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 forty-seventh archive.
BEGIN ARCHIVE 47
This is actually a question directed to Joe (and anyone else who wants to lambaste me for asking)
In a message dated 10/30/97 10:47:21 AM, Tom wrote: <<Seems to me, since we can never KNOW what anyone's like INSIDE, all we can do is attend to their actions and statements. By their deeds ye shall know them. That's all there is to work with.>>
Gosh, I thought....Um, uh.....there's something called "Remote Viewing" and we can LOOK...although in certain (most) cases it would be an invasion of privacy which is NOT OK with me unless my safety or that of my RV customer is threatened...which, it may be if the Disinformation Boy in question has a motive of shutting us down, and then how do you find out unless you peek?
Although, since due to concerns about the I of P, I would not usually LOOK into a person whose permission I didn't have, I do agree with Tom's statement on the surface of things....but RV is under the surface....Joe, am I wrong to say that TRUTH sometimes communicates itself unbidden? The sticklers (oops, you?) for strict protocol may be uncomfortable with uninvited intuitive knowledge. Just as long as I don't take the intuition as Gospel and start proclaiming it....
I'm still having trouble turning it off, and I really want some tips on this, since at certain times of the year it would really be nice not to feel everybody's agony so acutely....
Moderator's Note: I have no idea what "the I of P" is or I would explain it down here. I'm responding to this as a separate more personal post. -- PJ
>Gosh, I thought....Um, uh.....there's something called "Remote Viewing" and we >can LOOK...although in certain (most) cases it would be an invasion of privacy >which is NOT OK with me unless my safety or that of my RV customer is >threatened...which, it may be if the Disinformation Boy in question has a motive >of shutting us down, and then how do you find out unless you peek?
First off. Since presumbably the person you are violating the privacy of is someone you already know, you are heavily front loaded at the outset, so probably can't be trusting anything you think you are getting about them anyway. Since most of it will be stuff you are basing on other than remote viewing which you aren't doing since you are inappropriately front loaded.
>Although, since due to concerns about the I of P, I would not usually LOOK into >a person whose permission I didn't have, I do agree with Tom's statement on >the surface of things....but RV is under the surface....Joe, am I wrong to say >that TRUTH sometimes communicates itself unbidden?
It can...sporadically, spontaneously, in a generally uncontrolled fashion.
>The sticklers (oops, you?) >for strict protocol may be uncomfortable with uninvited intuitive knowledge.
I never said I didn't like psychics(?) I don't like it when someone doing something psychic (which on occasion I've been known to do) claim it's remote viewing...I believe that's usually what I say. Because it dilutes the meaning behind the word RV and it certainly clouds the limits of protocol. I also have no memory of ever saying anything psychic or within the RV protocol ever made me uncomfortable. Don't know where that rumor might have started. :)
>Just as long as I don't take the intuition as Gospel and start proclaiming >it....
Probably wise in any event, especially wise when you are front-loaded.
>I'm still having trouble turning it off, and I really want some tips on this, >since at certain times of the year it would really be nice not to feel >everybody's agony so acutely....
You are an Empath! One of the first things you need to do is learn to turn it off. It is interesting that you mention "agony" and not "warmth." It indicates that you may be looking for pain in others for some reason and not the softness and beauty. Perhaps you need to go over some of this again in your own mind and address why you have a need to be empathic to pain and not the rest. You might find the answer there, Nancy. I know you can learn to control it, but you have to want to first...and...you have to learn to see the rest of it as well.
As far as the spontaneity of it...well...enjoy it and leave it at that. Targeting anyone without their permission is still not very ethical. We all do it however, if simply because it can't be avoided at times. However, sharing it with anyone, including the person you got it from is stictly forbidden unless asked, or given permission to.
>Moderator's Note: I have no idea what "the I of P" is or I would explain it >down here.
Neither do I. I'm responding "empathically."
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
>Ha! Zonked is a great word for it! But for me is not just for 2-3 hours >after a session, is reflected in my sleeping patterns for several days. >How come nobody ever did a study on sleeping habits after a viewer has been >working targets?? Seems like a logical thing to consider... snip
The unit was primarily male, counterintellligence professionals, and probably some what macho. We did not talk about our fears, as I mentiuoned earlier (I would have, maybe, if someone else had, like Paul, Gene, Joe), I do not recall us talking about our sleep patterns. I do not think I had any problems, but then Tom says I have Irish alzheimers.
