RV, the future, protocol, physics & more

RV Protocol

GO VIEW! @TKR's dojo

Project Home Page

RV webForum (here!)

Email: @Yahoo|@Google

Help make it possible for everyone!

TKR is Funded by:
PJ of Dojo Psi

Simple Session

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

P.I.A.

Greg K's ARV Trials

RV Roast (alt)

RV Library

[murphys]

Hi! I'm new here. (EPILOGUE:A friend told be about RVing about 4 years ago. I was handed MIND TREK and then I started doing it without any real training. I have people hide pics in envelopes and I draw them. The lines are in the right places but I usually don't understand the reality of the pic until I see it. -this sounds like what most people do... i think...)

Last week I decided to challenge myself.

I got bored of hidden pictures in envelopes. I teach ESL (English as a second language) and before the class began, since my lesson plan involved having students choose random pictures from picture books and having them describe the pictures in English to the rest of the class -for them to comprehend and draw., I decided to RV the pictures that my students were going to choose BEFORE my students were even aware of the day's lesson plan. I figured that would be a nice challege for myself.

Question (1) Is that standard procedure in some protocols? (Predicting what people will choose before they even know about it?)

With this challenge, my drawings were by far the most accurate I had ever done in the four years I have been dabbling in RV. They were 'perfect' -the objects were in the corrects places, they were the right size, and the camera angle/perspective was dead on. Moreover, absolutely no AOL. Just clear and total BINGO -for two out of three pictures that were coved in that lesson that day. (the third picture i RVed and drew was not a hit -because, it was not chosen by a student in class ... perhaps because of time constraints -however to my astonishment,  my third drawing  was actually a real photo in the picture book! again, my drawing of it was 'perfect')
Q.(2)
Is such 'future' RVing known to be more accurate? (there must be a term for this, right? somebody please enlighten me.)
If so, why would it be more accurate?

Q.(3)MIND TREK says something like it is my future self that sends me the needed info as soon as I become aware of the info in the 'future'. If that is the case, why were two out of three "picture perfect" selections, and the third one a "picture perfect" nonselection? What are the implications here? Would that third photo have been chosen by one of my students had I had more time in class for  an extra picture to be chosen? Why on earth would I pass on 'picture perfect' false(non selected) info to myself??

RECAP:
So there are two mysteries for me... Why is this 'future' RVing SO much more accurate?(i must do more to back it up) and how is it that I had a third 'perfect' RV that was never actually selected? (bonus question: is that third question a hit of a miss??) What are the implications?

Thanks guys! -and please be easy on me, i'm new at this!

(I can post the photos and my drawings on my site if someone is interested in seeing them and/or if it is more helpful to do so)

[murphys]

Hello
I decided to put the pics up.
Please take a look at them.

I'm really interested in the mechanics of RV.
Any answers to my questions? (I am very thankful)

http://www.murphyschool.bigstep.com/generic48.html

[murphys]

BTW, I used the term, "EPILOGUE" in my first message but it's probably a bad joke... RV humor.   I won't explain it....

[PJ]

Ah... anybody who likes Branford Marsalis is ok with me.  I spent many a 2am-after-2nd-job night crammed in a compact car practicing trumpet thanks to a couple of Branford's albums... the man is downright inspiring.

I have people hide pics in envelopes and I draw them.

Sounds fine to me, as long as you genuinely have no clue what the pic is. You demo'd some "2 clue" sessions on your page. Those clues weren't just frontloading, they were the target. (Granted you did well at getting shape info not provided, so as an exercise in 'dealing with way too much frontloading' they are good--but not as a basic RV practice.)  Remote viewing has got to be done blind, as your McMoneagle book says.

The lines are in the right places but I usually don't understand the reality of the pic until I see it. -this sounds like what most people do... i think...)

Research has proven that most viewers even when they do brilliantly at describing a target, may not really know what it is (though they may have a clue, or they may know what some of the components are), and viewers who tend to 'need to know' suffer way too much analytical interference in the process.

Last week I decided to challenge myself.  I got bored of hidden pictures in envelopes.

Try this for a lot more fun: have your friends take pics or even just write down addresses of lots of stuff around town and put it in opaque envelopes (several, and NO CLUES! :-))  Do those sessions when you have time to jump in the car and go to the location. Consider the focus of the target to be a 2-minute period when you are standing AT the target location.  "Live feedback" often makes the process more fun (and sometimes, the sessions more intense) than still photos.

I decided to RV the pictures that my students were going to choose BEFORE my students were even aware of the day's lesson plan. I figured that would be a nice challege for myself.  Question (1) Is that standard procedure in some protocols? (Predicting what people will choose before they even know about it?)

Sure, it's common. There are a couple different ways to look at this and a couple different ways to do this.

