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 : 1839-1849 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1839?)
23:27:12
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1839

From: "PJ Gaenir " Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 1:22 pm Subject: Symbols, Aliens, RV-process dennanm Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Howdy Don, I saw this on an open public board (hrvg), and I replied to you PEM, and then I decided I wanted to do it on pjrv so others with an interest here might respond. So this is a little unusual but I'm sort of moving a thread from a totally different place into this one. I assume you don't mind! For others that thread begins here: http://www.hrvg.org/cgi-bin/hrvg_bbs_hotwax/webbbs_config.pl? read=16324 But I'm replying to Don's second post on the thread. > I've also > found that these kinds of far-out targets > have seemed to lead me into a big jump in > my accuracy and reliability. I'm not sure > why this is so. It could just be that the > novelty of it increases my motivation and > interest. I notice that every time I get a certain 'new' kind of data, it does something... hard to put in words exactly what. First of course, it opens me up to that kind of data in other targets. But second, it seems to add a new belief to my list or something, e.g., here is something ELSE I can do, and that seems to become part of the gestalt of everything from my interest to my overall comfort. > Exactly. The more I think I know what > the target is, except on rare occasions, > the worse I perform. I find half my AOL drive sessions are remarkably accurate if I can just keep to the 'parts' of the assumed target that I 'feel' rather than what my head wants to write down. OK, so maybe I thought it was one thing and it's something completely different, but the data will be very on target anyway, as if -- like psychics since the dawn of time using bones or leaves or whatever -- I am "grafting on" the information from point A to my 'witness' (physical in most psychic cases; my actual AOL forming the 'witness' in this case). It occurred to me the other day that maybe that was a feeling worth cultivating in the process. The same kind of feeling when you "let" any given thing "represent information" -- you do not read tea leaves and AOL on the shape of a leaf after all -- the 'letting' is interesting, and may be an interesting way to deal with AOL drive that is tough to let go of. However, I'd say my best sessions ever... maybe or maybe not data- wise, but definitely experience wise, I knew what the target was, not by conclusion, but by "sudden impact" inside me. Er... there haven't been very many of those yet though. :-) > While most of the symbols I get change constantly, > I've developed a feel for them to the point > that I often can interpret them as they come > in. Usually there's a feeling that seems > to be associated with them that enables me > to do that, at least in a vague sort of way. Symbols do change all the time (just to contradict that, some haven't - yet!). And they're pretty highly personal. I used to get a certain symbol for water that now I get for energy instead. I used to nail ocean every time with this hilarious pre-sketch that looked like "stylized waves" in an old painting, but I'm in a phase right now where water could bite me and I still wouldn't get it (I seem to get data, or not, in cycles, but then I am fairly new to truly practicing, so that'll even out, or so Joe says). Sometimes I think symbols can be feelings, not just concepts or visuals. Whenever there is stone prominantly in a target I get a feeling of "thrust". It doesn't have a motion feeling attached, but there clearly is a "thrust" feeling, and almost a primal/solid/sexual undertone. I get it with stone buildings, standing stones, canyons, mountains, more for vertical shapes but really, for ALL stone. Recently I had a "modified form of the feeling" that I noted in a session and it turned out to be the moon. If there's a feeling of motion attached, then it's something else. (Well, I've never had a target of flying