Fictional Targets

Project Home Page

RVwebForum

TKR @the Dojo Psi

Help make it possible for everyone.

RV CHAT

Monday Nights
9:30-11:30pm Eastern
6:30-8:30pm Pacific
dojopsi.com/chat/

Weekly RV Chat

CS Labs
Ingo Swann
Joe McMoneagle

Baylands Nature Preserve
Pete's Harbor Restaurant
Lucid Dream Example
Radio Listening Post
Test-Bed Trials
Video ABC Put to the Test

The Home Made Viewer

P.I.A.

TKR Blog

Noetic Vision

Serious Kilowatt

Red Cairo

Cosmic Spoon

Psychic Journey

Psyforce

Remote Review

MindBlogging

BadMoJoe

Dojo Blog

Firedocs RV Blog

the McMoneagles

LFR/CSL

RV Roast (alt)

RV Library

[Furcifer]

I know this question has prob. been asked a thousand times, and I am not new to disc. groups, but guys believe me when I tell you I just don't have a whole lot of time to spend looking this stuff up.  What time I do have must be spent studying the protocols and doing sessions.  With that said, I was just wondering...

Has anyone, double-blind or otherwise, ever been tasked on a fictional target, like the Death Star or Bilbo Baggins's home, Bag End, or any other well known yet totally fictional place?

This may seem silly, and I guess they just wouldn't get anything, but the thought interested me, and I wondered if one of you guys might have heard of this and could just drop a quick answer.  I would appreciate it.

[wizopeva]

I once did a target that looked real but later turned out to be a concoction between two separate photos.  Interestingly, I did quite well describing both aspects, but I also got an impression of there being one place and then another that was really far away.  Perhaps that was my subconscious trying to give me info on the bogus combining of the photos.

I personally have never done a completely nonexistant target.  But I would guess that you'd have to be careful about how you chose it.  For instance, the Lord of the Rings was filmed at a real place.  One could describe the movie set or the filming place in New Zealand and that would be a real target.   The same goes for the Death Star.  I would imagine that somewhere, there is the plastic model that was used for the filming.  If one were to not get size info in the session, then you might not notice.  

One thing about rv is that even if you get lots of accurate info, you won't get all of it, and sometimes you'll even leave off very obvious or useful stuff.  If seen some sessions in which viewers, especially good experienced viewers, WILL get info that might indicate a possible scam target.  But you can't really rely on it.  That's why rv is most effective when it's coupled with real world knowledge and research.  
-E

 

[michael32766]

From what I have read any time someone tried to RV a fictional target the data was gibberish.
Or it didn't make sense.
For example you RV a Saturn IV rocket you get stuff like
Hard, metallic, burning, tall, roaring sound, capsule, science etc.
With fiction targets you don't get that coherence of data.
I once did a target that looked like a window cleaner outside a high rise building.
But my data was the impression of a crowd watching a play.
I looked closely at the target and found out it was a prop of a window cleaner in front of a giant picture.

    What I would like to find out is what happens when a target is given to a Tasker that looks real but is not.

mike

[waterway]

I don't know, but I think that if the fictional character is important to you and you are really into that character or situation or whatever the task event is.... it would be a good one.  I think that interest in the target makes it a good candidate for RVing.  

I wonder if the fictional targets you mention Mike were randomly chosen fictional targets, or if they were targets that the RVers really identified with.  

For example, I would suspect a Star Trek enthusiast (I hear they don't like being called Trekkies) would do well with Star Trek universe targets, but not do well with a character from Moby Dick or Terminator.  I would think that in general, fictional targets would do worse, since they have a very limited range of relationships to the "real world".

What do you think?

[PJ]

I have done a couple fictional targets.  I can't talk about their detail but I can talk about the results.

The idea that real targets have good data and fake targets have bad data is not really consistent enough to take seriously.  The real issue was not your session but was your interpretation of the feedback.  Had the target been anything that could be construed in any way as a crowd watching a play, you would not have considered that data nonsense.  Since some fictional targets do not have feedback, one cannot use that to help find the criteria in such a case.  The sessions alone can be, but are not always an indicator.

Other issues in tasking or even feedback for novices can cause weird results in sessions.  Bad tasking, or accidentally getting two feedbacks in an envelope, or other things like that can cause confusion in the session, and often plenty of info from both but an inability to really 'lock on' to either.  Sometimes a good target with bad tasking can have some of the 'all over' effect, and sometimes it just isn't a good session.  Usually the thing that will most skew viewer sessions is when there is no target at all.

My results with fictional targets are the same as I get for 'representational' targets.  Which is to say, data may be accurate but is often somewhat symbolic or gestaltic rather than specific.  For example, in a rep target that was a weather map, I got a storm, but I also got a lot of symbolic stuff that indicated waiting, expectancy, an announcement, etc.  Had the feedback and target instead been say, a photo of a house in the midst of a storm, I assume data would have been more about the house and storm than the 'concepts' that rode with the news weather map.

One of the targets McMoneagle did on a TV show in Japan a year or two ago was this house I think it was, and he said there was something... I can't remember his word, artificial about it.  He was nervous to say that for cultural reasons.  Turned out this thing was literally like a dollhouse, a small representation of a village or something like that.  He didn't know that part, though he described the village fine; he did pick up the concept that it was a representation--that it wasn't real.  I don't think most viewers would get that, though.

When a 'fake' target has a fairly solid character and story, info about that will often be found in the session.  I personally suspect that the degree of consciousness invested in something 'amps up' how much this happens, but that is only my personal theory.  For example, a book someone wrote, that has never been read by others, may have a character with experiences.  I doubt most viewers would get a lot of that, if targeted.  But if we were targeted with Harry Potter, or Santa Claus, we very well might get info consistent with that in the session, without knowing that the thing was 'not real'.  Unless the fact that it wasn't real came through as actual data, like the "no such thing as santa claus" is as much data as reindeer would be, so it might.

The best way to figure it out is just to target yourself on several fictional targets.  Beware of doing it on stuff that has no feedback, though.  Psychologically, it is very shaky ground.  Without feedback to set it straight, the mind generally *wants to believe its own experience* in session, and when there is no feedback, you tend to buy into your sessions... for better or worse.  With most people, for worse, lol.

PJ