You can do it "specifically," e.g., the target is what has feedback in the envelope I will choose when I get home at 9pm tonight, or, the target is the first picture chosen by a student in today's class.  Or you can do it "generically" -- or "open ended" to some degree -- e.g., the target is whatever target gets assigned to my session.  (One tasker calls this 'wildcards'. The term was coined in the 80's by a futurist for a different purpose so I don't often use the term myself.)  Some people call it 'back-tasking', when the tasking comes behind the session. In any case the answer is yes, it's fairly common -- at least, in MY world.

Now, there are other worlds, and a lot of belief systems in RV. For example, some people think that if a target does not have a name (of a certain type) or a number (of a certain type) pre-assigned to it, that it just can't be viewed, or not well.  Others think that it's the link of a human mind with the target symbol (number et al) which matters, which means some kind of symbol/number would have to be chosen ahead of time and a human would have to know about it and think about the connection to the target to make this happen.  Precog-type tasking has to be gone about slightly differently when working within models like that, for obvious reasons, but as long as there is a tasker who knows the goal, it's still possible.

With this challenge, my drawings were by far the most accurate I had ever done in the four years I have been dabbling in RV.

Were the sessions done in any different conditions or place?  Was the feedback any different?  I expect the answer to the latter is 'yes'--your feedback happened in a dynamic environment around people.  In which case I should point out, it isn't likely that the situation itself is the cause as that a CHANGE in what you have been doing for four years may be the cause.  (Although the 'true' cause, nobody really knows...I'm just speculating.)  In ongoing RV, often "variety" is important. You can often get novel effects, more intense or accurate sessions, from nearly any change, at least briefly.

however to my astonishment,  my third drawing was actually a real photo in the picture book!

Because you looked at the book and found a picture that matched your session, you essentially gave yourself 'feedback' there, even though technically the origin of that picture did not come in the way you planned.

Is such 'future' RVing known to be more accurate?

RV is as accurate as the viewer makes it. The variables that effect viewer sessions are not all known, and vary widely with the viewer themselves.  Some viewers are highly accurate about future RV, and some almost never, and some only if they don't know up front that it's a precog tasking haha.  It is not unusual (in my world) for a viewer to be able to do just as well on targets that aren't tasked until after the session, as they do on targets tasked before the session.

Q.(3)MIND TREK says something like it is my future self that sends me the needed info as soon as I become aware of the info in the 'future'.

That's one of the going theories, and the one McMoneagle apparently held when he wrote MIND TREK.  Although bear in mind that if you know all after you die, and if we genuinely do have a soul, then it doesn't really matter if you never see it in person.

If that is the case, why were two out of three "picture perfect" selections, and the third one a "picture perfect" nonselection? What are the implications here?

You gave yourself feedback.  You essentially created the target retroactively by doing so.

Would that third photo have been chosen by one of my students had I had more time in class for  an extra picture to be chosen?

That would be a big assumption. We'll never know. All we know is that YOU saw a picture and were delighted with how it matched your session and that operates as feedback.  The only minor hitch with how you did this tasking is that you are then seeing the other pics in the book as part of working with it.  That may have created a bit of a feedback muddle.

(bonus question: is that third question a hit of a miss??)

Given your background is a McMoneagle book, you need to think hard in terms of protocol.  (Like... no clues! And being real clear on what data's being collected for, concerning tasking and feedback.)  There was no tasking, hence there is no target, hence you should not have gotten feedback, hence there should not have been a session at all, so it's not hit or miss, it just shouldn't be there at all.  If you did the drawing during the session on a PREVIOUS target (as it sounded like you meant), then you would have to apply that sketch toward the previous target in which case it was a miss. If you did the drawing for a third session based on a third pic chosen, then you COULD say that that one might have been what was chosen IF you had time--a wild guess, who knows, but not a bad one!

Thanks guys! -and please be easy on me, i'm new at this!

If you've been doing this for four years, you aren't new at it compared to most folks. :-)  One thing I wonder though, your sessions are nothing but visual. That is usually just one of many types of info. Do you not attempt to get other information in a session? Feel/touch, smell, taste, sound, concept, etc.?  Remote 'Viewing' is not as literal as the term makes it sound LOL.  As Joe explains in various places, it is all-senses and more.  By the way if you don't have his "Remote Viewing Secrets" book, you really should obtain it, as it has a ton of useful information in it.

Nice website!

Best regards,
PJ

[murphys]

Bran is a really nice guy... and intellegent. He's got interesting things to talk about.


I realize that  '2 clues' is probably not RV protocol. But isn't it almost like giving someone numeric coordinates? Those are clues, too.... aren't they? well... anyway they are like training wheels on a bicycle... they are confidence builders. Call is Stage 0.5??  It does away with much AOL so I get to concentrate on actually understanding the target. Do you think this practice could hamper my progression, or help develop skills in other areas?

hmm... i don't see how a 10-digit number can be recongized in a stack of thousands of 10-digit numbers over a lifetime. It would seem to me that the numbers are for reference & filing... and for the RVer, it's just a placebo....(of course I could be very wrong)


"if you know all after you die, and if we genuinely do have a soul, then it doesn't really matter if you never see it in person. "

That is an interesting point! That implies that... if we are indeed reincarnated, and if we do 'know all' when we are between lives... then instead of our 'future selves' passing down info to present 'us', perhaps in RV we are always simply remembering what we already knew.

