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 : 1883-1883 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1883?)
23:31:12
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1883

From: "David " Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:09 am Subject: Re: Thoughts, 2003 jam1433 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Many years ago I said publicly that what you touch > in RV, touches you back. It was theory then. Now I'm > finally practicing (though not as much as I should), > and wondering more about it. On especially close > targets, I have felt a sense of internal intimacy > with them. Maybe it's not just projection. PJ, that is something that has been on my mind recently as well. I wonder about some of the targets I have attempted over the past few years, especially ones involving God, Jesus, Buddha, etc. Over the past few years I have to admit that I am a better peron than I was a few years ago. I am much more caring, open-minded,loving, accepting, and sensitive than before. I have often wondered if my involvement in RV may have played a part in my change. It is intriguing to think that the targets we connect with during sessions can bring about positive changes within us. David Moore (working the night shift) pjrv : Messages : 1904-1941 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1904?)
23:31:42
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1904

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 10:39 pm Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 Rich_crv Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > "Eva " wrote: > The larger the search area and the less info you have, the more > difficult it would be to rv it's location. Most if not all > successful rv results of location happen when there is a limited > probable search area and/or a lot of other info known about the > location and/or a lot of resources available to follow up on any info > that is obtained. But RV is used (we are told) to find missing people who are often dead and not being moved around. Granted, these cases usually imply that the missing person is believed to be within a certain area as opposed to anywhree in the world. But then, why could that not be agreed to, at least for starters or a a variable to be tested. If the treasure is limited to say one specific county or city vs teh whole country/ world, does that just mean that less work would be required? I recall reading all sorts of claims of how viewers "see" the surrounding areas, move about great distances, describe cities 50 miles to the northeast........ jeez even go to Mars and Saturn and the Galactic Federation Hq with the Golden Boys..... They describe the weather conditions, if its day or night.......how about a movement exercise to describe the elevation of the sun at the target site at thetiem of the viewing? Does RV really need a Groucho Marx type hint? :) OK! So restrict the area to be "searched". When the hit rate reaches WOW status, raise the bar. Find the limit. Rich Reply | Forward

#1905

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 10:53 pm Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 Rich_crv Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Shelia wrote > If you were using CRV you may start with a regular RV session that > includes in a later stage a dowsing component. But in instances like > Joe had in his book of looking for the little girl in the woods (where > there were few landmarks) one would depend primarily upon dowsing - > and his own intuitive knowing of whether the child was alive or not. > I think it probably depends upon the situation, the method one prefers > to use, and the problem one is attempting to solve. > One case I worked several years ago started with a session on the last > known location (an airport) just to determine how the person left that > locale -- and what shape they were in when they left. I see no problem with combining techniques as long as that is part of the demo/test protocol. Heck....CRV then dowse.... then scry..... then ouija ..... whatever it takes .... whatever is in the protocol. Thate would also be a way to zdero in on the target wouldnt it? Focus on the person placing the target at its location. Who are thay? Where do they live? Where did they come from? Where did they go after placing the target? Follow the person! > I've worked with several people on honing skills with objects. In > preparing feedback I took great care to set the objects aside from all > other items except the table they were on with a dark cloth underneath > and a white wall behind them. It's nearly impossible to get some > viewers to describe the object *without* winking about! With some, I'd > get a description of half the stuff in the room -- and the object got > lost in the room with only a few noticeable descriptors that one could > attribute to the object distinctively. Learning to focus on what is > actually tasked rather than take a stroll through the park is not easy. Exactly, and that seems to be where all the rationalzation comes in so many times. "I described the glass and the telephone and the desk but missed the target tape dispenser." But whose glass and desk and telephone did you describe? Maybe it was a bowl and a radio and a table. > > How did Ed and Glenn find Amelia Earhart's airplane crash site? :) > > Have you seen any news media about the plane being found? I didn't > think Glen had even published his project info on that one yet. LOL. I just wanted to see who was paying attention. Rich Reply | Forward

#1906

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 11:24 pm Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 Rich_crv Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > PJ wrote: > Ah Rich, you are my dark side sometimes.... That's why I only surf at night, after the sun goes down without any mirrors in the room..... and why I'm no good at scrying. > > if its really dowsing, why does > > everyone refer to finding > > lost people as an RV activity? > > You sometimes tend to define RV, and the field at large, by the > elements least expert (or most vocal - and why ARE those so often the > same?!), which only makes it worse. Oh, wait! OPTIMISM, my 2003 > resolution. Mmmmnnnn. OK. The field has great potential! :-) Yes, that's usually to see who will make distinctions. The rest of the time its just my imprecision, ignorance, AOL, etc :) > But the goal in the TV show Joe was in that apparently began > this was simply to describe the location (not NAME or FIND the > location) that the outbounder was at. Well, my goal would be to find the object using as many RVers and sessions as required, working together or individually or supplying data to a common analyst or group.... whatever it takes. > Now if the target had been, "Find this person," then that would be > dowsing. > But, "Describe this person's current environment in enough detail > and/or unique specifics that they can be located" would be RV. > Whether that goal could be pulled off by any viewer or on any given > target is another story, but as long as it's focused on describing as > opposed to locating, it is in the RV camp. OK, lets locate the object, then describe it, or vice versa. :) > Dowsing is a 'tool' in some RV methods, but in reality, I've met darn > few who can dowse worth a damn. Joe points out it is its own field, > its own skill, and just as complex, worthwhile, yet long term > discipline-oriented as RV is. As I mentioned in another post. How;s come teaching dowsing isnt as popular as RV? It certainly seems more useful. > Well first off, people may be easier to find than objects, unless the > object is a large nuclear sub or something LOL. A lot remains to be > nailed down on this but it certainly does appear that some targets > either have more "information" than others, or we simply perceive > more of what they have within ourselves for who-know-what reason. OK, so we place the object in a nuclear sub and only require that its location be described as being in the sub. :) I can live with that. > Oh, but the main point is, you just described two radically different > things. > Finding anything is locational. > Outbounder (beacon) RV is DESCRIPTIVE. ok > > How does "describe the location?" as a > > tasking against a feedback photo > > differ from "sdjk fdsjk hd klsdjj" against an > > object in an unspecified location? > > Mostly by the difference in kjjasdyfnqwer. Rephrase please. Never mind. Its well known that one cannot RV in Polish. > > If one can nail > > the target why can one not proceed to > > describe the surroundings > > Wouldn't nailing the target of a practice photo generally include > describing the immediate (photographed) surroundings? If the immediate surroundings are not in the photo, how does one know? If it is a verbal tasking, same thing. > > Why not include a Ouija team to "prove" Ouija? > > Well if it were to be done, who else would do it? :-) I was wondering if anyone has ever used any form of psi while someone was ouijaing to determine who is at the other end of the board. Rich Reply | Forward