Recently I have been hearing a lot about this happening. I do not think you posted this message by accident. Hopefully we will get some more information from other group members. I will try and get some more information for you. snip
I know that I >need one. Finding one is a different story. It would be nice to have a monitor >to keep me on track though.... I had an experience once where I was working a >target and started vomiting... would have been nice to have a monitor around. snip
Ingo says undeclared AI can not only stop a session, but can also make you nauseous or make you vomit.
May the Force be with you,
[Archive Note: Liam, former U.S. Intell RV]
[Archivist Note: I was not going to put this in the archives, initially. The post was overreactive and undeserved, the person I responded to probably did not deserve it, and in later posts privately and publicly I apologized. At the last moment here I decided to leave it in, as there are issues in here that I think pertain to the subject 'at large' that make it of interest to the collective. Besides, other posts referred or reacted to this so leaving it out would be killing some of the archive context.]
Since targeting intentions seldom is done within RV protocol, it is as such "not RV." I suppose some degree of ethics come under the RV discussion list, although anything wandering into RI does not.
It's quite hilarious how people assume that remote viewers target them, as if Viewers really care about them. Most Viewers I know have more needed-sessions, not to mention practice for students, than they begin to have time to do, and simply don't bother targeting other people because it's easier to just pick up the phone and call them. And if one doesn't have that relationship with them, then they probably don't need to know.
It's also very funny how a lot of people in this field assume that anybody and everybody is spreading disinformation, and 'out to get them,' merely because they are not willing to join their game of conspiracy-fed fear of psychic warfare (fundies come and go, but the dynamic behind that lives forever). Or, because the other individuals are in the same mental set themselves -- what a bunch of drama queens!
If some of the people calling their psi work RV spent half the time in protocol sessions as they do targeting either aliens or enemies, they'd probably be decent at RV by now.
>>.... although in certain (most) cases it would be an invasion of privacy
When is it NOT an invasion of privacy? Come on. It is ALWAYS an invasion of privacy. The only variables are the target's acceptance of your doing so, which may or may not require conscious knowledge, and your acceptance of doing so, which may or may not in your eyes be ethical.
You can either believe you have a right to that knowledge, or you can believe that you do not. Neither of those beliefs are inherently ethical or unethical. How you behave depends not only on that belief, but on how true you are to your beliefs, and your ethics across the board.
>>.... although in certain (most) cases it would be an invasion of privacy >>which is NOT OK with me unless my safety or that of my RV customer is >>threatened...
So what you appear to be saying is, you feel it's okay for you to do things you would consider unethical or invasive if you:
(a) think you have a reason
(b) think you MIGHT have a reason, of somebody who may be the target or may not, or
(c) think someone who is paying you money has a reason.
Give me a break. This rationalizing has caused most of the agony the world has seen. You either ARE ethical or you are not. That rationalization is merely being dishonest with yourself and making excuses for one's behavior. If you take this logic far enough you're the evil genocidal empire all over again.
To me, integrity begins first with being honest with oneself. Without that, every other good intent is eventually going to fall, be manipulated, coaxed or paid into deformation.
What is truly ironic is that every time I see this ethics conversation come up, the same people (RV students or those who want to be RV students) who will wax SO poetic about ethics and how wonderful they are otherwise, or who will make such judgemental comments about soldiers using RV for the gov't like it's all so evil, invariably demonstrate the same degree of non-ethics that the gov't itself has on its worst day.
"It's only okay to tap your phone or your house or follow you or drag you in for questioning if we THINK you MAY be a threat." What, you think this isn't the same sense of ethics even the worst people have? "In the name of preventing crime, we are taking your right to privacy away."
Go watch the movie "Brazil" about 15 times.
>>which is NOT OK with me unless my safety or that of my RV customer is threatened...which, it may be if the Disinformation Boy in question has a motive of shutting us down, and then how do you find out unless you peek?
To comment fully on this, I would probably devolve into four letter words and comments about your entrance into RV via AARV, which I cannot comment on lest I so far exceed the non-flaming rules of this list I have to ban myself from membership. Your social group and background there has surely affected your perception of many things in this field, suffice to say.
I will try to limit my response to the ethics and RV issues.