"One thing I wonder though, your sessions are nothing but visual. That is usually just one of many types of info. Do you not attempt to get other information in a session? Feel/touch, smell, taste, sound, concept, etc.? "

What can I say? I am not trained....
I just , do it.  However, in the first year into it, I did get 'wet.' The target was a busy waterfall - a number of large rocks sticking out from under the mountain wall produced areas where the falling water would bounce and spray out in white colors...
For that one I clearly remember stating that I could not draw it... because 'it was like a movie clip'.  I said, 'Its like I'm at a ski resort, and I'm skiing down a mountain... big bounce to the right, turn..go down... big bounce to the left... turn, down... big bounce to the right...turn.. go down.... then I get ALL WET! What can this mean?"  Of course I was describing the water falling down and bouncing off the rocks and then finally hitting the river at the bottom. It looked like a ski mountain because the water being sprayed was really white in the picture. This is the only time that I got my other sensations involved, and it's the only time that it was a repeatable 'movie clip' that I could view, over and over again.

How would you rate the pics I did (up on my site)? Can I hope to get much better? For example, do people actually get to read words off of targeted street signs? content out of books? etc..?


BTW, I attemped an OBE last week for the first time. I was lying in bed... i got a white light and a sensation started to come to me, but in that instant that I realized that it was starting to happen...I frightened myself and I literally ZAPPED right back.... I have not been able to return (even to that point) since...

[PJ]

Hi there,

Bran is a really nice guy... and intellegent. He's got interesting things to talk about.

And a fine lookin' one too just to be crass lol. He and Winton are just awesome musicians.  It was originally hearing Branford on a Sting album that set me off, though I ended up in the record store buying Winton's stuff (Bran didn't have his own albums then I don't think)  and a trumpet.

I realize that  '2 clues' is probably not RV protocol.

Actually 'an RV protocol' can be good or bad--it's certainly variable.  It is a sort of misnomer when I often say something 'violates RV protocol' but what I mean is it violates a GOOD RV protocol (or 'one that would be scientifically approved, or approved by experts in an operations setting').

It is not a bad thing, what you did, it is just something that I would only use "sometimes" and I would use specifically with experienced viewers. If you've been doing this for four years, that is just fine.  There are other issues brought up by this though, which I'll address later in the post.

But isn't it almost like giving someone numeric coordinates? Those are clues, too.... aren't they?

No, that's the whole point of the coordinates is to provide direction but NO 'clue' as to the target. They ceased to be geo coords eons ago and became 'encrypted' and then ceased to be that and just became ordinary numbers--the next database record or log number, or something that itself contains info (like the place, tasker, trial, whatever).  You don't need 'coordinates' (a carry-over terminology from the original geo) but some use them, but if the coordinate provides any information about the target it is being done improperly.  There would be no point in using or needing numbers if one could simply tell the viewer, "The target is two people."

That was the whole reason they quit using geo coords. Because although the chance of someone actually knowing every building/person/object/activity at every possible coord on earth was ludicrous, skeptics argued that the coords did at least provide intell-savvy viewers (which many were) with an idea about 'where on earth' the target was. For example if the tasking was present time and the coords were Siberia and it was December, they would probably get cold and snow -- not a big stretch to figure out.  

But even outside science, it's important for analysis reasons that there be some genuine unknowns to the viewer that are known to the analyst so that they can compare the session data against what little IS known, as a sort of calibration on how seriously to take the rest of their data on things which are not known.

well... anyway they are like training wheels on a bicycle... they are confidence builders. Call is Stage 0.5?? It does away with much AOL so I get to concentrate on actually understanding the target.

In its own way this can be constructive for a viewer. But understand that you do need to be able to do double/solo-blind targets without being told outright what the nature of the target is. If the target is a person, is a boat on a lake, is a skyscraper, is a cave, you need to be able to describe it, one way or another (you may not KNOW what it is, I might add--one of the more frustrating things about RV and which tends to cause a lot of analytical problems as viewers' minds try to guess).  A huge portion of "developing remote viewing skill" is learning to sort out in your own head the various feelings, impressions and symbols that relate to 'what the target is'.  