#1907

From: "PJ Gaenir " Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 12:10 am Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 dennanm Offline Offline Send Email Send Email > That's why I only surf at night, after > the sun goes down without any mirrors > in the room..... > and why I'm no good at scrying. Did you ever read 'The Keep'? Not to be confused with the hideous movie of the same name, which borrowed the characters and outline - but totally changed the story and the whole point of it and the ending etc. etc. It was a good book (F Paul Wilson I believe). > Yes, that's usually to see who > will make distinctions. Are you saying you just go around jerkin' chains? I will get you for that one day. :-) > Well, my goal would be to find the object What object? Is the object worth finding? The personal 'vestment' a viewer has (psychologically) in a target or session makes a huge amount of difference. If you find a target that is a missing, endangered child, or that is a LOTTAMONEY that I get if I find it, I might go looking! But I wouldn't care enough to bother with John Doe hiding 'something somewhere'. By the way in 'The Dowsers Workbook', Tom Graves actually hid a couple of things -- one in CA one in the UK -- for dowsers to find and even showed a sketch and described what it was. > using as many RVers and sessions > as required, working together or > individually or supplying data to a common > analyst or group.... whatever it takes. Figuring out what it takes will itself be a monumental project. I'm so glad you've volunteered to lead this Rich! And to support you I'll set up something on the web so people can volunteer for various roles and anything else you need. You work out all the details and the doing it of course. When do we start? (Am I already getting you for that, I wonder... lol....) > OK, lets locate the object, then describe it, or vice versa. We don't need to describe it. If we locate it, we'll KNOW what it looks like. :-) MORAL OF THE STORY: If your dowsing's good enough, you might not even need RV. An important P.S. though: RV could vastly narrow down the digging in the wrong place if it could describe something specific about 'where' it was hidden. :-) > As I mentioned in another post. How;s come > teaching dowsing isnt as popular > as RV? It certainly seems more useful. I am as much interested in dowsing as RV. It's just that alas, so few people share the interest, that I don't talk about it much (or maybe we ALL think that, so all don't talk about it much!). But then, I don't teach anything. Teaching dowsing isn't so popular because great dowsers have written lots of free books on it, there are free or low cost societies in every country dedicated to it, and any fool can try it on their own. Well, only the latter applies to RV, but people are easily convinced otherwise. RV is still considered a sort of SECRET KNOWLEDGE! But, the SRV manual is online (and audio files and more), the CRV manual is online, TDS (Calabrese) is putting their methodology online, the HRVG group has their methods online -- well sort of, I think you have to join something actually, but at least it's not a $4500 and air fare secret like RV methods used to be -- and McMoneagle has a variety of books, at least three of which outline the Nike "Just Do It." method anybody can begin with. Given all that, it is hardly SECRET anymore, and I imagine that over time... eventually.... enough people will get competent on their OWN, without some official method, that the general public will get less willing to pay thousands for training. Then, maybe they will teach dowsing instead, LOL. I don't know. > OK, so we place the object in a nuclear > sub and only require that its > location be described as being in the sub. :) > I can live with that. LOL. I was joking about the sub. I just mean that some targets seem to have more impact on a viewer than others, and/or, are more unique (and hence usually accurate data is more valuable). If we're describing a picture frame buried in the desert, you are unlikely to get a whole helluva lot of value from that. If the location and the thing hidden are more... interesting and valuable, that's different -- just for the psychology aspect. > Never mind. Its well known that one cannot RV in Polish. I can't even RV in English half the time. Never mind. > > > If one can nail > > > the target why can one not proceed to > > > describe the surroundings > > > > Wouldn't nailing the target of a practice > > photo generally include > > describing the immediate (photographed) surroundings? > > If the immediate surroundings are not in the > photo, how does one know? > If it is a verbal tasking, same thing. Be clear, here, what is the point? If you have feedback, you have feedback (even if the viewer doesn't see it). Are you saying, "Can the viewer describe what is probably so, but outside feedback?" Certainly, everybody does that regularly, don't you? If that isn't the question, what is? > > > Why not include a Ouija team to "prove" Ouija? > > > > Well if it were to be done, who else would do it? :-) > > I was wondering if anyone has ever used > any form of psi while someone > was ouijaing to determine who is at the > other end of the board. To DETERMINE? Ye Gods! My skeptic's heart goes out to you Rich. You are losing your wariness or something. What the hell would psi be expected to DETERMINE about the nature of the Ouija process, or even who/what was 'on the other end'? I've had spontaneous experiences that were 100000x more powerful than most average psi sessions -- would you trust those to tell you about the cat-eyed lizard guys who fly the glowing red-orange orbs? :-) Or the big blonde super-blue eyed guys who beat the crud out of you if you get lucid while they've got you? Would you trust an RV session -- a mostly intangible, often confusing, often piecemeal experience -- over a fully conscious, wide awake experience of an ordinary person? Why or why not? What makes RV such a grand and glorious thing that it can 'determine' WHO an entity is or WHETHER the entity is legitimate, which would require determining, as a side-effect, whether the person believing they experience the entity is having a 'legit' experience vs. some kind of hallucination (and isn't that legit 'to them' - and what exactly is the difference?)? Do you see where I'm going with this? I didn't think so. :-) I'm getting a little lost too, I admit -- But WHY THE HECK are you so willing to trust, or even consider, RV to determine 'who' a Ouija entity is, when you are so damned reserved about everything ELSE in RV, most of which is far less esoteric and subjective than that!? OK I've had my fun, I think I'll go to bed now. :-) PJ Reply | Forward

#1909

From: "intuitwolf " Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 3:17 pm Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 intuitwolf Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Rich said: > > using as many RVers and sessions > > as required, working together or > > individually or supplying data to a common > > analyst or group.... whatever it takes. > PJ responded: > Figuring out what it takes will itself be a monumental project. > I'm so glad you've volunteered to lead this Rich! And to support you > I'll set up something on the web so people can volunteer for various > roles and anything else you need. You work out all the details and > the doing it of course. When do we start? And I add: oh Rich you definitely have just "bought the farm!" It IS doable though. I'm just hoping you have the patience, time, and organizational skills you are going to need. Good luck fella - next time you'll know better than to pick on PJ :-) Shelia Reply | Forward

#1914

From: greenmn900... Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 12:01 pm Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 greenmn900... Send Email Send Email PJ, Rich, and E., > Rich Wrote: > if its really dowsing, why does > everyone refer to finding > lost people as an RV activity?" > PJ Wrote: > Finding a lost person could be done > in a variety of ways including search > engine browsing. Everything is in the details. Yep. While RV is usually acknowledged as being difficult to use successfully in finding missing persons/objects, it CAN and HAS been done. But the specific method you use would really be beside the point. You would be demonstrating proof-in-principle of psi. But without also testing other methods like scrying, dowsing, tarot cards, etc., that's about the only thing you would be demonstrating (other than potential for the practical application of psi). Hell, technically-speaking, if the other methods are tested and are successful under the doubleblind RV protocols, Joe M. would be willing to call it RV anyway.lol! > Rich Wrote: > Why is finding a person at LA airport an > example of RV? > PJ Wrote: > "You misinterpret, I think -- DESCRIBING a person's > surroundings so well that, as she happened to be at > LAX, it was obvious that the location was probably > LAX (and bear in mind we didn't have the universe to > choose from here, the show and outbounder were IN Los > Angeles) is RV, it's just good RV." I'm not sure I understand this conversation. Isn't it pretty obvious that in the above example, someone is taking the description of a location provided by an RVer and using THAT to find the missing person? It just a practical application of RV-derived information. > PJ Wrote: > "Now if the target had been, "Find this person," > then that would be dowsing." I don't know if the distinction is that clear-cut. Dowsing can be used to give desrciptives, just like RV, through a series of binary questions: "Is the person in a building? Is the person wearing a blue shirt? Is the person in a suburban environment?", etc. By the same token, RV can occassionally give very detailed information abour a specific physical location - the name of the city or street, etc. So can scrying. Dowsing, the way it's usually used, gives a specific point on a map or in the physical environment, but it all depends on the questions you ask yourself. I don't think there is really that much of a difference between the two. Dowsing is really just a more forced-choice method of arriving at information regarding a target than RV is. > PJ Wrote: > "Well first off, people may be easier to find > than objects, unless the object is a large > nuclear sub or something LOL. A lot remains to be > nailed down on this but it certainly does appear > that some targets either have more "information" > than others, or we simply perceive more of what > they have within ourselves for who-know-what reason." I think it has to do with the degree of entropy involved with the site, the degree of activity, I believe that in most cases, lifeforms are easier becuase they give off a greater energy signature that inanimate objects, and also what the individual viewers' personal interests are. Best Regards, Don Reply | Forward

#1916

From: greenmn900... Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 12:45 pm Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 greenmn900... Send Email Send Email Rich, > You Wrote: > "I was wondering if anyone has ever used > any form of psi while someone was ouijaing > to determine who is at the other end of the board." Well, I would assume the people actually using thew board would be using psi, and one of their most frequent questions is "Who are we talking to?". But the answers they get regarding this question tends to be as nonsensical as most of the other information that seems to come through ouija boards. But depending on what the real answer to the question is, the RV information could theoretically come from any number of places and then be loaded with different answers. If the tasker believes it's demons, the RVer may get that. If the people using the board believe they are communicating with ghosts, the RVer may get that. If the RVer is going to read a book about Ouija boards at some point in the future, the information could arise from that. If the true answer is that the information is coming from the subconsciouses of the people using the board, what kind of RV data could tell you that? If the communication really DOES involve something demonic, would the real answers be camoflaged by these demonic entities - obscuring the true source and thereby hiding the fact of their existence along with their motives? I don't know if any of it works this way, just speculating. But I see no reason why it couldn't. And after all of the RVing on this matter, how do you get feedback - ask the ouija board? lol! This would be akin to RVing aliens and then attempting to draw conclusions based on the RV data, and I think it would be just as generally pointless. I've wondered along these lines myself, like what if I RVed somone having an OBE? I haven't done it yet but I plan to someday. I think it, too, will be generally pointless in every aspect but one, and that's in the experiental aspect. In that aspect, I think these kinds of targets hold some value for the individual RVer. Best Regards, Don Reply | Forward