There is almost no way to target this. You, and the people you share this psychic paranoia with, all have such massive overlay on the subject that (a) it would be a miracle if you got the target blind to you, (b) it would be a miracle if you didn't actually guess shortly into it what the target was, bringing all your overlay in anyway, (c) it would be a miracle if your tasker or associates didn't know the target, which brings me to :
There is no need to set this up as some kind of pseudo-RV to rationalize this. It only insults RV. At best, you will attempt to psychically spy on whomever you "suspect" may be "intending you or someone you like harm, maybe" and you will get exactly the results you suspect you might get. Don't bother doing a session on it. Just write down what you're sure is true and pass it around as data. You might as well.
Yes, it's harsh. I wouldn't let a fellow student get away with that crap for a minute without calling them out on it, and I hope other CRV students would do the same (CRV instructors certainly would) for me. I can tell you that both of the teachers on this list would, at least figuratively, kick a student's butt for that kind of thing. You think the question is ethics. It is. The first question is RV though, and this logic gets burned down on that count long before the morality police come along.
99.9% of the RV students who want to target people's psychology can't even be trusted to get a basic feedback target _in detail_ dependably under proper protocol. Psychology requires more skill than most people realize, and more skill than most people calling themselves Viewers truly have. Frankly, I doubt most of you do, although I'm happy to be proven wrong. This whole subject is often little more than a doorway to real-life role-playing games.
If you have SO MUCH TIME available to keep yourself involved in this kind of dramatic psychic warrior BS then you are not practicing enough. (In the words of a not-subtle Viewer friend of mine, "Quit jackin' off and get to work!")
If your suspected 'disinformation boy' is somebody in the RV world, then you'd better hope you've got more experience and skill than they do. RV itself is merely information; but there is effect on YOU even from targeting another person. Experienced Viewers know this. If you want to use RV as some kind of weapon that's your choice. But you'd better learn to use it well before you make yourself an enemy of people who have. If they've got ethical rationalizations like yours, you'd be in trouble.
I will be massively politically incorrect here and say I personally do not have a problem with the idea of targeting people, because I believe I have a right to any information I wish to know. I see the universe as open to me. --
HOWEVER, I don't actually WANT to know anything that would be highly personal to somebody, or that is classified information, etc. I am comfortable with my belief because I know it does not have to face much of a challenge by 'intent.' My intent is pretty much always positive. Even on the occasions when I truly loathe somebody, my first response is to pray that I know and act in accordance with my Will (this being 'higher self will').
Of course, once in a great while I'd rather just shoot somebody. I would probably not harm them psychically, though. Too personal. The last thing I want to do is get that close to somebody I loathe.
What I would have an ethics problem with is the _sharing_ of information gathered about an individual with anybody else. To me, my access to it gives me just that -- my access. It also gives me access to better understanding both them and myself, which on a personal level, is the real reason for learning anything about anything or anybody -- it is the most important benefit of RV, if people choose to use it that way. That doesn't mean it grants me license to tell others what I sense.
And no matter how you look at it, the data may unofficially be accurate, but officially it's garbage because it's out of protocol 99.9% of the time those things are targeted. So sharing the data with anybody would actually be a serious violation of my own ethics.
Acquiring information in general would not be. Targeting specifically for anything I felt I was not supposed to know, or that was private, would be. All of this comes down to intent. There is no way it can be separated from that. Anybody making to look physical rules for everyone else to follow is clearly just saying that people can't follow their own innate intuition and sense of morality.
Do what thou wilt. You have that right and I wouldn't take it from you. But don't pussyfoot around and make excuses for it. You demean yourself and RV more than your enemy if you do.
PJ wrote: > lest I so far exceed the non-flaming rules of this list I have to ban > myself from membership.
Actually, you have just demonstrated one of the virtues of my faith which is Honor. Honor is doing the right thing when there isn't anybody or anything capable of enforcing morality on your actions. IMHO, this is one of the more important virtues to work on for anybody involved in remote viewing.
> I will be massively politically incorrect here and say I personally > do not have a problem with the idea of targeting people, because I > believe I have a right to any information I wish to know. I see the > universe as open to me. --
Old western saying, "Your freedom to swing your fist stops where the other fella's nose begins." Information is a form of power. So, basically, you are saying that you have a "right" to any and all power you want. Of course, we can all trust your personal morality. That works in your case because you don't believe what you are saying - you do put self-imposed restrictions on your actions.
Would you agree to this rule of thumb? "If you wouldn't do it in person, don't do it while rving." I wouldn't knock and ask permission to enter a house if I thought somebody's life was at risk. However, I would if I was just curious about how they decorated their house.