Now if you can do this, and you want to go beyond that into more detail, then a practice series where you are frontloaded--which would be less info than you are getting in your 'hints' by the way--would be one way of focusing-in.  I might mention that normally, the way this is done is NOT by telling a viewer what the target is up front but rather, by having the viewer do a double/single blind, typical RV session, and then re-tasking an additional session on something(s) of the data from the first session. Usually RV starts with work done within a protocol appropriate for the usage; while some point out it is "faster" to skip a session and jump directly to telling the viewer what it is and tasking on detail, you get into the calibration issue again here, where if the viewer figures out that the target is two people, vs. a skyscraper or cave or 60,000 people or whatever, then they are clearly tuned into the target, so they can continue.

Do you think this practice could hamper my progression, or help develop skills in other areas?

The way you are doing it, it is probably most conducive for skill working within an ARV tasking protocol--not for regular RV, and here is why: you are not actually targeting yourself to describe the target, but rather, to specifically sketch what is seen in the feedback photograph.  That is clear by the fact that you only get info reflected in your feedback and that you get it so specifically.

Regular RV would want quite a bit of information, like that the people were female or male, adult, maybe their style of dress, maybe their language, maybe even what they were talking about, or the room they were sitting in or the situation/reason/purpose for their talk. Regular RV would generally not care at ALL about the position they are in at a specific fractional-second-of-time the camera caught, because RV tends to have, even at a narrow point, a larger width of focus. (Only in rare targets for things like physics or genetics is the timeframe likely to be so tiny.)

In short, you are not so much attempting to view your target as your feedback. They are not the same thing.

Now ARV  ('associative') remote viewing, is a tasking protocol which, to aid in the viewing of targets which are highly similar or abstract, 'associates' photographs to a given possible target. Viewers provide a session, which gets evaluated, and after the 'event' in question occurs, then the viewer is shown the photograph associated with the target that actually came to be or the thing which really happened. For example (to be simplistic), if the price of Silver goes UP on Tuesday you might be shown a picture of Niagara Falls, and if the price goes DOWN on that day you might instead be shown a picture of a forest, and if there is any other option (e.g., some tragedy closed the stock market) you might be shown a picture of an airplane.   What you would be asked to describe on Friday would be "the photograph you will be shown on Tuesday."  The more specifically you provide information that clearly matched the photograph, the better you'll do at ARV.

So in ARV, you are viewing the feedback, not the target. And that means that instead of a 'spectrum' of information about the target itself (as described in the example of 'two people' above, from one of your sessions), you really DO want to be as specific to that exactly fractional-second moment in time when the photo was snapped as possible.  Your session 'ideally' for ARV would be highly visual and would really clearly show the relationships of the 'shapes' in the target.

In this regard, your sessions are excellent.  See http://www.remote-viewing.com for Greg K's ARV info, and http://wwwp-i-a.com for Marty R's ARV info.  Greg has some of his own sketches on his site (some of his good matches).

It would seem to me that the numbers are for reference & filing... and for the RVer, it's just a placebo....(of course I could be very wrong)

You're right it's for nothing but ref & filing--at least for 'most' belief systems in RV, not all of them as I mentioned previously. The only way I could understand calling a task number a 'placebo' is in the context of belief systems that feel the number itself, or the tasker's bond to it, is creating some extra information.

then instead of our 'future selves' passing down info to present 'us', perhaps in RV we are always simply remembering what we already knew.

Sure, if time is a perception and not an objective thing, then technically all time is now and all space is here, so a target is never actually separate from us in space or time. To the degree we think of it as such, we interfere with our ability to become aware of what we can know about it. Many of the rituals, models and belief systems in psychic work and remote viewing are basically steps to help the viewer mentally accept their own connection to, access to the target.  

For example there is the old radio 'Signal Line' idea, which was moved beyond decades ago but there are some who still really use that idea and others who just use it as a 'handy model' in initial training.  In a nutshell this suggests that all information is stored in some unspecific mass database called 'the matrix' which is somewhere undefineably 'out there'.  And then we are here. And that you send your intent like a database query flying out to the matrix like a prayer to god basically and it gets the data and flies it back along that same carrier-wave to you. It's a charming model, and a great improvement on some of the other more spiritualist ideas like channeling dead people if you ask me, but still rather hilarious in today's world where some understanding of the concept of physics non-locality is beginning to filter in to even laymen.

{Do you not attempt to get other information in a session? Feel/touch, smell, taste, sound, concept, etc.?} What can I say? I am not trained.... I just , do it.

This has nothing to do with being trained--your source of info is a McMoneagle book and he says that part of the process is using ALL senses to obtain any info possible. That is generally  natural for people unless they are, without realizing, pre-biased by the term 'remote VIEWING' to assume that it's all about visuals.

However, in the first year into it, I did get 'wet.' The target was a busy waterfall - a number of large rocks sticking out from under the mountain wall produced areas where the falling water would bounce and spray out in white colors... For that one I clearly remember stating that I could not draw it... because 'it was like a movie clip'.  I said, 'Its like I'm at a ski resort, and I'm skiing down a mountain... big bounce to the right, turn..go down... big bounce to the left... turn, down... big bounce to the right...turn.. go down.... then I get ALL WET! What can this mean?"  Of course I was describing the water falling down and bouncing off the rocks and then finally hitting the river at the bottom. It looked like a ski mountain because the water being sprayed was really white in the picture. This is the only time that I got my other sensations involved, and it's the only time that it was a repeatable 'movie clip' that I could view, over and over again.