rocks, so thus far it's something else! :-)) Lately I've been getting these "phantom aches" I call them, and I am trying to follow them and see if I can figure out what they relate to. Sometimes that's how I perceive pain in a subject-of-target, but usually I know that's the case. These are more personal. They twinge just long enough to get my attention and then vanish. > But, as far as determing the symbolic > or metaphorical meaning of an entire session > - I can't do that. In fact, I don't think > I've ever done a single session where the > entire thing was symbolic or metaphorical. Good heavens. How would you know? I mean, I'm the allegory queen, I bet I could "find a way" to take ANY consistent session and "make it symbolically relate to" a given target (whether or not that target had anything at all to do with the session, lol). I would have a hard time saying whether the psi was in the session, or was in the person "interpreting" in that case (the session becoming, like my AOL or tea leaves, a 'witness' for grafting-on intuition). But I do think some people may have "mostly symbolic data" in a session once in awhile (or maybe more depending on the person). I think if the viewer or analyst know the profile of the person, this is workable. But I think it would require the analyst or interpreter actually had some knowledge of the target situation/context at least, for it to be workable. I don't imagine that's impossible in Ops situations, the context of desired info is usually known to the ProjMgr. > But it's possible that some of the sessions > in the past that I thought were complete > misses may have had some relationship to > the target on those levels. I've found a lot of things have "unfolded in me" when I've reviewed totally "off" sessions -- and seen that certain data points I considered 'generic and pointless' as data (or just confusing or 'metaphysical') in fact contained about 3-6 "layers" of information if I was in the proper state of mind to decode them. I'm with Sharon on pjrv, I think the symbols are sometimes 'the real skinny' as she puts it, and learning to unwrap/decode them in yourself can be a big part of advanced psi work. Joe talks about that a lot, the tremendous amount of personal decoding, even in layers, of symbols and so forth. > I mean, I could RV the same verifiable > target a dozen times and probably still not > be able to explain it very well in meaningful > terms until I see the feedback - except on > rare occasions. Are you sure about that? I sometimes recognize a target I've had before, and I think if I had a target 12 times I would almost certainly recognize it -- or recognize that the target had an incredibly similar nature. I've never had a target more than 3 times but I'm working on it. :-) > When people write sweeping explanations about > aliens, their intentions, and their societies, > this is what they are essentially doing. All my sweeping explanations about aliens come from talking to aliens, not RV. Ha! Ha! God, I love UFOlogy. It's really my only chance to sound like a lunatic publicly and do it with a straight face. But seriously, half the time I am darn glad to get accurate basic data and some important concepts about a target or its nature -- entire essays on culture are just way beyond MY skill level, anyway. > will think about it and hopefully realize > that they are trying to use the wrong tool > for the wrong job. Well, I think people will do what they will. There's a lot of room in the world for all kinds. > And damaging the public > perception of RV in the process. There is not a whole helluva lot worse that can be done to RV beyond what has already been done. It may be that some people, or groups, are going about things in a way that is not likely to be accurate and/or constructive and/or ethical, but I think it'll settle out in the end. In reality, until viewers, whether individuals or teams or groups, are doing operations work -- even altruistic -- that can be demo'd for the public, nothing is going to be anything more than "talk." Fact is, you can put anything on a website. :-) PJ Reply | Forward

