Viewer Email Group
This is an archive file of the public Viewer [VWR] email list. This list is sponsored by the private Viewer Forum, hosted by Paradigm Systems and Design, and owned and operated by PJ Gaenir. It is dedicated to discussion of the practical aspects, theories and experience of formal psychic methodologies such as Controlled Remote Viewing, and independent efforts by the public interested in working under the formal RV protocol (the set of rules which define "remote viewing" as the term was coined in a science lab). You can find details, rules, and a form for joining the email group here. The list is moderated during operation and archiving. I remove last names and detail locations of contributors (within the archives) for privacy, and signatures for space conservation. I have added notes marking the posts from former U.S. intelligence remote viewers. Archiving of posts is done manually and may not include all posts.
This is the thirty-third archive.
BEGIN ARCHIVE 33
Hi, I'm Sandy, Liam's wife. I read over his shoulder from time to time. I am just a very complicated person who needs to keep this whole thing simple. I don't care why it works or how it works, I just know it works. I have been doing this in one form or another since about 1974. My structure sucks as well as my terminology. I drive Liam nuts. When he monitors me and trys to keep me sturctured, he earns his keep. Most of my results are okay. I began trusting that I could do this long before I learned sturcture so have to keep this whole thing simple. I really try not to analyze but utilize the signal line or whatever you choose to call where whatever it is comes from. All I know for sure is I can tell when I'm "on" and when I'm "off"; or when things flow or when I force them. On the right side, where I have to be when I'm on, my spelling and writing is that of a first grader.
Always nice to hear *old* friends here.
> Hi, I'm Sandy, > Liam's wife. I read over his shoulder from time to time. I am just > a very complicated person who needs to keep this whole thing simple.
That's a quality. The whole translation/popularization effort of scientific methods and results uses people having this talent/need.
> I don't care why it works or how it works, I just know it works.
Excuse me but...What a pitty. Except...of course... if you wish 1/ to remain on the same level of performance 2/ and the ONLY EXPERT in the field for the rest of your life.
But I'm sure you are NOT that kind of person.
> Most of my results are okay.
I should like to ask you how (how much ?) OK are they ? (let's say you're asked to locate a missing ten years little girl on a world map : is the point you show to the police : right on the girl's location ? 100 meters from her ? 100 miles from the place ?)
> All I > know for sure is I can tell when I'm "on" and when I'm "off"; or > when things flow or when I force them.
Two of the most important things to discover in the practice.
But see... IMHO, the positive results gained from the CRV research progs from the 70s are precisely, 1/to make a difference between common (and very often non-explained) psychic performances and something more controlled in the field (CRV means sometimes "Controlled Remote Viewing";-), 2/ to be able to replicate the experiences 3/ to make them available to the open world (and not only to a gang).
You with your varied training ought to know that locating is a dowsing function, which is not CRV's greatest strength. How bizarre that you should respond to Sandy with that kind of challenge.
God freakin' forbid she should not buy into this crap about "We've got the method and these details in retentive precision are the ONLY way to fly or fly right" that the RV field is so hip on.
I get a lot of private email as a result of this list and my firedocs site, a lot of it from people who are naturally good psychics -- actually apologizing to me for not being trained in RV, like that makes them inferior and they know I might not bother with them in that case or something (?!), or who make it clear that when it comes to RV, people trained act like people who are not, are not worth listening to as an opinion or something.
This is totally opposite to the whole idea of bringing people together to learn and share. It is one thing to work within your own structure, even thought-wise. It is another to have a whole ego trip invested in the subject.
For anybody who is not clear on this subject, and many who write me privately aren't, REMOTE VIEWING IS PSYCHIC WORK. If you aren't a good psychic, I don't give a rat's behind WHAT method you learn, you are never going to be omniscient.
You might just discover that your inherent talent is more than you thought, is all. Most people do this with ?RV and then give the methods the credit for their abilities. This forms a beautiful new "dogma" and suddenly, The Book is the answer rather than the precepts it was written on, to compare it to religion.