I call them 'mini-movies', although I usually experience them differently (as one diff, only once).  You were 'personalizing' the target there, which is one way of taking in data.

I'm tempted to think that you have always gotten some other data but been so hooked on the visual focus you didn't think to write it down. For example on the waterfall mentioned above, nowhere did you say 'outside' or 'cold' or 'fresh' or 'white' -- even though I bet all of those things were within your sphere of experience during the session. A big part of remote viewing's hard lessons is that we are usually aware of a ton more info than we actually know, but it takes a lot of practice to learn to fork it out of ourselves and write it down.

A good way to start expanding this in yourself is to do whatever you choose to do normally but add a sort of bullet point list off to the side of your sketches and try to tell something else about the target. Open yourself up--especially AS you sketch--to colors, smells, textures, concepts, ambience, etc.  

If you are sketching two people sitting across a table from each other, you have info even in the sketch you could flesh out, stuff you already get -- 'separated by an elevated, flat, hard area [like a table]' or 'female, and female, one has hair to the middle of back' or 'holding something in her hand'.  All of these are data points and worth putting in text.  While you're sketching ask yourself, what color is the shirt, the hair?  If your targets are real (not staged photos like CD collections but news photos etc.) then you can also ask yourself concept questions (e.g. over time you would hope to become aware when the people are international politicians, vs. soldiers, vs. children, and/or what their conversation or situation relates to).

A tasker could take one of your sessions and say, "Describe for me what she is holding in her hand."  Then you are back into severely frontloaded remote viewing again--but still, it is psi--and you need to be able to describe it sufficiently so that the analyst knows whether it is a jar of pickles, a baseball mit or a .38 caliber pistol.

How would you rate the pics I did (up on my site)?

As a feedback-focus, they are fabulous. Alas since you were not remotely blind to the nature of the target, having been told 'two people' for example, then I cannot judge anything about the regular/overall remote viewing quality, only how well you described your feedback--which IS a form of psi, still--and it's wonderful.

Can I hope to get much better?

I think it is fairly difficult to continually practice anything and not gradually get better. How much better and at what facets will probably depend on what you choose to focus on.  At this point I would say your visual skills are really excellent, and it would be good for you to practice bringing in other senses and eventually concepts into your viewing--in particular in a double/solo-blind protocol.

You really should visit the RV Galleries -- that's http://www.RVGalleries.com -- and under the heading GO VIEW! click on 'practice' and then do a session and get feedback.  You don't have to upload any data if you don't want to share--though if you do, then under the GO SEE! heading, 'practice' link, your session could be seen by other viewers who can comment (sometimes that's helpful and fun).  You can actually set a session for an alias or for 'anonymous' if you're shy by the way....!

All the pics in there are 'real' pics (a lot of news and historical and personal sourcing) so they've all got concept in them.  

Also, the Galleries offer an option that might fit in well to how you are going about this.  (They are pretty flexible, on purpose.)  You want some frontloading.  A good RV protocol suggests double blind.  Well in the personal settings area you can choose categories for targets. There are four 'basic' categories that people get by default: (1) People, General (2) Animals/Critters, (3) Basic Gestalts, (4) Basic Events.  Now it doesn't tell you how MANY people are involved -- and since there's nobody potentially in person or by phone telling you, you can't 'accidentally' (through subtle physiological senses) get any more info.  But you could un-check all categories but people for example, and then generate practice targets for yourself. It would be up to you to figure out how many people, and anything and everything you could about them and their situation or location or activity.  But it would at least be frontloaded to the point of telling you the focus of the photo is one or more people.

(I strongly recommend beginning a double/solo-blind protocol.  You seem to have terrific talent, it is such a shame to see you limit yourself.  I know it's confusing getting that far, but that's part of learning RV, lol.)

For example, do people actually get to read words off of targeted street signs? content out of books? etc..?

Yes, not a lot of that usually but it depends on the viewer.  And 'how' the data comes in may vary wildly and is important to consider. For example some viewers do well at getting the content of a document, but it may or may not be literal words; it may be a general, conceptual translation. It may be a symbolic description of what it's talking about (e.g., the viewer may describe an event which the document describes, or may describe an event or circumstance which is directly responsible for the doc's existence in some fashion).  It may have a word or two, or data may be limited to important basics, e.g., "Political" and "French" -- which depending on the tasking needs, could alone be very useful as info.  