#1918

From: greenmn900... Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 1:09 pm Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 greenmn900... Send Email Send Email Hi PJ and Rich, > PJ Wrote: > "We don't need to describe it. If we locate it, > we'll KNOW what it looks like. :-) MORAL OF THE > STORY: If your dowsing's good enough, you might > not even need RV. An important P.S. though: RV > could vastly narrow down the digging in the wrong > place if it could describe something specific about > 'where' it was hidden. :-)" By the same token, if your RV is good enough, you don't need to dowse! lol! RV could also tell you some important, related things that dowsing probably wouldn't unless you asked your pendulum the question directly (and had a really good topo map, lol!). Things that may effect being able to physically reach the missing target, like what if it's at the bottom of a city lagoon, or perched at the edge of an active volcano, or sitting on top of one of the world's tallest mountains, or buried under 50 feet of frozen, avalanche-material, or hidden in the back of a cave, just behind a hibernating thousand-pound Grizzly Bear? LOL! What if the missing object is a rare piece of art that has already been accidentally destroyed and is now rendered valueless? Would you still want to search for it? Dowsing won't indicate those kinds of details, but RV can. Or maybe it's booby-trapped so that when you start digging, you and the target are both destroyed - ala "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" or something. What if there's an insane gentleman living within twenty yards of where the object is buried and he loves to practice with his deer rifle on trespassers (or anyone he sees in general)? RV would hopefully give you a warning about that. Dowsing won't. You know, this whole damn thing is starting to sound way too dangerous to me. I don't think I want any part of it. Thanks alot Rich, for suggesting such a reckless, hair-brained, dangerous scheme! lol! Best Regards, Don Reply | Forward

#1924

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 11:02 pm Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 Rich_crv Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Don wrote > I would assume the people actually using > the board would be using psi, > and one of their most frequent questions > is "Who are we talking to?". But > the answers they get regarding this question > tends to be as nonsensical as > most of the other information that seems > to come through ouija boards. That is very curious..... both the quantity of non-sensical info and the responses to the question. > But depending on what the real answer to the > question is, the RV information > could theoretically come from any number of > places and then be loaded with > different answers. If the tasker believes > it's demons, the RVer may get > that. If the people using the board believe > they are communicating with > ghosts, the RVer may get that. If the RVer is > going to read a book about > Ouija boards at some point in the future, the > information could arise from > that. If the true answer is that the information > is coming from the > subconsciouses of the people using the board, > what kind of RV data could tell > you that? Exactly my feelings on the taskings involving ETs and the Golden Boys, etc. The classic case being Courtney Brown's and Ed Dames' UFO/ET stuff.... especially Berown's prediction that Clinton would announce the existence of ETs and a woman would play a significant part...... a perfect description of the movie CONTACT. > And after all of the RVing on this matter, > how do you get feedback - ask the > ouija board? lol! This would be akin to RVing > aliens and then attempting to > draw conclusions based on the RV data, and > I think it would be just as > generally pointless. I've wondered along these > lines myself, like what if I > RVed somone having an OBE? I haven't done it > yet but I plan to someday. I > think it, too, will be generally pointless in > every aspect but one, and > that's in the experiental aspect. In that > aspect, I think these kinds of > targets hold some value for the individual RVer. Yeah its a pretty far out idea but not too close to the edge. I would wager that if it was done once with one answer then it would be done by someone else who would get a different answer as is typical in psi derived data --- as in TWA 800 RV data. Rich Reply | Forward

#1926

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 11:07 pm Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 Rich_crv Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Don wrote > You know, this whole damn thing is starting to sound way too dangerous to me. > I don't think I want any part of it. Thanks alot Rich, for suggesting such > a reckless, hair-brained, dangerous scheme! lol! Hey, c'mon now. We're not making a movie out of this. But .... on second thought..... Indiana Jones and the RV of Doom. Reminds me of The Father Of Remote Viewing's trip to Alaska and his Mother OF All UFO Encounters. Rich Reply | Forward

#1941

From: greenmn900... Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 10:39 am Subject: Re: Re: Thoughts; 2003 greenmn900... Send Email Send Email Hi Rich, > You Wrote: > "Exactly my feelings on the taskings involving > ETs and the Golden Boys, etc. The > classic case being > Courtney Brown's and Ed Dames' UFO/ET stuff.... > especially Brown's prediction that Clinton would > announce the existence of ETs and a woman > would play a significant part...... a > perfect description of the movie CONTACT." That's the thing with just about all esoteric targets, even if the RVer is working on a specific UFO sighting or abduction case, they might get enough site-specific information to let you know they were on-target. But the real information, the stuff people really want to know about, is never verifiable. After I did some UFO and alien targets, I became a little suspicious about the way my information tallied with a lot of what's out there in the UFO literature. Did I really get true information? Or did I just RV what many people believe about the phenomenon, or possibly what I going to be reading about it in, what was from that perpective, the future? Or maybe a lot of what researchers in the UFO field believe is actually correct and that's why their beliefs so closely resembled my RV data? I'll probably never know for sure. Warm Regards, Don pjrv : Messages : 1881-1981 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1881?)
23:32:44
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#1881

From: "PJ Gaenir " Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:04 pm Subject: Thoughts; 2003 dennanm Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Hi you guys. I've been pretty busy and feel a bit tuned out lately, but have enjoyed what I've seen go by here. Over on another list it was suggested maybe someone bury something somewhere in the US and the viewer to find it won something. the funny part was this was in the context of 'proving' RV. It ain't RV, it's dowsing, but the funny part is, that ain't enough motivation. I suggest they bury several uniquely formed bars' worth of solid gold -- THEN it might be something worth finding! Rereading some stargate archives briefly recently to find something, I came across a post that made me laugh harder than the first time I saw it. I realized that it nicely summed up the only excuse anybody in RV ever really needs -- totally unprovable, yet unarguable. Next time someone says, "Why don't you / your school / your company demonstrate RV in some way?" the response can be, "I'm sorry, but I cannot take time out from finding lost children to respond to such trivia [and aren't YOU quite the cad to be asking!]." On another list someone suggested psychically viewing an 'alternate self'. (Actually they said RV, but it couldn't get feedback even 'eventually', and that's part of any decent 'RV' protocol.) I mused on this and then started wondering if, in a rather buddhistic way, EVERYONE isn't technically an alternate self. Maybe what we are connected to is about attention, as much as soul-genetics. Maybe if we RV a person we become 'linked' with them just a little -- I have always felt that way about RVing places, so why not people, even moreso? I sometimes spontaneously 'sit in on' the identity of someone else, and I always rather assumed that these were probably 'aspects of self' or something, me and Eva were PEMing about this recently and it got stuck in my head for awhile. What if, like some theories on synchronicity, the 'connections' are made by how we internally organize things, and not by any quality in the thing itself? Many years ago I said publicly that what you touch in RV, touches you back. It was theory then. Now I'm finally practicing (though not as much as I should), and wondering more about it. On especially close targets, I have felt a sense of internal intimacy with them. Maybe it's not just projection. I've started my third RV lab book now. They are getting better, which is to say, more sessions and less mess, lol. I figure by the 4th one they will finally actually look like something halfway organized. They are getting more fused, though; I have a variety of 'types' of psi (some exercises, some methods) and dowsing and meditations and journaling, which I prefer to put in together as I consider this all a joined, "Evolving Process of Me" and not just a hobby. I have some specific 'methods' sessions that I have in page protectors in a ring binder, but I like having much of my life in the lab book, a bit like a magical diary. I've been thinking about RV vs. psi lately. An odd thing, you know, I don't mind tuning into a person "unofficially" and can often get quite a psi sense of them. Yet, I haven't had people at the focus of my RV target pool until recently, and only sporadically. I find most the session is fighting the 'aol' of it being a 'person' - which is sort of a decision one has to make prior to deciding to go ahead for person-specific information; half the session at least is usually my attempt to make a person into a bridge, LOL, because I don't want to ASSUME it is a person. :-) I might make myself a pool that is nothing but people or people- situations/events, which would carry the frontloading of it being a person(s), but would have a wide variety of options both physical and conceptual. I should mix animals in there too I guess... Anyway what I was going to say initially was, in RV, I am lucky to get there IS a person let alone detail, but "unofficially" on my own time, without official RV, in my general 'healing' or 'meditation' modality, it's a different story. I've never put any serious blocks on this because I figure it's likely archetypal, e.g., as likely to be simply my projection as anything legitimately about them, though it often turns out to be so, and my reason for doing so (in case anybody wants to kvetch about morals) is always archetypal -- e.g., if I sense a "conflict geometry" between myself and that person, I will usually do a meditation to try and resolve that. But I am not 'expecting' it to be factual, provable, etc., so I really don't care. I wonder if this is just an issue of putting expectations or parameters on the experience; if my RV would flow as easily if it had the no-expectations clause attached that ordinary tuning in does. To me, RV has expectations built in; my personal meditations don't. When my frantic work schedule slows down in mid-late Feb or so, one thing I'm planning to do is set up a good dowsing workout. I have tons of targets that are not only really good RV targets, but they've got date and/or location info (sometimes even time of day) as well. When I get it planned out, I will post my workout and targets so anybody else interested in dowsing can play too. Well it's new year's eve. I can't believe another year has passed. My dad once told me that adults work for the weekend and that's why time goes so fast. Someone else told me sense of time in retrospect is mostly filled with novelty, so the less novelty in one's thinking or life, the more time seemed unnoticed as a solid thing when looking back. When I was in 5th grade I mused one day -- after crying myself into an altered state over a grade on my report card, LOL! -- that time really WAS going faster, and I had this image of some giant god in the sky just spinning the wheel faster or something. Anyway, there it goes, there it went, it's over and done now, and in an hour my time it will be the year 2003. My personal goals for this year are all about lifestyle. I want to have a vastly healthier lifestyle with better food, more water, more exercise. I want to spend more time with my little girl. I want to get a much more regular daily schedule of some personal time, to include more meditations, and more RV and other forms of psi and energy work. And I want to once and for all resolve a lot of stuff that has been hanging over my head for many years -- some are financial obligations, some are work or volunteer committments, some are stuff around the house (my kitchen has been half painted for 1.5 years, I mean come ON, lol!). Mostly, my goal for 2003 is "optimism". I want to work on deliberately keeping the faith; holding onto a positive expectation that no matter what the trivia of daily matters, all is well in the world, all is well in me, things are as they should be, and the best can manifest any moment. Hope you have some grand plans too. Best regards, PJ Reply | Forward

#1882

From: "Eva " Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:48 pm Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > I find most > the session is fighting the 'aol' of it > being a 'person' - which is > sort of a decision one has to make prior > to deciding to go ahead for > person-specific information; half the > session at least is usually my > attempt to make a person into a bridge, > LOL, because I don't want to > ASSUME it is a person. :-) Yeah, I have the same trouble with water. I am slowly getting over it. But for the longest time, I had to keep wondering if was really water or some symbolic thing, or me jumping to conclusions. I don't know why water did that to me. But in the end it comes down to letting go of worrying about being wrong. So you say 'person' and are wrong? Then you can think about how the booboo may have occured. Maybe you will be wrong the next 5 times too. But you will get it eventually. I think sometimes (if not always), the only way to learn is to make the mistake and see what the mistake feels like and then get it right and see what getting it right feels like. Only that way can you see the difference. The hard part is really just getting that laid back attitude. > I might make myself a pool that is > nothing but people or people- > situations/events, which would carry the > frontloading of it being a > person(s), but would have a wide variety > of options both physical and > conceptual. I should mix animals in there too I guess... I did that a while just for fun. I just took some 3 by 5 cards and wrote names of famous interesting people, a deceased relative or two (don't ask me why it seems less like snooping if they are dead!), and my dog. I shuffled the cards and stuck em in a drawer. Occasionally, I would run a session and then afterwards I would draw a card. The funniest one was when I got my dog. I totally didn't know it was him, but I described a hairy faced guy with a big nose. He was outside by grass and a fence, etc. He was doing a lot of watching and looking around. It was a really good session and I laughed so hard when I drew the card and it was my pooch who was out in the yard, hehe. > Someone else told me sense of time in retrospect > is mostly filled with novelty, so the less > novelty in one's thinking > or life, the more time seemed unnoticed as > a solid thing when looking back. That's a wonderful concept that I had not thought of. But yes, it would explain a lot including why time seems to move so slowly for children. > My personal goals for this year are all about lifestyle. [...] > And I want to once and for all resolve a lot of stuff [...] > Mostly, my goal for 2003 is "optimism". [...] Well JEEEEEZZZZZ!!! If you get all THAT done in a year, you may be ready to ascend to heaven in the next, LOL! A lot of that stuff is more attainable in step by step processes and some of that stuff basically requires a step by step process. I have been working on a lot of that stuff myself and sometimes it just does not go as fast as one might hope or want. I guess part of the whole idea is to learn to appreciate the process because the process never really ends anyway. -E Reply | Forward

#1884

From: "Glyn" Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:30 am Subject: RE: Thoughts; 2003 gebega Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi PJ and all, > (my kitchen has been half painted for 1.5 years, I mean come ON, lol!). Mmmmm, parts of my kitchen need painting too, and I intend(ed) to finish it over these holidays..but what's the betting I don't get round to it? :-). Maybe half-painted kitchens are something that all RVers have... :-). After much deliberation I have decided that my personal goals for 2003 are: To lose 2 stone of flab so I can get into my favourite long black dress in time for a relative's birthday party in March. To do at least two RV sessions every week and to stop worrying about what RV method I should or should not be using or whether this or that additional training might help me, but consolidate what I have learned over the last four years and now concentrate on working towards improving my viewing against my own standards. To try and appreciate all that I am and have achieved to date, rather than hanker after what might have been and what may never be, and to cherish my friends and loved ones and show them I care, so that one day I won't have to say "if only".. And before I get too maudlin....I have the same goal as you PJ...."Optimism" is the word! :-)). Happy New Year everyone! Glyn Reply | Forward

#1889

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 8:31 pm Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 Rich_crv Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Over on another list it was suggested maybe someone bury something > somewhere in the US and the viewer to find it won something. the > funny part was this was in the context of 'proving' RV. It ain't RV, > it's dowsing, but the funny part is, that ain't enough motivation. I > suggest they bury several uniquely formed bars' worth of solid gold -- > THEN it might be something worth finding! _I Raised hand glyph? I am not finished yet and I have more lead balloons lined up for 2003. :) But seriously.... if its really dowsing, why does everyone refer to finding lost people as an RV activity? Why is finding a person at LA airport an example of RV? What are the detail differences between finding an item that someone has placed or mis-placed and finding a lost person or in doing an outbounder tasking? How does "describe the location?" as a tasking against a feedback photo differ from "sdjk fdsjk hd klsdjj" against an object in an unspecified location? How often does one get a practice target that is some object/etc where the feedback does not include the actual location of the object? If one can nail the target why can one not proceed to describe the surroundings........ the famous "winking about" process...... or the great movement above the target process? So to be technically correct, does the "test" have to include an RV part to describe the object being sought via RV, and then find it via dowsing? Why not include a Ouija team to "prove" Ouija? ....an OBE team to prove OBE? .... a coin flipping team as a control? ....an ARV team to zero in ... east of the Mississippi or west?, etc How did Ed and Glenn find Amelia Earhart's airplane crash site? :) > Rereading some stargate archives briefly recently to find something, > I came across a post that made me laugh harder than the first time I > saw it. I realized that it nicely summed up the only excuse anybody > in RV ever really needs -- totally unprovable, yet unarguable. Next > time someone says, "Why don't you / your school / your company > demonstrate RV in some way?" the response can be, "I'm sorry, but I > cannot take time out from finding lost children to respond to such > trivia [and aren't YOU quite the cad to be asking!]." As I said....... Rich Reply | Forward

#1893

From: "Viv" Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 2:21 am Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 eclecticviv Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Richard: My understanding is that dowsing, is more along the lines of an ARV exercise. The difference is in using a larger pool, then the ususal off/on, right/left, or more frequently used binery style, target pool. Another way to look at dowsing is, the dowser uses a tool as a directional cue, for a location within a compass direction. An RV viewer, is more inclined to collect sensory information, regarding a location, which may or may not include a compass direction. Viv* Reply | Forward