It is un-empowering to hand responsibility -- and blame, because fear of failure or success is part of this tendency -- off to "the methods" rather than the person's inherent talent.
Chances are if you sat somebody talented down, gave them advice about communication, and made them PRACTICE the way RVrs are supposed to practice, they would get decent results, and learn from their practice. Even without knowing a thing about CRV. To me, much of the use of this is just in the structure of getting somebody to work on it -- in ANY format.
But that doesn't mean you have to know XYZ methods to work on it. There are people on the A&E BBS who do targets on their own, they're learning constantly and doing well, and they don't know the formal CRV methods. They just have personal interest and discipline is all. I hear constantly from people who on a whim tried one of the targets on my web site and are like, "Wow! I really got stuff related to that! I mean... I mean... how could I know?!" (Hey.... how DARE they be okay at this without investing thousands of dollars?!)
Point: this is psi ability and everybody has it to whatever degree. Point: some people have it to a good degree that makes them as good as, or better, than anybody trained in anything is ever going to be -- assuming they are disciplined of course. Point: CRV is a good structure in many ways. It is also limited in ways. Other psychic structures are probably good structures too. Bottom line: until it is TESTED, you don't know jack about how anything else, or anybody else, compares with CRV.
The only differences between RV and psychic work is the situation they are done in -- one being the controls (science controls) and one being the methods (such as CRV, SRV, ERV). If you don't use the controls there's not much point in doing this unless you're just having fun, which is what it amounts to in that case. If you don't use the methods, the only test of how good it works for you is how good your results are. And I mean results measured by a REAL test of detail facts in a manner that is (a) logical and (b) comparable in the same form to other formats one is comparing to.
In my opinion, the methods are good for (a) people who are not already able to easily tune into psi data; (b) learning to pay attention to yourself, and your communication (this being a very big point in its favor, with lots to learn); and (c) accuracy judgement and Viewer Profiling-- done in Lyn Buchanan's CRV manner or the science route, it is excellent discipline for recognition of your results in a very matter of fact way. I recommend training for the above reasons.
I am a big supporter of CRV, which should be obvious from the stuff I've put online in this field. But I am not however a supporter of cults or cliques in a way that does harm to the field's image and the growth and understanding of people in them. My goal is to see the recognition of these inherent skills, and hopefully training in some structure if possible, made available to as many people as possible. Making non-RVrs feel like they could not really be competent at doing good psi work, but only the methods that We The Superiorly Trained Ones know can really make a person competent, is BOGUS.
I am not afraid to say that outright. It doesn't mean I bash the methods or hate CRV. It means I understand it well enough to know that this ego bullshit that I see constantly in small ways (and sometimes not so small), that people constantly write me about, is a danger to the acceptance of the field and detrimental to people on both sides of the conceit. I think the success of many people at the so-called "ERV", which in my opinion is "psychic work with controls and a well-trained monitor" (in short, RV without the choose-one methods) ought to prove that the ego nonsense about CRV, SRV, TRV or what have you is just that. Is that why sometimes people are almost hostile to Gene? Because he dares infer that ERV -- people's natural ability with his advice and monitoring, even via phone -- might actually work? Without CRV? Without INGO? GOD FORBID!
Sorry, got carried away there...
Practicing psi work initially inflates egos, no doubt, that's well known. Seth once said that the ego, by his terminology, is the definition of "one's awareness of self," and when you do psychic work, your awareness of self certainly grows dramatically, so that def works for me too. But after awhile this kind of work ought to begin to make people more humble, more aware of what they don't know and the vastness of the universe. If it doesn't, I personally feel they may not be quite as omniscient as they think.
(As a side note, methods are also good for people who need to be able to hand responsibility to something or someone else, because their belief system doesn't believe or allow THEM to do it. This is a big one -- including for me, initially a businessman skeptic.)