#1845

From: "Eva " Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 1:14 am Subject: demos- was Re: Symbols, Aliens, RV-process k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Heehee, if I were to show everyone only my best sessions, it would look rather impressive! That's why in my opinion, only live demos are going to turn any heads. People want to see proof and that's the only kind we have other than future predictions and most future predictions tend to be rather vague on tbe time line and a matter of common sense. For instance, I predict a major Earthquake in California within the next 10 years. Well duh! California shakes quite often and anything that damages a few buildings can be called 'major.' People won't want to wait or remember long enough to see if my prediction comes true anyway. And so it comes back to live demos.. -E > PJ Gaenir wrote: > In reality, until viewers, whether individuals or teams or groups, > are doing operations work -- even altruistic -- that can be demo'd > for the public, nothing is going to be anything more than "talk." > Fact is, you can put anything on a website. :-) Reply | Forward

#1849

From: "PJ Gaenir " Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 3:22 am Subject: demos- was Re: Symbols, Aliens, RV-process dennanm Offline Offline Send Email Send Email > Eva wrote: > if I were to show everyone only my > best sessions, it would > look rather impressive! That's why > in my opinion, only live demos > are going to turn any heads. Well I think teams with analysts could view/dowse for which long- missing children (likely corpses, alas) are 'findable', and then see if they could actually DO so. It wouldn't take more than two of those before there'd be a long list of people willing to PAY for that service -- and likely investigators willing to work with the group. Of course, finding people is the toughest thing in RV -- though it's right up the dowsing alley -- but it requires real investigators on the ground is the sticky part to pull off. Still, I honestly believe, that is all it would take. Two successes, even if two dozen were tried for that. > only kind we have other than future > predictions and most future > predictions tend to be rather vague > on tbe time line [...] > People won't want to wait or remember > long enough to see if my prediction > comes true anyway. You're doing it wrong. Take a lesson from Ed Dames. Just wait until something small happens, that you read about in several science journals or environmental news stories, and THEN predict it. 98% of the public will have no idea that it's been publicly documented in the kind of stuff you read for months, in a couple cases even years -- if it isn't public knowledge, and you have a talk show host willing to present it as if this is a really amazing thing that makes you a god, anything is possible. You're right people won't pay attention or remember long enough, but that is a GOOD thing. When out of the 1001 things you predicted, one comes true, THEN you can REMIND everybody of how amazing you are -- and they won't remember the 1000 things you were totally wrong about! So future predictions is an easy area to impress with I think. As long as we're just talking about the general public. If we actually want to convince the RV world, people like Rich Krankowski will bust that bubble right off, darn it! PJ pjrv : Messages : 1840-1872 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1840?)
23:29:57
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1840

From: "David Humphries" Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 7:42 pm Subject: Re: Symbols, Aliens, RV-process a_healey56 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Howdy PJ, I did this exact thing while viewing a target from the Larger Universe website last night! I've read a lot of posts the lasts few months where people talked about making - and keeping - good target contact. My goal for this particular target, which I did with a very slightly modified version of the methodology that Pru has been teaching us in the online lessons, was to achieve the kind of contact with the target that various people have spoken of (I do this from time to time, but I guess the trick is to figure out how to do it whenever you desire, and to know that you're doing it.). I told myself while doing a cool down that the right-brain was going to be doing this target, and that the left-brain was going to take a break for a while, and I eliminated every left-brain activity I could, such as writing (I spoke into a hand held tape recorder, and also, I did all three of my ideograms on the same page, like I've seen done on HRVG's website). Hearing the tape recording was really good, because I could hear the enthusiasm in my voice as I was going along (the enthusiasm was due to having such strong target contact). First I sensed that there was a tall stone wall, then I clearly saw PART a stone wall built with large square stones, then when I wanted to know what the target felt like, I could feel the stone wall, then I clearly saw another aspect of the wall. It was very exciting. Then I AOLed on a castle, started AOLing to death on medival type things, and found out when I viewed the feedback that it was a large, old looking stone bridge with a tunnel going underneath it (How's that for some literal castle-building? ;-). But the construction of the bridge was exactly as I saw it, which I was very happy to see. Dave > PJ wrote: > I find half my AOL drive sessions are > remarkably accurate if I can just keep > to the 'parts' of the assumed target that I > 'feel' rather than what my head wants to > write down. OK, so maybe I thought it was > one thing and it's something completely > different, but the data will be very on target > anyway, as if -- like psychics since the dawn > of time using bones or leaves or whatever > -- I am "grafting on" the information from point > A to my 'witness' (physical in most psychic > cases; my actual AOL forming the 'witness' in > this case). Reply | Forward