#1895

From: "Glyn" Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 6:40 am Subject: RE: Thoughts; 2003 gebega Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Rich, PJ and all, > Why not include a Ouija team to "prove" Ouija? I'm going off at a tangent here, but I'm interested in all activities where 'psi' is or may be involved, and the Ouija is a very common activity, which has stood the test of time. I know that there is an extremely high 'giggle-factor' associated with the Ouija, but also it is thought of as being 'scary', and many a school-kid has had the 'poop' frightened out of themselves after being invited (usually by a group of solemn-faced older kids...bin there, dun that :-), into doing it for the first time, and had ended up being the unfortunate recipient of death threats from dubious 'entities' . Yes, scary for some adults, let alone children, and I certainly wouldn't recommend it for those more easily influenced/impressionable/manipulated. However, I think it is now fairly generally believed, in serious psi research circles anyway, that 'doing the Ouija' is yet another method of getting in touch with the subconscious, and dependant on the people involved and the circumstances, you can get good stuff or absolute drivel. The intriguing thing with the Ouija situation of course, is that more than one sub may have impact; although the 'dominant' one(s) may be responsible for physically pushing the glass about (unknown to the conscious minds of the pushers of course); a bit like what happens during dowsing, where subconscious impressions are transferred into motion through the physical body to indicate a direction, or in this case letters, numbers or 'yes/no'. When in a group using a Ouija board (or glass and bits of paper as if often the case), things often start off being interesting/promising, but then often degenerate into absolute garbage, ending up with the almost obligatory threats by some of the more dubious characters/entities/spirits 'contacted'. When I used to do it years ago, I'd wonder just who the heck in our little group was the main driver for the load of moronic drivel we used to get.....but seeing as the little group often consisted of my mother, my sister and me, then I didn't really want to know. LOL! We treated it as fun, and kept our feet firmly on the ground (with the possible exception of our Mum, who was of the 'occult' generation). Eventually we used to tell the more sinister 'characters' to go sling their hook and try and get some sense out of the 'messages'. Unfortunately we never had much success and when my Mum died in 1988 we lost interest and stopped doing it. Anyway, that apart, I have read that some people have obtained interesting information, including that which is validatable; which is the only test of course. The 'Ouija effect' is intriguing though, and if ever there is a place for RI to occur (on a psychological level) I would have thought it was a prime candidate. It does often appear to be one dominant subconscious that is the main source of what 'comes through', but sometimes a combination too. If a 'combined' effort could be proved to be occurring, then are each of the participants 'in contact' at a subconscious level simply by the act of putting their fingers on a glass with a specific intent and within a 'ritualised' atmosphere? Could a situation similar to hypnosis occur on a subconscious level? If so, then perhaps the opportunity for RI may be high if there are others present who had this sort of thing on their agenda. Could this sort of thing happen when a group of people all touch one object (in an everyday situation?). Actually the more I think of it then the more intriguing this thing becomes. It would be interesting to see what a group of psi-active people would get. Incidentally, seeing as you could put a load of numbers instead of letters on the table for an Ouija session, have any of you hopeful lottery winners (and who isn't? :-), thought of getting together to try that? Surely people trained to retrieve 'psi' info via the sub (RVers) could possibly have a head start here. Just pursuing thoughts really. I think Ouija has an unfortunate image, but I wouldn't be surprised if research was going on into this interesting effect. Anyone on this group still do it? Regards, Glyn BTW...Apologies to anyone who does believe that spirits/entities can be the source of information retrieved via the Ouija process. I don't, but we are all entitled to our opinions about this..because we just don't know for sure do we? Reply | Forward

#1896

From: "intuitwolf " Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 5:55 pm Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 intuitwolf Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Rich wrote > But seriously.... if its really dowsing, > why does everyone refer to finding > lost people as an RV activity? If you were using CRV you may start with a regular RV session that includes in a later stage a dowsing component. But in instances like Joe had in his book of looking for the little girl in the woods (where there were few landmarks) one would depend primarily upon dowsing - and his own intuitive knowing of whether the child was alive or not. I think it probably depends upon the situation, the method one prefers to use, and the problem one is attempting to solve. One case I worked several years ago started with a session on the last known location (an airport) just to determine how the person left that locale -- and what shape they were in when they left. In the second session we looked at where the person was currently and when it was determined that they were most likely in a non-descript desert area we moved to dowsing. Over the next few days sessions were done to track the movement of this person and those sessions included a dowsing component. Now normally if I were tasked knowing that I needed to look into the condition of a person I can get more detail using my own method - but I prefer to be blind and to start off using CRV - if I determine I'm looking at a person and that this is the critical information needed I can switch. But when it comes to location I'd prefer going with CRV first and using dowsing only secondarily if I found there were no prominent and clear landmarks. But that's because I tend to be an unreliable dowser (I haven't practiced enough). > What are the detail differences between > finding an item that someone has > placed or mis-placed and finding a lost > person or in doing an outbounder > tasking? an item that has been placed or misplaced can sometimes be found by using the person who placed or misplaced the item as the 'outbounder' -- i.e., tuning into the moment the item was placed. An outbounder is describing the location where the outbounder is situated for your viewing enjoyment. They are intentionally focusing upon the details. Finding a lost person does not imply a cooperative focus as in an outbounder - but it could. In Joe's book he talked about the general who had been kidnapped and how when he saw the results of their remote viewing sessions during the phases of his captivity -- how they could pick up his thoughts and things he noted in his environment - like an outbounder - he suggested that personnel be taught to focus on their surroundings and the persons/items around them during any captivity so they could assist in their own rescue operation. I thought this was an excellent idea. > How does "describe the location?" as a > tasking against a feedback photo > differ from "sdjk fdsjk hd klsdjj" against an > object in an unspecified location? It doesn't, unless you are describing your feedback photo rather than the describing the site represented by the feedback photo. > How often does one get a practice > target that is some object/etc where the > feedback does not include the actual > location of the object? > If one can nail > the target why can one not proceed to describe > the surroundings........ the > famous "winking about" process...... or the > great movement above the target process? I've worked with several people on honing skills with objects. In preparing feedback I took great care to set the objects aside from all other items except the table they were on with a dark cloth underneath and a white wall behind them. It's nearly impossible to get some viewers to describe the object *without* winking about! With some, I'd get a description of half the stuff in the room -- and the object got lost in the room with only a few noticeable descriptors that one could attribute to the object distinctively. Learning to focus on what is actually tasked rather than take a stroll through the park is not easy. > How did Ed and Glenn find Amelia Earhart's airplane crash site? :) Have you seen any news media about the plane being found? I didn't think Glen had even published his project info on that one yet. Shelia Reply | Forward

#1932

From: Juha Koskelainen Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 11:43 am Subject: Current location of Electra (was: Re: Thoughts; 2003) velhox Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 >[Amelia Earhart] >Have you seen any news media about the plane being found? I didn't >think Glen had even published his project info on that one yet. Location data from the project was published a long time ago: http://www.hrvg.org/cgi-bin/specialsessionthumbnail.pl?dir=t2d5-i1d9&targeti d=t2d5-i1d9&sd=specialsessions - Lucid Reply | Forward

#1901

From: "PJ Gaenir " Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 8:32 pm Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 dennanm Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Ah Rich, you are my dark side sometimes.... > I am not finished yet and I have more lead > balloons lined up for 2003. :) Yay. :-) I'll be swamped till mid-late Feb but then I'm ready! > if its really dowsing, why does > everyone refer to finding > lost people as an RV activity? Hey! 'Everyone' is a big word. *I* don't. I'm someone. (Wait. That came out wrong. Like, "I'm SOMEone! They LIKE me!" LOL!) You sometimes tend to define RV, and the field at large, by the elements least expert (or most vocal - and why ARE those so often the same?!), which only makes it worse. Oh, wait! OPTIMISM, my 2003 resolution. Mmmmnnnn. OK. The field has great potential! :-) Finding a lost person could be done in a variety of ways including search engine browsing. Everything is in the details. If you are in Los Angeles and you're describing an outbounder who could be anywhere, you MIGHT get lucky, if they are by something 'specific' enough -- you might be able to say, they are at a major airport, they are at the beach, some specific places in the region. But the goal in the TV show Joe was in that apparently began this was simply to describe the location (not NAME or FIND the location) that the outbounder was at. > Why is finding a person at LA airport an > example of RV? You misinterpret, I think -- DESCRIBING a person's surroundings so well that, as she happened to be at LAX, it was obvious that the location was probably LAX (and bear in mind we didn't have the universe to choose from here, the show and outbounder were IN Los Angeles) is RV, it's just good RV. Now if the target had been, "Find this person," then that would be dowsing. But, "Describe this person's current environment in enough detail and/or unique specifics that they can be located" would be RV. Whether that goal could be pulled off by any viewer or on any given target is another story, but as long as it's focused on describing as opposed to locating, it is in the RV camp. Now if you do RV and make contact HARD enough in the right way, locating sometimes comes with the territory of data. And if you do dowsing and make contact HARD enough in the right way, describing sometimes comes with the territory of data. Dowsing is a 'tool' in some RV methods, but in reality, I've met darn few who can dowse worth a damn. Joe points out it is its own field, its own skill, and just as complex, worthwhile, yet long term discipline-oriented as RV is. > What are the detail differences between > finding an item that someone has > placed or mis-placed and finding a lost > person or in doing an outbounder > tasking? Well first off, people may be easier to find than objects, unless the object is a large nuclear sub or something LOL. A lot remains to be nailed down on this but it certainly does appear that some targets either have more "information" than others, or we simply perceive more of what they have within ourselves for who-know-what reason. Years ago I suggested that a famous building would be easier to view than an old woodshed in an ignored backyard in Kansas, because more people had participated in the building so it had more energy. Spottiswoode tells me I didn't come up with that... apparently Stephan Schwartz labeled this "numinence" or some such thing, no clue how to spell that, but it had the same meaning. This isn't proven in any way it's just theory. Anyway, so, it's possible that finding a unique pocketwatch might be easier than a mass-produced plastic figurine; that finding a chest of gold might be easier than finding a vase of dead flowers; there is really no telling, but objects may be different from one another -- and that's before we get into the issue that people may also be different from one another, and different from objects -- not at a core level, I assume we're all interconnected energy, but I mean at whatever level affects our viewing results. Oh, but the main point is, you just described two radically different things. Finding anything is locational. Outbounder (beacon) RV is DESCRIPTIVE. Now if you happen to know the region, and/or get really good contact, you might actually know they are at a given shopping mall with something fairly unique about it, for example. But otherwise, you are simply describing. > How does "describe the location?" as a > tasking against a feedback photo > differ from "sdjk fdsjk hd klsdjj" against an > object in an unspecified location? Mostly by the difference in kjjasdyfnqwer. Rephrase please. > How often does one get a practice target > that is some object/etc where the > feedback does not include the actual > location of the object? Well much of the time, actually. Though my target pool has lots of locational and date info in it, plenty of stuff isn't in there, particularly for photos of things like animals. > If one can nail > the target why can one not proceed to > describe the surroundings Wouldn't nailing the target of a practice photo generally include describing the immediate (photographed) surroundings? > So to be technically correct, does the > "test" have to include an RV part to > describe the object being sought via RV, > and then find it via dowsing? If you want RV, vs. dowsing, yeah, include information ABOUT the target as required, not just the eventual location of it. > Why not include a Ouija team to "prove" Ouija? Well if it were to be done, who else would do it? :-) PJ Reply | Forward