None of this means that a person cannot learn about themselves, their communication, or be disciplined, without learning CRV. This idea that a person has no structure if they don't write it down on paper is juvenile! The best chefs have massively complex structures and rules and measurements -- they just don't need to write it down in a cookbook every time they make something, because their experience makes them able to do it in their head.
Yes, I know CRV theory says it is the writing it down, saying it, that communicates to your body. And in CRV, and in teaching people to pay attention to themselves when they are not used to communicating with their subconscious, it's great. But autogenic training proves that you can eventually get your mind to tell your body to respond without needing the physical motions anymore. And, some people communicate well enough with their subconscious already that it's unnecessary.
It doesn't mean that a person is bound to never be very good, or as good as they can be, if they don't learn CRV.
It means CRV works really well for some people. Period. There should be none of this ego nonsense, none of this assumption that other forms of collecting psi data -- including scrying or other psychic techniques -- are inferior, until you see the results of that person's work. If a person once knew a psychic or channel who wasn't as good as a remote viewer, so what? That doesn't mean that every human is just like the few already known. This 'they all look alike to me' is a human constant and curse.
I don't care what you call the kind of RV you're doing, the bottom line is that it is psychic work. And as such, it is just ludicrous to assume, unless YOU have personally been in a science lab for a long time testing these things out in detail -- that "your way" is so much better than every other way, or that any given person is inferior either because they don't know your way, or because they ditched half the details of your way because they found it limiting.
Feeling sorry for Sandy as inferior, or never knowing her true potential, because she learned CRV and then moved on and only uses the components of the structure that works for her is so... arrogantly patronizing, and bogus to boot, it makes me want to retch. She is doing what a majority of the truly talented people will do with the methods.
I think I'm done ranting now.
Don't hold back PJ... say what you mean!!!.. .I am in your ball park 100% on this one. ..I just wish people would stop trying to figure out why it works and get to work just doi ng it...As for people not liking me o belligerent to me... Oh, well... hell I'm Irish... it comes with the territory... but I do know that I am one of a very small number of people in the world who has been called a great monitor and you know something... I really am... I'm a shitty viewer... sometimes dead on and most of the time I'm looking north when the target is south... OK, we all can't be Mario Andretti's of RV... but my viewers have confidence in me and during a session, I can milk the buggers dry before they even know what hit them... Fact is there are just too many folks out there intent on putting everyone in separate little boxes (CRV / ERV / TRV / 37WSTVV (37" Wide Screen TV Viewing)... and you know something... it just won't work... the truly great viewers are so damned right brained they simply cannot be put into any kind of box no matter how often the non-RVworld tries...
Glad to have you back PJ... Gene..
[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]
>I think I'm done ranting now.
I wouldn't call setting the record straight, "ranting."
I wouldn't call objecting to a sophisticated form of chauvinism, "ranting."
I wouldn't call telling it like it is, "ranting."
First off, we want to let everybody know that we haven't disappeared. We were out of town on our honeymoon, and when we returned, found that we were having trouble with our e-mail account, which hopefully is taken care of now. If we haven't responded to something that has been asked of us, we are sorry, and will do our best to respond if you repost it to us.
As for PJ's comments, we have to say that we agree with her that we were sorry to see the reaction to Sandy's post. When we joined the list, we were welcomed warmly, and feel that Sandy should receive the same. So before we go on further, Lisa and I would like to take the time to say to Sandy "Thank you" for your contribution to the discussions taking place on this list. It takes courage to speak publicly about these issues, and your decision to do so should be acknowledged. We hope that you will choose to continue to join us, as we are certain that the sharing of your experiences will contribute positively to this group. We are certain that there are many others on this list that echo these sentiments.
As for the discussion regarding structure, we believe that although it has an important role to play, in the end, it is essentially a crutch that helps one to get in touch with his/her natural abilities. After all, there's more than one way to skin a stray cat, or should we say AOL :-)
Brent and Lisa
> You with your varied training ought to know that locating is a > dowsing function, which is not CRV's greatest strength. How bizarre > that you should respond to Sandy with that kind of challenge.