#1842

From: greenmn900... Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 12:35 pm Subject: Re: Symbols, Aliens, RV-process greenmn900... Send Email Send Email Palyne, Hi. You wrote: > "I notice that every time I get a certain > 'new' kind of data, it does something... > hard to put in words exactly what. First of > course, it opens me up to that kind of data > in other targets. But second, it seems to > add a new belief to my list or something, e.g., > here is something ELSE I can do, and that > seems to become part of the gestalt of everything > from my interest to my overall comfort." Yeah, I think this another one of the huge number of advantages to just tons and tons and tons of practice. I think every time you are exposed to a new kind of target, even something very mundane, it sort of adds to your subconcious knowledge base or something. This is a process, or a concept, that I don't really have the words to explain. It's like the term "ideation" (the combination of thoughts and feelings). The subconscious seems to learn how to mix various thoughts and feelings together in new and different ways to respond to new sets of stimuli (new targets). This, I think, is the basis for what I mean when I'm always saying that I can "feel" myself learning the more practice I put in, but I can never put my finger on exactly what I've learned. The same thing goes for recognizing new kinds of data coming from the SC and learning how to use it. If you're a naturally visual person, it can be very gratifying - hell, to me it's downright exciting - to start getting data in new and unfamiliar ways. I remember the first time the sense of smell really came through for me. I'd been RVing for maybe 3-4 months and the target was a local outbound, a steak house. I was hit by the smell of tar very early in the session and then toward the end of the session I got the smell of food cooking. The following day I went there for feedback and they were repaving the parking lot. I loved it. I felt like I had a new tool in my toolbox or something. :-) On esoteric targets, however, it's a whole different ballgame and whole different effect. Whether it's RVing aliens, past lives, other people's OBEs, etc. every time I do one of these I seem to make a quantum jump in RVing in the weeks immediatley afterwards. I don't know why, it may have something to do with renewing my interest and motivation, increasing the excitement level; I'm just not sure. And I think it would be a huge mistake to RV these kinds of targets all the time, or to take the info you get from them extremely seriously, because of the lack of verification. You wrote: > "It occurred to me the other day that maybe > that was a feeling worth cultivating in the > process. The same kind of feeling when you > "let" any given thing "represent information" > -- you do not read tea leaves and AOL on the > shape of a leaf after all -- the 'letting' is > interesting, and may be an interesting way to > deal with AOL drive that is tough to let go of." Now, that's an interesting idea, maybe a good way to deal with AOL. You wrote: > "However, I'd say my best sessions ever... maybe or > maybe not data-wise, but definitely experience wise, > I knew what the target was, not by conclusion, but > by "sudden impact" inside me. Er... there haven't > been very many of those yet though. :-)" I recently talked to Joe about this. It's a real problem for me sometimes. When I posted that originaly on hrvg, I was trying to avoid getting into an argument with Dick about this, but here lately, it's been happening a lot for me - a lot more than it used to, so I'm hoping it indicates that I've moved up to a newer and higher level of ability. Some of the targets I've done in the last couple months where I knew what it was in the middle of the session were the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Storage Facility, Macchu Picchu, the Golden Gate Bridge, Saddam Hussein, Niagara Falls, and Windsor Castle. This may sound like a lot but these were out of around 70-100 targets. But, like you said, when it happens it's a "sudden impact". I just instantly "know". If the knowledge arises out of rational, logical conclusions based on the data I'm getting, it's invariably wrong. You wrote: > "Sometimes I think symbols can be feelings, not > just concepts or visuals." Absolutely. Symbols can represent any type of information. Here's a good example: Years ago I had a target that was a picture of a moped. Now, I used to own a Harley and, like many hog riders, I took a pretty dim view of mopeds and those who drove them. They seemed..well.. "sissy". I thought I had put that kind of macho thinking way behind me, but I was wrong. Some of the information I got was the girl from the old show "Happy Days" that played Fonzi's girlfriend and rode a motorcycle. Then I saw a man dressed in womens' clothes on a motorcycle! lol! Guess I hadn't "grown and matured" as much as I liked to think! So symbolic information can represent almost anything, even your own subconscious biases. Don wrote: > > But, as far as determing the symbolic > > or metaphorical meaning of an entire session > > - I can't do that. In fact, I don't think > > I've ever done a single session where the > > entire thing was symbolic or metaphorical. You wrote: > Good heavens. How would you know?" That was kind of my point, how WOULD you know? If the whole damn session seems metaphorical or symbolic, I think I'd rather just admit that I probably missed the target. When you start trying too hard to make the data fit the target, you know you're doing it, I think. I'd rather concentrate on trying to get clearer data, instead. Don wrote: > > I mean, I could RV the same verifiable > > target a dozen times and probably still not > > be able to explain it very well in meaningful > > terms until I see the feedback - except on > > rare occasions. You wrote: > Are you sure about that?" What I mean is that, even after viewing the same target several times, I still couldn't tell you exactly what it is - most of the time. Like, if the target is a coal miner's strike in Kentucky in the 1950s, and the labor organizer was dating the mine owner's daughter and this fact was leading to a lot more violence than would otherwise be involved, and there was violence of different kinds being planned by several different factions on both sides - I couldn't tell you all this based only on my RV data - not until I saw at least a litle of the feedback, anyway. You wrote: > "There is not a whole helluva lot worse that can ? be done to RV beyond what has already been done." Well, I think in terms of the UFO thing, it's important to remember that the connection between RV and UFOs goes all the way back to the beginning of RV. Here's just a partial list of RVers who have used psi and UFO study together: Pat Price, Ingo Swann, Joe McMoneagle, Skip Atwater, Ed Dames, Courtney Brown, Prudence Calabrese, Angela Thompson Smith, David Moorehouse, lyn Buchannon, etc. etc. etc. It's always been interwined with RV. This is probably simply because people interested in anomalies are interested in more than just one kind (psi), and the UFO field is huge and presents a lot of targets to choose from. The temptation to take a shot at it is just too strong to ignore. Hell, there's really no reason not to do it, as long as it's kept in the proper perspective and as long as everyone remembers that, like I said in the paragraph above, RV has limitations that preclude making too many assumptions and generalizations based upon RV-derived information. That's how I feel about it, anyway. others can do whatever they want, but I think doing to much of it and/or taking it too seriously is a mistake. Warm Regards, Don Reply | Forward