>>Old western saying, "Your freedom to swing your fist stops where the other fella's nose begins."
I believe that my -- and your -- inherent freedom is to make our own decisions about things. That sometimes includes not swinging at all, and it sometimes includes punching people in the nose. I do not feel overly inhibited in either direction for the most part. I recognize that I am 100% responsible for my own decisions and I will live with the consequences on all levels. In order to take that responsibility, I have to grant myself that I have the freedom of options to begin with.
I didn't begin with this belief system, I evolved to it. It is difficult and requires a stronger sense of personal integrity to function within (and a dose of dependable instant-karma), but I consider it a positive thing.
>>Information is a form of power.
Sure. Power to hurt -- or heal. Power to manipulate -- or empathize. Like all power, it is neither good nor bad. It simply is.
>>So, basically, you are saying that you have a "right" to any and all power you want.
As per the above, power does not have to be negative or greedy. Compassion and mercy are forms of power, though most people don't realize that. Every individual has a right -- meaning they exist in a reality they have creative control over, though seldom as much as they'd like -- to understand and learn to their full capacity. That includes acquiring information, money, friends, or whatever makes them happy.
Yes, I am saying that I -- and you -- have a right to any and all power we want. It is your words which seem to connote power "over others" into that somehow -- as if my having power of any kind would automatically take away from yours, or other people's, or would be bad -- that's a belief system operating in itself btw -- and then you connote power back into information.
I am looking at something as the world's best lesson in empathy, while you are looking at it like the world's most dangerous spy. I suggest that this is a demonstration of projection on both our parts. Neither good nor bad, both are right and wrong. But, nicely reflective of our own beliefs.
>>Of course, we can all trust your personal morality.
Not a little sarcasm there. People in our culture so often act as if they are living in terror of the inherent evil just waiting to jump out around a corner at them. I see this as projection; of a fear of taking responsibility for one's dark side. You don't know my personal morality. I can trust mine. You can trust yours. You can trust that if you are in line with your own Will you will probably not come into flagrant conflict with mine in a negative way (or you could if your beliefs were similar to mine, which say that). Most people, though, live in the victim mentality our culture has created, and create all kinds of lousy experiences for themselves, which they then use to justify why they feel victimized, not recognizing their own consciousness draws this stuff in the first place. So, they fear everybody else's "motivations" because they don't trust themselves to effect their own reality, or "sense it coming," etc.
I trust a lot of people, because I trust myself to have excellent judgement of people. I trust that people I care about will not betray me because I trust myself to sense them accurately -- which I can only do because I am trustworthy enough myself to "hear that part of myself echo like sonar from inside them." I recently had a challenge to this belief, which I kind of failed, and ended up realizing that again, I should have known... I should have had faith... every time I give up trust in something or somebody, I eventually discover that it was a projection -- I had given it up in that part of myself.
In the long run, people paranoid of others almost always are so because they expect others to be like they are. The same goes for faith and trust. I consider the universe inherently good, and I consider myself inherently safe. I'm not afraid to let other people have the right to make their own decisions, pursue whatever it is they feel they need, etc. I hold a belief system that says the same for everybody. "I am divine and I hold the key to reality because I AM that of which reality is composed." It's a little bizarre for those unaccustomed to it and it's very, very difficult to come close to living out in tangible form without it being "just" philosophy. But, that is my philosophy, for better or worse.
>> That works in your case because you don't believe what you are saying - you do put self-imposed restrictions on your actions.
Perhaps I am saying more than you heard; I don't have a problem believing all of it. I didn't say I had no self-imposed restrictions; in fact, I listed some (caveats you didn't include in your quote). I said (or meant to) that _I believe the universe is open to me because I am part of it._ That means, if I WANT to punch somebody in the nose, I believe I have the right to make that decision, and live with the results.
It just so happens that -- amazingly enough, around the time in my life when I accepted this 'dark side' of things and accepted that it was okay to be 'bad' if I so chose -- I completely lost interest in being so, and became more than ever grounded to the ethics of what I feel inside. I became far more aware of the inherent integrity of my Self than I ever had been before.