I like very much make people react on the items I post. And, yes I got three letters to my contribution on the "Targets, data" subject from Sandy, Liam and You. Each of them opens very interesting discussion ways related to RV, as "how and when to let the methods behind you" (Sandy), or the "ERV vs CRV methods" (Liam), or the "REMOTE VIEWING IS PSYCHIC WORK" theme (PJG) for example.
So I'm grateful to you for your own inputs on the matter.
BTW I don't care about methods, even people's credentials, when it comes to save people's lives. I mean when The real important thing is the result.
(tremendously huge snip about the necessity for CRV above all else and the ego of having taken it and etc.etc.etc.)
Dear PJ: Between the two following lines, I have listed, by number, all the things you said that I >>>do not<<< agree with:
And those are the only things you said that I don't agree with. I haven't waded back to see where the original message which upset you came from, but here's how your rant--- uh--- gentle urging ended:
>Feeling sorry for Sandy as inferior, or never knowing her true >potential, because she learned CRV and then moved on and only uses >the components of the structure that works for her is so... >arrogantly patronizing, and bogus to boot, it makes me want to retch. > She is doing what a majority of the truly talented people will do >with the methods.
As a part of my intro to CRV, I alway tell
people that there are three kinds of people who don't make good
1) those religiously against it
2) those who are so religiously for anything and everything psychic that they can't be discriminating, and
3) those who are "natural psychics" and don't need to learn it.
I then always go on to explain that I'm not saying those in the third group don't do well as psychics, but that they tend not to remain "CRVers" in the formal sense. They are most prone to take from CRV those things which they can use in their normal working situation. They thereby become better psychics, but tend to stop being "CRVers". Let me repeat one clause of that previous sentence... "THEY THEREBY BECOME BETTER PSYCHICS...".
There are a lot of people who want to take the CRV training, but only if they can be personally taught by one of the original military. Some want to take it because (and only because) it has the prestige of being used by the US government. In short, some come into the training with egos unfurled and don't even hide it. Is it any wonder that there will be some who then continue to wave their egos around like banners? I don't think so. I realized early on that one of the - usually unspoken - reasons people were taking the course was for ego-centric purposes. I thought long and hard about it, and decided that I really don't care. It really doesn't matter. As you said in your quote, after a while, the ego settles into place and gets seen for what it is, in relation to the size of the universe. The important thing is that one more human has been given the opportunity to grow, no matter what their beginning reason(s) might have been. If somewhere along the way, they make ego-centric comments, then it means that they just haven't completed the process. We're all "on the way". None of us have completely gotten to the goal, yet.
Is CRV the only way? It's laughable that anyone could even think such a thing. However, is there a single one of us who hasn't thought to themselves at least once, "My way is best!"? It's even more laughable to think that someone learns something and doesn't at one time or another think that. They suddenly feel empowered by their new knowledge and abilities, and think, "Now, I understand the final truth!!!". It's no big deal. We all do it.
However, when we carry that another step and start thinking, "...therefore, all other ways must be wrong..." it turns on us. When we then stop thinking it and actually come out and say it, that is a major social faux pas. Why? Because someone will believe it? Well, yes... because there is the chance that the person to whom it was said might believe it, and feel thereby diminished.
Always remember that when a person says, "I'm a remote viewer", what they are actually saying is, "I wasn't good enough to do it naturally, so I had to study to learn."
How many times has a trained pianist, who has practiced long and hard hours at scales and chords gone to a jazz bar and heard a pianist there playing superb and expression-filled jazz, with never a single lesson in his life? And how many times has that trained pianist thought to him/herself, "Man! I wish I could do that!"
In short, thanks for the rant, but your own advice is the proper thing here: the results will give the final proof. If someone says to Sandy, "You aren't doing CRV, therefore you can't be good." Sandy only has to turn to her results to see whether to belive that person or not.
