Bible texts were in a state similiar to Psychic Viewing a session. Now direct reading of the text thru history has long ago fixed what could be put there by direct reading of the Hebrew by millions of people. But only recently could computers be used to look for these subtle ESL's "equal spaced letter codes". So the first ones to search for these may actually be able to reach backwards and connect with the composer 1000's of years ago and instill subtle changes in text by retrotasking?? IN support of this I note that this would presumably install correctly only events known to the retrotasker on the composer. Future predictions from retrotasked "ESL" codes would be subject to the same limitations as any future RV project and subject to many fanciful belief errors. As seems to be the case. Or I guess we will know how fanciful in 2012 when the Bible code advocates see a prediction of a comet hitting earth. Best REgards, Bill Reply | Forward

#3668

From: "Nita Hickok" Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 12:09 pm Subject: RE: Is the Bible code a form of retrotasking? nitahickok Hello Bill I know of a bible scholar who found what is mentioned in the Kabbalah as the hidden code. She posts regularly upon Robert Bruces website Astral Pulse and her name is Beth. She has posted some of the exerpts and her work is brilliant unfortunately it will cause major fights among the religions. She has a doctorate and works out of an Eastern American University that is really well known. Anyone interested in this should read Beth's posts. Nita > I just watched the History channel show on the the > Bible Code. I realize that there is much scienfitic > skepticism about many claims, and for instance other > researchers find similiar patterns in Moby Dick. Reply | Forward

#3596

From: "Elizabeth Hambrook" Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 8:12 pm Subject: Re: FW: Retro-tasking experiment

#7 -

Part 1 ozblueriver > LOL...When a model needs this kind of interpretation > to stay believable..maybe its getting senescent... > C'mon an "itty bitty smideon of gestalt". Now how > could that produce a good session unless the mind had > other ways to get it..G. As I said to Glyn via PEM I have no problem at all with not being given feedback, but I'm going to bug the heck out of Glyn once we're both dead until she tells me. LOL Glyn is it possible to at least share your findings on that session with the others? Via PEM of course so I still never know. I don't mind if you all know something I don't.......much. ;) Just get them all to sign a statement never to reveal the feedback to me......in blood naturally. :) cheers Liz

// 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