If anything, letting go of my denial of this ability/responsibility actually freed me from attachment to it. I find that I have a much easier time living face to face with personal ethics than many people who feel an external pressure to be good, behave, live within acceptable norms. This is behavior based on an outside authority, cultural upbringing, etc. The more one denies aspects of themselves that are negative, the more one projects those onto others via fear, suspicion, etc. The most profound result of really seeing parts of yourself that are quite hideous and coming to terms with them is that they lose their power. They are no longer such a temptation to fight. They become just another choice, like a rainbow of choices, and choosing something ELSE is much easier.
The default of human nature, much as it may surprise many, does seem to be the positive, not the negative. It seems to be the overlays, repressions and projections that cause the negative stuff. As if light unfiltered and unimpeded is always clear. Like dealing with any problem, the first step in getting rid of 'the darkness inside' is recognizing it exists. Then accepting it. Then saying okay, it's okay to have this, but I see it for what it is, and I have a choice. Do I want to keep holding onto this? Usually the Self goes, "Nawww." Not a big deal. But first it has to be recognized and accepted. When people are rationalizing their motives under the guise of being innocently loving -- but the other guy was so bad he sort of forced them to be unethical -- they'll never learn about themselves that way.
(Btw, love is the ultimate shield... only the good guys can use it.)
>>Would you agree to this rule of thumb? "If you wouldn't do it in person, don't do it while rving."
(Sidenote: Do you know the origin of the term "rule of thumb?" It was the general description for how thick a rod you could beat your wife with. Speaking of subjective ethics....)
That rule is something simply inherent in me, though perhaps some people consider psi work and physical life different for some reason. However, in person, I am also perfectly open to the idea of listening carefully to someone to sense more about what they're like, talking with others who know them to learn more about them, etc. None of which would fall under the category of "I hereby give PJ permission to pry into me."
If my intent were different, even that would be calculating, manipulative, spying, and unethical. Again, this all comes down to intent. There is no "rule of thumb" that is ethical. PEOPLE are ethical. Rules are just words. That's why they're so easily broken. Ethical people are harder to break.
>>I wouldn't knock and ask permission to enter a house if I thought somebody's life was at risk. However, I would if I was just curious about how they decorated their house.
From what little I understand thus far, RV is not really something you pick up surface thoughts with. It is not a casual or flippant jaunt through somebody's head. There is pretty much no way to really contact somebody at a useful level without getting character-related impressions, motivations and goals -- and being affected oneself; it is a merge, to whatever extent. And frankly it isn't all that easy, RV is time and effort and work (and if you do it Buchanan's way, a whole stack of paperwork to follow) -- why bother, unless there was something quite serious you had to target?
As for me, maybe my feelings will change if I get to the point of doing a lot of formal RV on people. Perhaps that contact will inspire different feelings or response in me. I reserve the right to change my mind completely on all of this. ;-)
Right now I am operating mostly off my experience with what does not qualify as RV. I have never targeted a person via RV. Hell, I can't even find time to do practice sessions for regular CRV. I "tune into" people I want to merge with when I'm in bed, night and morning. For obvious reasons, I have zero desire to tune into anybody I don't like.
Often the 'tunings' promote a following out of body experience with the individual, or very powerful dreams about them. So far, it has always been positive. About the only danger I've encountered is that the experiences tend to promote such a deep feeling of "bonding" with me that the other individual may wonder why I feel like their closest companion when consciously, they don't even know me all that well... which can be very uncomfortable if the person is the opposite sex and married and so on, and I'm gushing spiritual bonding and emotion and passion at them. That's my own thing to learn to adjust to though, much of this is new to me, and I think it requires a little bit more balance in the personal life areas than my situation currently allows. No big deal; live and learn.
Sure. Sounds great on paper. The dynamics of operational reality don't change though. People are still going to do what they feel personally inclined to regardless of what rules they feel sound right or agree to ahead of time.
This is how I feel all this relates to RV: Know thyself. My response to Nancy's post was not a response to what she wanted to do (target somebody she felt was possibly ill intentioned toward someone she liked) except in terms of the RV considerations. I am perfectly okay with anybody doing whatever they want to do. I am NOT saying I'm okay with this "because I support people doing bad things." I am saying I'm okay with this because in my reality that's how it works -- "people ALWAYS do what they want to do." They may WANT to be ethical by their standards. Or, they may WANT to be otherwise. Either way, whatever a person is doing, that is what they want to do. I may as well be okay with it because that isn't going to change.
To be practical and functional I have to accept it and move on to the best solution, which to me is, rather than blind people to their true motivations by pressuring them with external social politics, I believe in allowing people to recognize their motivations without judgement -- but take full responsibility for them. In the military this is very nicely echoed by the confidentiality thing. When it's just a matter of keeping a secret, your honor and oath, chances are a lot of soldiers are going to tell the people they're closest to. So now, it isn't just a matter of "don't tell." It's a matter of, "OK, you can tell, but you have to shoot the person afterward." In other words, they personally have to take full responsibility for their actions, rather than someone down the road paying the price for their indiscretion. Faced with that allowance to tell yet responsibility for their action, and knowing those they loved and told would pay with them, fewer secrets get out than the old fraternal oath method.
All I'm saying is that I really do not believe rules limit people. Internal morality limits (or not) people. You can't really tell how somebody is going to behave by what set of rules they give you. People can say anything, and will usually say whatever they're bred to say. Watching people's behavior in action is the teller (or 'ye shall know the tree by its fruit,' a biblical quote someone paraphrased recently). I am not trying to impose rules etc. on other people. I am only, as a person with a conscience, trying to ensure that anybody communicating in my sphere is honest with themselves. What that honesty entails -- their decisions -- is not really my business.
I say that I am not limited by external rules; I am limited by my own sense of what is Just. If that doesn't sound like a set of words everyone feels safe or comfortable with....well, sorry. Call me a bad guy if necessary. I will not recant or type in platitudes to be politically correct on this.
Rusty, Nancy, I'm sorry about going off so extensively on the ethics subject in earlier posts. As usual when I find myself ranting, my response has little to do with the issue itself and more to do with underlying dynamics currently going on in parts of the RV world (if there is such a thing). I actually think we all agree pretty well on the ethics question. My comments should have been presented toward the real issue that kind of sets me off, which is the growing-more-common tendency of students from RV schools to choose targets that aren't blind, that they aren't qualified for, which have no feedback, "RV" them which is mostly sheer creativity and overlay and expectation on their part, and then they act on that data as if it were legitimate, not to mention how it increases rumors, fears, etc. in a feedback-loop that only makes them more nutso than some of them were to begin with. Neither of you presented that and both of you made rational comments about the subject, and I apologize for being so knee-jerk about it. It isn't your fault, I shouldn't have taken it out on you, and I could use a few more lessons in diplomacy. Thanks for being so gracious while I've been such a cad....
I have some more questions if anyone can help.
I've noticed that some of the people involved with Remote viewing programs and Non Leathal weapons have also been involved with ufo information disinformation studies and programs( Col John Alexander, Gen Albert Stubblebine, Hal Puthoff, Dr Christopher Green/Richard Kennett) plus many more. These all worked within or near intelligence agencies also in and around information and disinformation and I am wondering Could any of these players who are a big part of the Rv history be working along similar lines?
Thanks in advance all the best..
Moderator's Note: Now you've done it! What a topic. I keep teasing these guys that I half-want them to be wicked mind control overlords, just because I'm kinda kinky that way. ;-} I don't know if it's good news or bad that they're actually decent folks just living life like everybody else. As for the guys who were not the actual Viewers -- like Alexander et al -- well, I don't know anything about them.... -- PJ
>These all worked within or near intelligence agencies also in and around >information and disinformation and I am wondering Could any of these >players who are a big part of the Rv history be working along similar lines?
This is a rhetorical question, right? If R.V. Hotspur says "no, I would never do that," you can't be sure that's so, can you? Same doubt applies if said Hotspur says, "Yeah, you bet, how did you guess!"
Seems to me, since we can never KNOW what anyone's like INSIDE, all we can do is attend to their actions and statements. By their deeds ye shall know them. That's all there is to work with. Speculation is fruitless, and can divert oneself and others from the focus here. There are other places where it's welcome and abundant.
>I've noticed that some of the people involved with Remote viewing programs and >Non Leathal weapons have also been involved with ufo information disinformation >studies and programs( Col John Alexander, Gen Albert Stubblebine, Hal Puthoff, >Dr Christopher Green/Richard Kennett) plus many more. [snip]
Interesting observation. However, except for Dr. Hal Puthoff, none of the rest of these people listed were directly involved in the RV program. They were connected only peripherally and did not have a direct day-to-day contact. Aside from their personal beliefs (pro or con) about UFOs, I think most of the perceived connections between these people and UFOs (as related formally to the Government) might in itself be disinformation. :)
[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]
END ARCHIVE 47
A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.
Top of Page