[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]
A friend who shall remain nameless is teasing me now, that this is what I get for insisting the list stick to RV -- people debating terminology. Like oooooh, this is gonna change your life. ;-)
I feel it's important to at least know the 'standard' (which in this field is [a] Science terms, and [b] Ingo Swann's terms) so that people have a common frame of reference.
I'll eventually get around to writing something up for the web site with that. I'm busy, don't hold your breath -- maybe Lyn will do it for me (ha! ha! Like he isn't WAY more busy than me).
I also feel that one's terms define their mental model, and so they can have quite an impact there as far as slightly changing meaning, interpretation, limits [et al.] of a given thing.
Some of the SRV terminology can probably be found in Farsight's online manual (link to that on the firedocs RV links page). Some of the P>S>I (Lyn's) CRV terminology can be found in his online terminology-only manual, which you can find on the firedocs web site (URL on the sig of [VWR]), on the "Misc. RV Stuff" page. Some of Ingo's terms are in Lyn's terminology manual, and others can be found in his online writings at his web site (link to that on the firedocs RV links page).
> I also feel that one's terms define their mental model, and so they > can have quite an impact there as far as slightly changing meaning, > interpretation, limits [et al.] of a given thing.
Hello RV group - I've just begun to contribute after having lurked for a long while. Hope this is meaningful. ;-)
PJ - I couldn't agree with you more regarding language as mental model. In psychology, one's choice of words cannot be separated from their world view. Word usage, styles of nomenclature, supposed "I was just joking ..." remarks, etc., reveal so much about the individual's frame of reference. Referencing RV'g , for example, I've read comments on Ingo Swann's choice of words and what some readers have euphemistically referred to as his "writing style". His writing does, in fact, wander all over the place. This is often typical of highly intelligent people who run threads of ideas through their minds while composing these ideas on paper. Rather than seeing this as a first draft, they often see it as the final. Why? Being highly intelligent, it's frustrating for them that their thoughts should have to be "clarified" (edited). Don't these idiots understand what I'm trying to say? It's clear as day to ME! This illustrates why one can be an expert in one area and expect to be an expert everywhere else. In effect - and I run the risk of sounding a little judgmental - they are not quite bright enough to make the conceptual leap out of their own beliefs about their position in the world.
It's been said that to label something is to make it real. As we move through our changing world faster and faster, we discover expressions like "download" and other computer terms, ad infinitum. This conveys that totally new contexts are developing very rapidly and that language is the only hold we have on communicating within these new parameters.
Define the concept and you've identified the context.
Warm regards . . .
Moderator's Note: Dissing Ingo can get mental laser beams boring into your brain in some parts of the country. Just kidding. -- PJ
PJ - I couldn't agree with you more regarding language as mental > model. In psychology, one's choice of words cannot be separated from > their world view.
In the world of psi however. The ability to recognize and understand from the minds point of view is orginally and more completely by concept, ideas and understandings. Let's not confuse this impression gathering and recognition with word form representation. You experienced the cookie way before your could describe it and way before you knwe the word that represented it. You feel love first and then identify it through description and you feel pain first and then work at the description and name for either emotional or physical pain and then describe what you are feeling.
Although I agree that being verbal enough to describe accurately is important and wish not to take anything away from it. But, I do want to also emphasize that impressions are derived from experience, concept, ideas and understandings, the description comes secondarily.
Have a wonderful day.
(Re: Ingo Swann's writing style)
What may seem like "wandering all over the place" for one person may be a tying together of seemingly disparate concepts into a meaningful whole to another. Now if you want something really challenging to one's train of thought try some of Gurdjieff's "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson". Perhaps I'm the odd one out here, but I find Ingo easy to follow. It is true that when we have difficulty incorporating a concept into our frame of reference it often creates the "black hole" phenomena, in which we just sort of draw a mental blank. At those points it helps to have a sense of humor and is often very inspiring to retrace the steps that led to that point of missing data.