#1891

From: "Viv" Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 2:36 am Subject: RE: Thoughts; 2003 eclecticviv Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Kids: For 2003, I resolve not to lock the door behind me, if I'm fleeing a burning building, so the firemen won't have to use their axes, to get through the door. (I read this actually happened to a person). I also resolve not to, do in my husband, because he is procrastinating, fixing the window he broke, while painting the livingroom. I resolve to better organize my, RV/ARV sessions, by dates, within their individual folders, and file the flolders in the filing cabinate. I resolve not to make any more resolutions, I later break, because I made to many of them to keep track of. Viv* Reply | Forward

#1892

From: greenmn900... Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 8:32 am Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 greenmn900... Send Email Send Email Rich, > You wrote: > "But seriously.... if its really dowsing, > why does everyone refer to finding lost > people as an RV activity? Why is finding > a person at LA airport an example of RV?" It can be done either way. Dowsing, as an alternate but associated skill, can be very helpful. It's not ALWAYS needed, however. I've done several successful remote viewings of missing persons and didn't use dowsing. While the description of the location in each case was eventually important, what really made finding the missing person possible was something else - In each case I was able to see the location from high above. It's like looking down at a map of the United States and having my attention drawn to a particular area (a state, region, or a certain part of a state). Then I would see that area at a closer range and be able to reduce the area further, etc. Then when this information was coupled with the descriptions I had of the targets' location along with words and phrases, we were able to use all of it to find the person. Dowsing has only helped me to locate someone one time, and, in that case, by the time my information got to the right people, the missing person was already dead. Dowsing versus RV is only a difference in method, or a combination of the two. For me, dowsing only seems to work well when I've Rved (or scryed) the same target just prior to the dowsing effort. If I wait too long to try the dowsing, it doesn't seem to work very well. And dowsing alone, by itself, has never worked for me. I'm going to start working on this soon. My dowsing is too innaccurate most of the time to be useful and I want to change that. > You wrote: > "How often does one get a practice target > that is some object/etc where the feedback > does not include the actual location of the > object? If one can nail the target why can > one not proceed to describe the surroundings........ > the famous "winking about" process...... or > the great movement above the target process?" You can, and I think this is the best way (maybe the only way) for RV to be used in finding missing people/objects, without also relying on dowsing. Perhaps ARV, as you described, could be used in a process-of-elimination, though. But often, the description of the targets' immediate surroundings does little good. Too many locations, possibly a continent apart, can be described exactly the same. > You wrote: > "How did Ed and Glenn find Amelia Earhart's > airplane crash site? :)" How do we know they actually did? > You wrote: > "What are the detail differences between finding > an item that someone has placed or mis-placed and > finding a lost person or in doing an outbounder tasking?" The major difference is that people move around - a lot. Another major difference is that with items, someone usually has at least some idea of where the object could possibly be, so it's often pretty easy to tell if the RVer is at least in the ballpark when they begin descibing the immediate surroundings of an object. Another difference for me, is that people tend to have more of an energy signature than inanimate objects, so they seem easier to perceive. I think the most efficent way to find a missing person who is moving about is to target a location they will be at in the near future for a reasonable length of time. If you can locate this place very specifically then you can arrange to be there physically at that time to find the person. In finding a buried object as PJ described, I think the dowsing, even if it isn't used in finding the general location, would probably be neccessary on-site to figure out where to start digging. I don't see how RV alone could get that specific without particular landmarks very close (within several feet) to the object. > You wrote: > "Why not include a Ouija team to "prove" Ouija? > ....an OBE team to prove OBE? > .... a coin flipping team as a control? > ....an ARV team to zero in ... east of the > Mississippi or west?, etc" I don't know if you're being facetious here or not, but they all sound like damn good ideas to me! Best regards, Don Reply | Forward

#1900

From: "Eva " Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 5:39 pm Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 k9caninek9 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Rich wrote > "But seriously.... if its really dowsing, > why does everyone refer to finding lost > people as an RV activity? Why is finding > a person at LA airport an example of RV?" Well I think the main prob is that one lake and trees looks the same as 10,000 other lakes and trees. Same goes with houses, caves, mountains, deserts, etc. So if you have the whole world to look for something, you are in deep rv doodoo if you have not clues. Plus you wouldn't be able to go and inspect all 10,000 potential spots to search for other smaller aspects that might show up in a session. However, if you know something is probably in your house, then rv might be quite helpful in narrowing down what part of the house to look in. But that's cuz the search area is limited and there is minimal repetition of items in that space. For instance, I only have one weird looking lamp, one computer, one big closet, one kitchen, one living room, etc. SO if someone rved an item as being in a living room, that info would actually be helpful, instead of totally useless like if my search are covered 10 million other living rooms. The larger the search area and the less info you have, the more difficult it would be to rv it's location. Most if not all successful rv results of location happen when there is a limited probable search area and/or a lot of other info known about the location and/or a lot of resources available to follow up on any info that is obtained. -E Reply | Forward

#1899

From: "Sharon Webb" Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 4:20 pm Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 sharwebb_30512 Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Glyn, As a long-time player (but not any more) with the Ouija board, I'd like to add a few thoughts to yours. First, people are unsure and say things like, "I think I'm moving it." My answer is, "Of course, you're moving it. This isn't an exercise in psychokinesis." :-) As for whether hypnosis is responsible, I don't think so. I think the Ouija is just a focus, like tarot, or RV techniques, or scrying, or whatever. I think it results in a slightly dissociated state which enhances psi. I am quite sure that it is a form of channeling, as after a time, whole sentences and paragraphs start coming through at a much faster rate than the sluggish planchette would indicate. As far as the results, I have had some amazing ones, that could not be explained by "logical" means. I'm not sure what happens when more than one person touches the board. Back when I was doing this, when another person touched the board it felt like lead weights on the backs of my hands, pinning me down. This got to be very fatigueing after awhile, and I preferred to use the board without others touching it. Sharon sharwebb...net www.fractalus.com/sharon Reply | Forward

#1908

From: "Glyn" Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 4:42 am Subject: Ouija (was Thoughts; 2003) gebega Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Sharon, > > I'm not sure what happens when more than one > person touches the board. Back when I was doing > this, when another person touched the board it > felt like lead weights on the backs of my hands, > pinning me down. This got to be very fatigueing > after awhile, and I preferred to use the board > without others touching it. That's interesting, I've heard of people being able to do this on their own, but never seen it done. I've tried it, (and also 'automatic writing' which my mother claimed to have done), but with no success. I just can't dissociate myself from my hand and let it 'do it's own thing' :-), and not being able to do that is a non-starter of course. I have tried dowsing, and although I could get a pendulum to swing I didn't get much success in terms of outcome really. I did once lose something small on my carpet and I walked round the room holding my hands out 'feeling' for it. I sort of felt a slight resistance and warmth in a certain area...and there it was. I was quite pleased with that, but it could have been a coincidence of course, because I haven't experimented enough to find out. I would be interested in hearing more about some of your memorable experiences with the Ouija. Kind Regards, Glyn Reply | Forward