Sometimes the data is pretty literal but it isn't clear why to the viewer (from McMoneagle's Part-V Japan info, "Joe said he wanted to call it a “sports arena” but that was not what it was, as it was too narrow to be one." -- the target was actually a really big car showroom officially called 'Sports Auto Arena' in Japanese).  Some viewers who get more comfortable with viewing numbers may use a symbolic-associative approach, working with their subconscious (consciously) to agree on some symbol which say, will represent the number 4; that's a long-term process and a lot of work but like anything else, can be doable depending on the skill, practice, and psychology of the viewer.

RV will probably never be as literal as any viewer wants it to be.  It is often damnably intangible, sometimes abstract, sometimes misses wildly for no trackable reason. Most of what viewers feel comfortable with in RV is how we feel about sessions AFTER we get feedback, and can then fit our session experience into context--but despite the someone inconsistent nature of psi in general, a good viewer can be invaluable if connected with a real need.

BTW, I attemped an OBE last week for the first time. I was lying in bed... i got a white light and a sensation started to come to me, but in that instant that I realized that it was starting to happen...I frightened myself and I literally ZAPPED right back.... I have not been able to return (even to that point) since...

OBEs are fun.  You'll do it, it's just that when you think about it you move into 'observer role' which puts your perspective right back into your body.  After it happens a time or three you'll be less scared or excited and able to just go with it.  

Just FYI, there isn't any evidence that OBE's are literal; it may be a focusing-down (filtering 'as if one were limiting info to body-size' like we do in our waking life) a massive field of info we'd normally, in say dream state, have full access to.  Just like your perception of the waterfall rocks doesn't mean you 'left your body and were bouncing around the rocks' -- your "perception" was on the rocks -- OBEs may be a translated perception in which we pay attention and filter in a manner that makes 'leaving the body' feel very literal (and very cool!), but is not actually leaving the body as far as 'you' (spirit? identity?) goes.

Best regards,
PJ

[murphys]

Wow! What an answer! Thank you!

It's gonna take me a while to digest all that...

One part that interested me was the 'matrix' concept.
I thought that's how it worked when I started doing this, for the following reasons...

I usually don't have a cool down session for RV, I just take a moment and start writing (or talking). I can do it in a crowded bar... in fact I often do it in bars. (yes, as amusement)

One night I decided to ask questions to 'above'.  For this, I went to my bedroom got in bed and relaxed by producing ki (chi) with my hands (I'm a long time martial artist). Now, i never read any manual for this, so I don't know why I relied on ki to put me in the correct state, it was done on impluse. I did my ki for about 20 min., then I asked the first of two questions to 'the aliens who were listening' or 'to my ancestors.', or 'to a (matrix)'.

The first was "Who are we?/What are we doing?"
I immediately felt like i was pushed into another state (I was not sleeping though) and I was sent this vision as an answer:

I saw ants walking in a line... zoom out... they are on a wooden picnic table... zoom out... its in the sand...zoom out... it's in a huge desert like Monument Valley... zoom out...it's earthlike...zoom out... woah, it's all in a petri dish...under a microscope.... in a lab...in a huge (space)ship(?)...

Wow! What was that!? I came back. I had this 'knowing' feeling that the vision was fine tuned and it was tuned into something that I could understand. It was translated into something that I could digest... "I shouldn't take it literally..."

So... I asked my second question... "Ok, so where are we going?"

Boom! Right back to the lab in that ship! Alright... so, I notice a 'holding tank' with what seemed like millions of 'glowing spirits' it it. They were not sad or 'being held' or anything like that... they were just, in there. Now somehow I got the understanding that these spirits are put in and taken out of the petri dish. SO this is how reincarnation works...hmm...  then I remember saying "NO, that's not my question! I mean where are we GOING?"... zoom out... see the 'ship' move through space... the FLASH! I'm in this totally new place. I can only say that it seem like there were more dimensions there. I want to call it 4D. Everything was like rainbow colored 4D 'jellyfish' -the opaqueness was part of the 4th dimension.... it was quite beautiful! "So... this is where we're headed for...? hmmm..."

...and then I came back. I was totally awake. It was not a dream.

I didn't consider this to be RV until I read your response to me today. I thought some entity sent me something...  or some 'matrix' database entry  was sent to me (on demand) as a vision ... they were  simplified answers to two questions that were too complicated for me to understand otherwise...

Now.... I'm a bit confused... was this an OBE? RV? of what?
I believed at the time that my vision was being tuned somehow to match my own mind... was I literally understanding AOL taking place??

are there similar stories out there?
BTW... I did these, i believe, just before I did my first RV. I didn't know what I was doing, but I winged it with success. It was after I read a book called ALIEN AGENDA and before I read MIND TREK...

[Benton]

Murphys,

Your experiences are exciting, and I enjoyed reading about them.  I hope you will continue to post your adventures here.