Moderator's Note: Dissing Ingo can get mental laser beams boring > into your brain in some parts of the country. Just kidding. -- PJ
PJ - thanks for the shot across the bow. :-) For those who do support Ingo may I say that while his writing style is . . ummmm - different, it can be frustrating to those seeking clear, "laser-like" communication, be it in the form of Remote Viewing or usage of language. I've never met Mr. Swann, he certainly doesn't know me and the only perception I have is what I've read of his work. I have sent many emails to him in SUPPORT of his continued efforts with his RV history project. IMHO, he still needs a good editor.
I hope this disclaimer avoids problems before they even germinate!
> You experienced the cookie way before your could describe it and way > before you knwe the word that represented it. You feel love first > and > then identify it through description and you feel pain first and > then work at the description and name for either emotional or > physical pain > and then describe what you are feeling.
I was thinking more along the lines of label-as-world-view. Certainly kinesthetic knowledge often predates the labels or words we choose to describe what we internalize. In early childhood it always does . But, if we consider for a moment what happens to the individual who has language. A new concept comes along for which the person has no prior knowledge. No inner awareness, nada. The individual has to explore the CONTEXT (apologies - I'm not yelling: the italic function doesn't seem to come across in this email group) surrounding the new term before CREATING the framework within which the word will live. A beautiful example of this is found in conversations at a dinner party. People will be letting loose with computer terms, IN PROPER CONTEXT, but having nothing to do with the subject of computers whatsoever. Computers have entered the lexicon of our language with no need to have any experience of computers themselves because it is the context that is being referred to, not the original etymology of the term.
Liam here. Interesting question posed to Sandy privately concerning the ability to locate missing people by RV. We used to refer to this as the search problem at while I was with the project.
IMHO the "search problem" is not a test of RV ability. Using RV to solve the search problem is a lot like using a hammer to fix a computer (something I am frequently tempted to do). When I was with the project we often got tasked to do search problems, because the customers did not understand RV's capabilities. We sometimes got LUCKY. To solve the problem takes a lot of luck and imagination. Hoping for luck is a hell of a way to run an intelligence operation. We always found the person or object or whatever. But once we found the target where the hell were we.
For example; the target is a kidnapped american diplomat in Berut, Lebanon. We can find him. Tell you if he is alive or dead. Tell you his state of health. Tell you he is being beaten and is being moved every 24 to 48 hours. We can tell you that where he is is hot and dusty. He is in a room on the second floor by a street corner with an automotive garge kiddy corner from the building he is being housed in. There are brown skin people in the area and they speak a gutteral language. We are probably right on, but the information is not much help.
For the search problem ERV is probably more effective than CRV IMO. At least with ERV you can find a person and ask him the name of the place where you are. (Paul, Joe, Lyn, Gene, jump in anytime you want.) This is a side benefit of ERV, you get to have some real close contact with some of the worst scum on earth, terrorists, perverts, and kiddnappers. With CRV you can use your imagination and try determine what natural or man made formations are directly north, south, etc. If the viewer is not mirror imaging you can then take back azimuths and hope for luck.
Your best bet is a small town sherrif, who knows the area. If you tell him the body is by a curve in a stream, with a forested area to the north, and not far from a railroad bridge, he probably can ID the spot. As I said earlier, we did have some small success with search problems at the project, mainly due to some brilliant innovations by the monitors and analysts and some great RVing by Joe. Maybe some of the other ex-military RVers have a different view of the search problem. I would like to hear their views. As for me, I would rather walk through hell with gasoline drawers on, then do a search problem.
As to Sandy being OK (she's native american and does not like to brag.) She is as good if not better than me, and I am damn good (I am Irish and therefore must be honest.)
May the Force be with you,
[Archive Note: Liam, former U.S. Intell RV]
END ARCHIVE 33
A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.
Top of Page