#1930

From: "chriscordenuk " Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 10:57 am Subject: Re: Ouija (was Thoughts; 2003) chriscordenuk Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Dear All, As the new kid on the block (Kid? Who am I kidding?) please excuse any lapses in group etiquette. I was interested in the outbreak of Ouija comments on your board and offer a couple of events from over 30 years ago. A married couple and I sat late one Saturday evening in their basement flat in London. The drinks had flowed, all was well with the world, and as we sat talk turned to Ouija boards. Inevitably the letters were written, the glass was inverted, and we were away. We made `contact', asked the usual inane questions, drew no lasting conclusions and decided to finally head off to bed. But before we went we promised to all meet again the following Saturday, same time, same place. The next Saturday two of us were late and arrived to find the third in a bit of state. She had been watching TV, realised the time, and gone to turn down whatever was in the oven. In the kitchen she had laid out 3 cups and a bowl of sugar cubes and found that all the cubes had been taken out of the bowl and piled into a neat pyramid. We calmed her down but she insisted we recreated the board at once and got started. I apologised out loud for our lateness and this time we got some more useful answers. There was a name, whoever/whatever was female, and had been murdered sometime ago. When we finally tried to stop the glass went haywire and eventually shot off the table. We went to bed. I was asleep on a camp bed in the basement lounge when something woke me up and I found myself in a room with a beamed ceiling, from which hung tankards. Silhouetted against a window, where there should have only been a wall, was the slight figure of a young woman. She turned and moved towards me, with no threat, and no words, before I asked her to let me go back. Which I did. I could have been asleep, but don't think I was. We subsequently found out that the basement flat was on the site of an old pub in 1800s whose ground level would have been the level of the basement flat. As for the woman, we don't know, but the costume of the one I saw was the right period. ------------ A year later I was with another group of friends and one of them complained he felt he was being followed. They all wanted to make a Ouija board to see if it was a ghost. I sat it out and watched as they discovered that a Roman Soldier was `present'. They all knew I had an interest in the paranormal and asked me to join in, but I refused. However, knowing they were going to continue I drew some protective designs, from a book I had on the `Book of Solomon', on A4 sheets of paper, and placed them around the room before their next session. It was a completely closed, draught free, room yet soon after they began the sheets of ordinary paper fell to the floor as if they were made of lead. Again I had refused to take part and so was able to see them fall. I say fall, though it would be tempting to say they were thrown. ---------- I have barely been near a Ouija board since. I offer the above without any comment or judgement, except to say that I truly dislike seeing these boards sold in toyshops. As for my current interests, RV when involved in looking at a different time is just as fascinating as viewing a different place. As a group you speak of skills way beyond my level. A couple of times when reading your e-mails I have had a `flash' of the sender. One was of the room where the sender wrote it, the other was the smell of a room where a smoker lived. Both were too quick to give more than an impression. Best wishes Chris Reply | Forward

#1981

From: "PJ Gaenir " Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 11:25 am Subject: Re: Ouija (was Thoughts; 2003) dennanm Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Hi Chris, > A couple of times when reading your e-mails > I have had a `flash' of the sender. One was > of the room where the sender wrote it, the > other was the smell of a > room where a smoker lived. Both were too quick > to give more than an > impression. I often get a 'sense' of people through email. Sometimes it is strong enough to really affect how I feel about them. It is unusually accurate most times, and by this I mean in terms of, certainly more accurate more often than my RV hahaha! I often develop real feelings about people via email that I don't think I would if I didn't have "a sense of them inside me" from corresponding with them. PJ Reply | Forward

#1979

From: "PJ Gaenir " Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 11:12 am Subject: Channeling & Ouija (was Thoughts; 2003) dennanm Offline Offline Send Email Send Email > Sharon wrote: > I think the Ouija is just a focus, > like tarot, or RV techniques, or scrying, > or whatever. I think it results in a > slightly dissociated state which enhances > psi. I am quite sure that it is a form of > channeling, as after a time, whole sentences > and paragraphs start coming through at a > much faster rate than the sluggish > planchette would indicate. I'm interested in channeling because it has a similarity to a few things that I have experienced that I think are cool. The first is energy channeling, in hands-on work (reiki-type but not that trademark). I found when I was in that phase that I could "channel energy 'through'" a chakra, or a color, then a shape, then a sort of 'concept' (which sort of had a geometric shape), and then through an identity of sorts, generally some positive christian sort, and this was generally by just imagining that "in me" and then the energy coming into my crown and going through me and out in whatever way I chose but 'through that focus'. When doing this through concepts or identities it was a very short time before I really felt like that was part of me, and although I assumed that this was 'merely' (!) psychology giving me a new framework to perceive reality 'from', still it seemed like it might be related indirectly to what some people consider channeling entities. The second is information channeling. I mean when you are "in the center" as I call it, you can think of anything, wonder about anything, and the information is just "there". It's like it's infinitely everywhere and you just don't notice unless you're in the right state of mind. It has often felt to me like being at the middle of a cushball, those toys that are a bundle of cut rubber strings, as if there were infinite strings going out from the center of me in every direction and depending on which way I "turned inside" I'd get the information from a different "string" that I was turned toward. (I was intrigued later to read Casteneda's "The Art of Dreaming" where he discusses energy 'strings'... sort of. But even as it was happening, I was reminded of Jane Roberts' talking about "paths" of information and "turning" toward them. I associated this to channeling partly because even during it I was remembering a comment like that from a channeler so knew they must relate.) It came through a little bit like I wildly guess channeling must. I could often invoke it just by sitting down to type or write, and then just 'allowing' it. I could (and did) type out entire essays about subjects I knew nothing about, from historical figures I'd barely heard of to advanced sciences. Humorously I was sort of in denial about all this because it was very outside my normal belief system so I never pursued it, or tried to get info I could document and then check out to see if it was something unusual, that didn't even occur to me. I loved the feeling of it though. Of it just being IN me, coming THROUGH me, it was just there, everywhere, like air usually is, some zero-point/holographic/fractal-thing. To me it felt right; it felt like the way it ought to be; it felt like my natural place in the world was with this inside me. What I found interesting was that: (a) it clearly translated 'through' me; although the information felt literally like raw information in pure form somehow, it was clear that my own mental constructs and vocabulary and understandings were used to sort of understand and communicate it, which immediately gave it some "flavor of me." (b) the process was a sort of art because I was capable of imposing any amount of "me" "into" the flow, from 100% where it was just me writing, to maybe "5%" where only my body was writing and the rest was so much info-not-me that I wasn't even really aware of it and seldom remembered it later. And it varied in the flow, I mean, I could be going along at say 40% me/ 60% info, and then I'd realize that the "me" percentage had sort of been creeping up and I was 'leading' it a little too much, maybe at 60/40 now, and I would back off and let it come through with less of me in it. I figure this relates to the 'distortions' often found in channeling, and I believe that this is a lot of what relates to Ouija and the weird experiences people can have with both. Well first, the thing about Ouija is people are generally trying to contact spirits (and to many people this likely means dead people, and even dead people who had some mysterious or violent death because our belief systems often associate that with ghosts) as opposed to their higher self, god, etc. So people tend to get what belief systems have "pre-packaged" for them in the 'weird spirit entity' category when they work with Ouija (note I said work not play). I think the bringing it through the board vs. through oneself like in channeling is partly responsible for the commonly reported poltergeist effects too -- when you bring energy through yourself, you get all kinds of side effects, some are good, some are not, some are just weird, all are typical of psychic experience and development and require some adjustment. But in Ouija one is essentially deliberately bringing the energy through *one's environment* instead, and doing so, is essentially opening some kind of pathway for energy to come through that doorway (so to speak). Which I don't think is bad unless it is uncontrolled, which it usually is when someone avoids it and is frightened of it. I had a lot of poltergeist activity at one point in my life and I found if I just talked out loud to whatever energies were allegedly moving stuff around, and promised to meditate and be open to whatever they wanted to communicate, that it would mellow out. It definitely seemed, in the end, like something trying to get my attention, and the more I denied it the crazier and more extreme I got, but the more I validated and accepted it and took time to commune a little, the less (to the point of none) I had of that. Now when I say 'something trying to get my attention' I am just as likely to consider that something part of myself as anything else. I've emailed with a lot of people over the years and quite a few have talked about Ouija stuff. One thing I noticed is that when people left the Ouija out, like say on the coffee table, most the poltergeist activity was limited to the Ouija board, like energy trying to communicate through it. But people open up the flow of that energy in an object in their environment, and then they put the object away out of sight somewhere, and the energy seems to look for whatever medium it can come through. It usually ends up still coming through 'their environment' or whatever IN it that might get their attention (because the little planchette could move around all it wanted in the box in the closet but who would notice? lol). Someone once commented in questioning me about entity experiences, on Bob Monroe and his ROTE experiences. I responded that when you go knock on somebody's door they are likely to open it and say something to you. I don't consider this good or bad, safe or dangerous, at least no more so than any other form of psi work -- including RV -- can be for an individual over time. I think this goes for Ouija board experimenting -- if you're looking for conversation, there's plenty in the universe to be had. If you've got some (even subconscious) belief system about spirits, and those likely being ghosts, and ghosts likely being some murdered person or some ancient native american or whatever, chances are those will promptly show up, because just like in the information channeling noted above, it is really what the individual turns toward -- the only question is whether the individual is in touch with themselves enough to know what they really believe, and what they are turning toward, and believes that this focus is within THEM. Most people are doing well enough to see their own belief systems in the context of their physical life, where cause-effect is much more obvious and feedback so much more literal. Let alone in things unfamiliar, and usually discussing subjects esoteric. The other thing in channeling is the 'distortion' that is, I think, at the root of why a lot of negative opinions are had about it in general. I think it relates to what I was saying about about what % of me was part of the process in bringing through information. (I never had an entity/identity attached to this. Just the info.) I believe there is not only one's own belief systems and personality at issue, very fundamentally, but a lot of unmanifest 'aspects of self' which might have their own way of perceiving things, which might actually be very helpful or might be harmful, depending. I think some channelers which have an 'identity' in the process might not be so much channeling that identity, as having that aspect of self (which is an identity) interpreting the information that is being channeled (by the person), and communicating it in turn. I only had one experience that might by some stretch be considered real channeling. I was sitting at my computer one sweltering night in Seattle, around late summer 1995, and I actually got 'a word'. Just one word! That was clearly... "given" to me, is the only way I can put it. I had the impression I should write it down, so I did. Then I got another "word", the next in the sentence, so I wrote that down. This was ridiculously slow. I got another word. By this time my brain, which is always very active anyway, was off and running in major AOL attempting to complete the sentence. I got another word. By the word after that, though, my own AOL was beginning to interfere. There were some words I expected so MUCH, I couldn't be sure, I couldn't feel clearly, if when I did get that word, it was because it really was the next word, or because I was injecting myself into it. Then another word came, and this happened all over again. After like two sentences, I exclaimed, "OH FOR PETE'S SAKE!" and abandoned the process as too MADDENINGLY slow to do anything except frustrate me and likely cause me way too much personal intrusion into the process while I waited. PJ Reply | Forward

#1902

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 9:45 pm Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 Rich_crv Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Glyn wrote: > BTW...Apologies to anyone who does believe that spirits/entities can be > the source of information retrieved via the Ouija process. I don't, but we > are all entitled to our opinions about this..because we just don't know for > sure do we? Well, I had one Ouija experience many years ago. The short version is that I had one WOW provided by the two strangers that were "driving" the ouija. (They had answered an add for subletting our apartment and saw the board leaning against the wall and ......) Anyway the WOW was that I "cleverly" asked "When was I born?" The answer was "Not born". After we all looked around at each other we asked it to explain the answer. Answer: "Brought into world by Caesarian(sp?) " Which was correct. "Wow" we all said. :) That ended the session, but earlier on I had asked for my and my wife's soul name. I have never had the opportunity to confirm the answers. Does anyone have any ideas how to do that? Rich Reply | Forward

#1903

From: Richard Krankoski Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 10:05 pm Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 Rich_crv Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi Don, It sounds like you agree with me that it is a doable project and there shouldnt be a lot of hemming and hawing. I really do not see any difference between finding a "treasure" and finding any other object. Being stationary is a big plus. Also, the object does not necessarily have to be buried. I believ ethat in one of the old treasure hunt promotions the object was fastened to a tree or utility pole in plain sight. The point that I am trying to make is that demonstrating or "proving" RV can be made a lot simpler and a black or white operation than the inherent vagueness in describing photos, locations and other typical targets commonly used for training and demonstrations, along with the judging of multiple photos against a set of data. Hey, someone either finds the object or not. 100% of the time,. 50% of the time, 25% of the time 1% of the time. Worst case is that you prove that RV can't do it. :) so don't waste time trying and stop saying it can.. Move on to whatever can be done. Same for any of the other methods I mentioned. Rich PS: I thought you once said you only do RV practice targets from your spouse. > Don wrote > It can be done either way. Dowsing, as an alternate but associated skill, > can be very helpful. It's not ALWAYS needed, however. I've done several > successful remote viewings of missing persons and didn't use dowsing. > big snip..... > In finding a buried object as PJ described, I think the dowsing, even if it > isn't used in finding the general location, would probably be neccessary > on-site to figure out where to start digging. I don't see how RV alone > could get that specific without particular landmarks very close (within > several feet) to the object. > > > You wrote: > > "Why not include a Ouija team to "prove" Ouija? > > ....an OBE team to prove OBE? > > .... a coin flipping team as a control? > > ....an ARV team to zero in ... east of the > > Mississippi or west?, etc" > > I don't know if you're being facetious here or not, but they all sound like > damn good ideas to me! Reply | Forward

#1913

From: greenmn900... Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 12:16 pm Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 greenmn900... Send Email Send Email Hi Rich, I think it would be a great project, and it should be absolutely "doable". The biggest problems would probably be finding people who could devote the amount of time to it that it would require. That would involve multiple viewings and repeated dowsing and physically visiting different sites until someone is correct (assuming someone doesn't nail it the first time). What's been described would be more valuable than judging the RVing of picture targets, coordinates, etc. in that it demonstrates a use for RV at the same time that it is demonstrating the reality of psi in-principle. The best thing about it is that it is simple, easy to understand, TV-friendly, and the 'searching" aspect would add a huge element of excitement. > You Wrote: > "PS: I thought you once said you only do > RV practice targets from your spouse" I do, ninety-nine percent of the time, why? If you're referring to missing people targets, the target problem is given to my wife and she decides how best to approach the problem, how best to target me, what cueing phrases to use, etc. I stay blind to the target until after the session is over, sometimes even after that (in case she wants to retarget me on the same exact envelope again). By mixing the applications target in with practice targets for the week and then pulling them out randomly every time I RV, she is then blind to it when I do it as well. (Doing this adds an element of excitement to my practice sessions then, as well, which almost always causes me to perform better. Just knowing there's an application target in the pool really boosts my accuracy). Three or four times here lately and once or twice in the past, I've set the up target myself and mixed it into the practice pool, but I don't like to. Then I have to deal with aols of it every time I Remote View until I finally do that specific target. I've learned to deal with that somewhat, but it's still hard for me to do. Best Regards, Don Reply | Forward

#1885

From: "Nita Hickok" Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 11:29 am Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 nitahickok Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 Hi PJ I am doing some positive stuff for New Years myself. I have been busy lately with some really difficult cases. I also had my car really give me the good bye from 2002. We parked it and had it in gear with the emergency brake on. It popped out of gear, rolled down a hill, went across the street just missing a new Dodge truck, and went through the door of the other restaurant across the street. We were the excitement of Dolan Springs on the 30th. I don't know if it was the Romanian Gypsy case I was working on or not. I do know that 2002 had been a up and down year for me and I definitely want 2003 to be a lot better. I had good insurance with no deductible on the liability. My husband who was running after the car trying to capture it looking like a Laurel and Hardy movie wasn't hurt. (I never knew he could run that fast). The restaurant knowing Don and my habits just served him up a cup of coffee and said you could have come over here without sending your car in to drink coffee first. I want to say Happy New Year to everyone and may next year be a prosperous healthy year! Nita Reply | Forward

#1887

From: "etuthill_engineer " Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 10:20 pm Subject: Re: Thoughts; 2003 etuthill_eng... Offline Offline Send Email Send Email Invite to Yahoo! 360 Invite to Yahoo! 360 > Mostly, my goal for 2003 is "optimism". I want to > work on deliberately keeping the faith; holding onto > a positive expectation that no matter what the > trivia of daily matters, all is well in the world, > all is well in me, things are as they should be, and > the best can manifest any moment. > Hope you have some grand plans too. What a truly great message. I think my biggest resolution is to practice RV more frequently, seems to be a recurring theme here. Best wishes to everyone for the new year! Eric

// 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