From what I have seen, all this "newness" and experimentation adds a lot of fuel to your success, though "scientifically" speaking, a good protocol needs to be followed.  PJ has touched on all of this anyway, but though you are probably gonna learn a lot about the mechanics and the theory, I hope you don't analyze the fun out of it.    One of the good things about this board is that there is a lot of enthusiasm and encouragement to keep the joy in the science.  

Thanks to contributing to that, too.  Your posts and discussions really add a lot.

[PJ]

Hi Murphys,

What a terrific insight!  That sounds like a ton of --well, as Benton said, FUN!

One part that interested me was the 'matrix' concept.

It's basically a 'mental model', so to speak. Depending on your philosophy, energy and information can come 'from' (check one) the sun, the core of earth, the stars, our ancestors, our higher selves, god-on-a-cloud, god-the-omnipresent, etc.  etc. And some people separate energy and information, as different things, though I am not sure about that; I sometimes suspect that like light's wave/particle (same thing diff manifestation) they might be the same.

I usually don't have a cool down session for RV, I just take a moment and start writing (or talking). I can do it in a crowded bar...

That's great. Actually I imagine your martial arts background helps with this somewhat.  People don't expect martial artists to go lie down in a quiet grey room for 20 minutes prior to a match, and yet, the match requires holding a state of mind during activity that most people have to be tranced out (inactive) to hold.  That state of mind (alert but allowing/open to subtle intuition) is a good one for RV.

One night I decided to ask questions to 'above'.

I used to say that God doesn't have an identity crisis. I suspect that whatever the theological or metaphysical truth of the matter, that when we "pray" -- and I have prayed 'to whom it may concern' more than once, no kidding! -- that we get "something" that answers. Now whether this is (check one of the options above, or add a new option), goes back to 'mental models' and belief systems again.  Some people really like the matrix idea because it does not require THEM to be cosmic (not a 'higher self' idea) nor does it require a GOD to be cosmic or more powerful (not a divine-identity idea), but is a cheerfully agnostic middle ground of 'amorpheous potential'.  ZPG... Zero Point God, lol.

For this, I went to my bedroom got in bed and relaxed by producing ki (chi) with my hands (I'm a long time martial artist). Now, i never read any manual for this, so I don't know why I relied on ki to put me in the correct state, it was done on impluse.

Probably works just fine. I used to do some practices I'll loosely call 'energy work' (mostly chakra stuff) and that's a great cooldown to anything if you ask me.

then I asked the first of two questions to 'the aliens who were listening' or 'to my ancestors.', or 'to a (matrix)'.

Has it occurred to you that you may have been inquiring of several different, and equally legitimate, sources of information there, all with their own perspectives on an answer to that?

In psi work of any kind--and dowsing tends to highlight this most obviously, to the point of humor--being really careful and specific with what you ask and how you ask it is very important. Not just because of a right/wrong kind of thing, but because even a change in one word can slightly shift either the question (and hence answer) or the perspective which changes the answer.  

Your ancestors alone, for example, may be a legitimate  grouped-identity-energy which, while having a cumulative group-identity, may also have a wide range of perspectives within that overall conglomerate.  Your great-great-grandfather is probably quite different in Ancestor-Nature than say, someone from your lineage in the 9th century, who's also diff than say, someone from your lineage dating back to whenever Egypt was named.

I bring this up because I work with a system I call Aspect RV (based loosely on theories by author Jane Roberts) which actually includes the option to ask questions of anything, anybody, including ancestors by name or group, parts of self, aspects of self best suited for (or experienced with if you want to consider re/pre/incarnation) certain skills or job titles, famous people in history, archetypes and even thoughtforms.  Sometimes when I ask a question I get an actual conversation. Sometimes I get one or more very visual responses, even the mini-movie kind of thing.  Depends on my state of mind and what I'm asking at the time.

Some people in the RV field find this disturbing and consider it a form of channeling.  My own mental model tends to hold that on some deepest level, everything stems from self (or self stems from everything, or it doesn't matter), so the way I see it, the target is part of me, and I am exploring "myself" as much as the target in any session; technically I can also ask questions of people in/at the target, or even of the target itself, even inanimates.

The first was "Who are we?/What are we doing?"

That is two questions. :-)  Who is 'we'?  Did you mean the universe, the people on earth ever, humans as you know them to be now, your race, your country, your family....?  By doing, what did you mean?

Both (especially together) seem a bit open-ended to me but I imagine you had something clear in mind, it's just the particular phrasing that makes me unsure.

I immediately felt like i was pushed into another state (I was not sleeping though)

Cool!  That doesn't happen very often for me but it's very cool when it does.

I saw ants walking in a line... zoom out... they are on a wooden picnic table... zoom out... its in the sand...zoom out... it's in a huge desert like Monument Valley... zoom out...it's earthlike...zoom out... woah, it's all in a petri dish...under a microscope.... in a lab...in a huge (space)ship(?)...