#1846

From: "Eva " Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 1:33 am Subject: Re: Symbols, Aliens, RV-process k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Don wrote: > That was kind of my point, how WOULD you > know? If the whole damn session > seems metaphorical or symbolic, I think > I'd rather just admit that I probably > missed the target. When you start trying > too hard to make the data fit the > target, you know you're doing it, I think. > I'd rather concentrate on trying > to get clearer data, instead. This is an interesting concept. I think from time to time I hear someone talk about the dangers of trying to overanalyze a session. But I don't know of any data that shows that such a thing is a problem. For instance, if I go through the process of analyzing each and every bit of info in my session and theorize on how it might either literally or symbolically represent the true target, is there danger in that? Will I somehow be teaching my sub to be lazy? Is there any data to suggest that I will be teaching my sub to be lazy? After all, nothing really beats the thrill of nailing the target head on. SO if I don't nail the target head on, should I be chastizing my sub for poor performance and strictly telling it NONONO!! You are a BAD sub! Will that technique impart some kind of advantage or does it simply appeal more to certain personality types (ex = military)? Or is there more advantage in scrutinizing all aspects carefully and learning more about how your sub works? Or does that technique simply appeal more the certain personality types? (ex = new age types). I think we need to be careful about how our personalities might effect our beliefs about rv. As far as I can see, the only obvious danger of overanalyzing is if you start to delude yourself into thinking that you are a more useful viewer than you really are. But I would suggest that delusion is a matter of personality and is unlikely to be defeated by one simple rule anyway. As for any further assumptions about rv methods, I would suggest that it's mechanisms seem to be rather foreign to conscious logic and attempts to use conscious logic to make assumptions about it may be a mistake. -E Reply | Forward

#1847

From: "PJ Gaenir " Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 2:58 am Subject: Re: Symbols, Aliens, RV-process dennanm Offline Offline Send Email Send Email While I am sitting up waiting (likely for a couple hours) for my little girl to be SOUNDLY asleep so I can make real noise getting the stocking bag and two santa gifts out of the upper closet cupboard :-) I might as well email... > I think every time you are exposed to a new > kind of target, even something very mundane, > it sort of adds to your > subconcious knowledge base or something. > This is a process, or a concept, > that I don't really have the words to explain. > It's like the term "ideation" > (the combination of thoughts and feelings). I believe so. At least, if one GETS the data. E.g., I've had in my practice sessions, two of the same target (Kobe '95 highway collapse), and two similar ones (Kobe '95 bridge partial collapse; AK '64 Bridge partial collapse) and the ironic thing is, I seem to get targets that are bridges mostly fine, but not the target that was the collapsed thing. I assume there is some feeling that adds to that Jungian-Stew of info and changes it, and I'm not yet familiar with it, but the minute I nail it, from then on, I will be I think. > The same thing goes for recognizing new > kinds of data coming from the SC and > learning how to use it. If you're a naturally > visual person, it can be very > gratifying - hell, to me it's downright exciting - > to start getting data in > new and unfamiliar ways. What's odd is that I am extremely visual, and some of my RV data is definitely visual, but the vast majority is conceptual instead. E.g, in sessions where I notice most people might get something that amounts to 'person' or 'door' or even the better 'person going through door', I'm more likely to get concepts-in-series, like, "a closed or safe feeling; an opening or opportunity; a moving through or out into." This might be just my lack of development, if the target is a person going through a door (just an example), but I find it interesting that stuff which could so easily BE visual with me, is not! > I remember the first time the sense of smell really > came through for me. I don't recall ever having smell in a session (yet). A couple times I've been aware of smell as a concept, accurately, long ago - but never really SMELLED it the way I might for example SEE something or HEAR something. > And I think it would be a huge mistake > to RV these kinds of targets all the time, > or to take the info you get from > them extremely seriously, because of the > lack of verification. I find that if I were to be objective about my average accuracy% on targets, that when I have a target or aspect of one without feedback, that while my critical mind grades bigtime on the ruthless side, that subjectively, I tend to 'assume' vastly more accuracy on stuff, than the truly feedbackable stuff should give me right to do so. In short, my psyche believes I'm "right" when in doubt. But given how often I'm wrong on the stuff I have evidence for, the psyche is being quite a dreamer. ;-) > here lately, it's been happening a lot for > me - a lot more than it used to, so I'm > hoping it indicates that I've moved > up to a newer and higher level of ability. I would say so, personally, not that I'm the expert Joe is for advice lol, but I think it represents a much higher processing level than usual. > That was kind of my point, how WOULD you know? > If the whole damn session > seems metaphorical or symbolic, I think I'd > rather just admit that I probably > missed the target. When you start trying too > hard to make the data fit the > target, you know you're doing it, I think. > I'd rather concentrate on trying > to get clearer data, instead. I waffle a bit here; as far as viewer understanding of themselves, I think a fully-symbolic session (if it was! - I mean then you get into, are you just allegorizing a wrong session? :-)) can be useful for learning about oneself. However, as far as RV proper goes (with other people involved), then it goes back to the allegory question, or does-the-analyst-just-have-psi question; for objective reasons it's a bit of a stretch to deal with any "fully" symbolic session. I mean you would never know until you had some degree of feedback or a huge amount of target context, for example, that the session was really 'the religious nature of martin luther king' instead of the TRAIN your entire session described (but it was 'heavy', and 'connected', and .... LOL!). > The temptation to take a shot at it is just too > strong to ignore. If I could get farther through my ~900 target pool, whittle it down somewhat, then I could toss in some new targets. I need at least an extra 12 hours a day, and that doesn't even start on making time for RV! Warm Regards, Palyne Reply | Forward

#1868

From: "Rocheleh" Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 7:01 am Subject: Re: Symbols, Aliens, RV-process rochelehhakt... Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 >I did this exact thing while viewing a target from the Larger Universe >website last night! Would you tell me the ID or something of it? I want to do Pru's targets - I've already done one, which I've even translated (I will send it to the list sometime later, this machine doesn't have a floppy drive so I'll have to pick another one) and I don't want this to influence the rest of my sessions. (Well, I don't know how doable it is, but if someone posts something that has an online target's feedback in it, could that someone put it in the subject line of the message? Or leave "spoiler space"? I guess the first one to forget this will be me when I send that session over...) Thanks, Rachel Reply | Forward

#1871

From: "Eva " Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 11:30 pm Subject: Re: Symbols, Aliens, RV-process k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Or maybe it would be wise to just not say where you got it from if it's not relevent or obvious. Most targets tend to recycle anyway. If you don't say where it came from or how recently you did it, then there's no telling where it will come up next. -E > something that has an online target's feedback in it, could that > someone put it in the subject line of the message? Reply | Forward

#1872

From: "David Humphries" Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:49 pm Subject: Re: Symbols, Aliens, RV-process a_healey56 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Rachel, I had to go back in time (or, to the bottom of my inbox) to February 16, 1942 to find this post. How's that for remote viewing? :-) There are 50 of them there, so you won't run out soon. I can't tell from your post if you wanted to know something about the specific target I viewed, or if you just wanted to know where they are. Dave

// 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