LOL -- cool!  Hey have you seen this cool little movie?  You can download it -- needs RealPlayer plug in but that's free to download too -- here:
http://www.powersof10.com/p10_day/p10play.html

It's so cool. It basically goes in powers of 10 spacially from a normal earth pic, out as far as we can, then back in to the microscopic level.

It was translated into something that I could digest... "I shouldn't take it literally..."

I get that sometimes... sometimes I wonder just how much of even life we should take literally. ;-)  You know, how many things we experience as reality might be "a translation that we can understand" of energy dynamics.

So... I asked my second question... "Ok, so where are we going?"

Would like to hear more of what you meant on this one too.

Right back to the lab in that ship!

Bearing in mind that could be symbolic or archetypal for 'cosmic' and 'child of the universe' or whatever as well as the more common alien-esque interpretation.

Alright... so, I notice a 'holding tank' with what seemed like millions of 'glowing spirits' it it. They were not sad or 'being held' or anything like that... they were just, in there. Now somehow I got the understanding that these spirits are put in and taken out of the petri dish. SO this is how reincarnation works...hmm...

Interesting. Many 'cosmologies' that relate to the soul and the reason for our existence have some variant on that general idea--that we are all from a shared same source and that we 'come' here, from that source, and then go back to the source when we are done.

Everything was like rainbow colored 4D 'jellyfish' -the opaqueness was part of the 4th dimension.... it was quite beautiful!

Who needs drugs?  That's what I say to experiences like this.   That sounds really awesome!  I bet it was very moving at the time.

I didn't consider this to be RV until I read your response to me today.

Well I must have done badly, because it's not... it may be PSYCHIC -- maybe -- actually that whole word suggests that some things are and some things are not psi, in terms of perception, and for all I know it's really a continuum and we just 'assume' that psi is somehow separate from everything else.   Two of the three points of any valid RV protocol is that the psychic session is done on purpose and has feedback.  It sounds to me like although you made the inquiry, it was spontaneous, and we don't quite have feedback on that yet.  Which makes it a fabulous personal experience.  But not RV.  Which is just fine, heck, nothing needs to be RV to be worthwhile!--I would think that some other disciplines including a variety of forms of meditation would all be happy to claim such an experience.  Really, it is--as Rhea White would say--an "Exceptional Human Experience."  

I thought some entity sent me something...  or some 'matrix' database entry  was sent to me (on demand) as a vision ... they were  simplified answers to two questions that were too complicated for me to understand otherwise...

Does it have to be sent to you?  Just curious. Maybe it is; maybe not. What if it was in you and 'opened to you'?  What if it was there in front of you all along and your attention was simply moved to it in that moment?  What if you just zoomed in or out to it?  What if another part of you at some level between omniscience and Murphys "translated" for you?  I think what I'm trying to say is that, if you want to think of it like someone or something else -- a totally separate identity, a totally separate place -- 'sending' it to you like psychic-parcel-post, that is just as valid a model as anything else, but since you're an active viewer, broadening the questions you ask yourself about such things might be fun for you.

Now.... I'm a bit confused... was this an OBE?

Sounds like a gen-u-ine "vision" to me.

RV?

No, as above.

of what?

Must it have a label?  I like White's "EHE" acronym for unusual and transformative experiences, because it avoids applying any OTHER label, many of which tend to create limits or assumptions or implications by their usage.  Perhaps it is not any of the things we know. Perhaps you will never know.  But I expect, if you hold off requiring a specific label for 'what it MUST be', that somewhere down the road you will find that your definition of it (and of yourself in relation to it) has changed over time.

I believed at the time that my vision was being tuned somehow to match my own mind... was I literally understanding AOL taking place??

Not sure. That's not impossible.  I first considered applying Aspect Psychology to RV when I would sometimes hear a whole 'congregation of personalities' sort of 'behind/above' my conscious mind, actually debating about the data, and who got to present it and how etc.  It was so bewildering the first couple of times that I couldn't even think about it consciously, couldn't find a mental model that let me consider it.  When I stumbled on a model via Roberts--who I'd been familiar with already but had never considered myself in quite that way until the RV experiences--I realized that what data I got, and how I got it, might relate to 'aspects of myself' that I put in charge of getting it.  Like instead of getting data which might sometimes be the result of committee approval LOL, some parts of myself might be better suited for interpreting different kinds of data.  So it began as a cheerful experiment that has turned into a more serious experiment over time.

It was after I read a book called ALIEN AGENDA

Ah, Jim Marrs.  While I didn't like his RV review, his first chapter on the moon was simply fascinating!

PJ

[murphys]

Hello Benton!

Thank you for your concerns. Yeah, I feel like a four year old with a whole lot of "whys"...

McMoneagle also said something like.... drop it if it ceases to be fun. I keep that in mind, but nevertheless... I still have so many questions!

I loved the, "Why did the chicken cross the road?" stuff.
I had a hearty laugh!!

Username:
Password: