CRV website TXCEPTION

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

[Loraine]

From their NEWS section:

At least by way of the Recommendation for Nomination for the Congressional Space Medal of Honor, submitted to the NASA Administrator on December 15, 2011, TRANSCEPTION has shown that technology can be transferred lawfully from the state of nature from any place in the Universe, in time or space, using a team of highly trained/skilled Controlled Remote Viewers.

Translation:

By recommending that NASA give out some medals we have demonstrated that Remote Viewing works.

Sorry but this whole TXCeption site smacks of nonsensicality. I am surprised it has garnered so much attention, to be honest.

'Technology can be transferred lawfully from the state of nature'...what does that even mean?

Marv 

I still stand by my first thoughts as to what that means. My first comment here is still the closest thing to sense that I can make of the drivelIngo -
(from pg1) 'Lawfully transferred from the state of nature' - seems meaningless when applied to abstractions, probably is legally meaningless, but sounds as right on and innocent as picking a daisy to make a chain. When I read the phrase I assumed it was just a non incriminating catch all description to side step any accusations, criticisms or ethical objections to mind probing.

[tbone]

The media enjoys a crazy talking train wreck.  Look at the coverage Charley Sheen got when he was having problems.

[RedCairo]

What I am weary of is this:

Watching individuals and groups in the RV field do EXACTLY WHAT THE 'EXPERTS' TAUGHT THEM TO DO

...and then be crucified for it later.

Where is the crucifixion of the alleged experts who teach this way? Who teach AGAINST blinding protocol? Who work with people on projects and see this and many other protocol violations and say nothing, and not just now, but for 15 years now? Have you any idea how many projects I've been exposed to (usually privately) over the last 15 years that failed for stupid protocol issues?

Why are these authoritarians still ok but we're going to go group-tackle the students who worked hard and learned well and are doing it exactly as they were led to believe is right?

Why is there zero accountability in the field for the people who make the most noise and the most money, but every student or group of students demonstrating the _same_ protocol they were taught are allegedly idiots?

I totally agree it's up to viewers to educate themselves but most viewers have no reason to think that handing over months or years of time, intense study and practice, thousands of dollars, etc. is going to leave them an idiot about it. And if they take "THE EXPERTS" more seriously than "someone on the internet" when it comes to protocol it is hard to blame them. I personally lay this at the feet of the alleged experts who claim authority and leadership in this field first. People do what they are taught.

PJ

[Tunde]

Extended footage of Apollo 16 "House Rock" mission.
Interesting comments by astronauts at 6.25 onwards.
What photos did they take and why would they say
"Well that settles it Houston" what exactly were they refering to
at this point and where are the photos they took?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEgp5RnESHs

T

[Marv]

What photos did they take and why would they say
"Well that settles it Houston" what exactly were they refering to
at this point and where are the photos they took?

"Well that settles it Houston...this big rock is definitely an alien spacecraft?"

Doubftul.

The problem Transception have is that to most people with eyes the cluster of solid rocks in the photo/video have all the appearance of...a cluster of rocks. Suggesting as they do (via their link to Swann's piece) that we are unable to see the alien spacecraft because it falls outside of our expectations of reality simply adds insult to injury.

I have seen hundreds of UFO photographs and videos and am quite prepared to accept some of them as real footage of extraterrestrial or extra-dimensional manifestations because they LOOK like something that could well be flying craft. My expectation of reality stretches far and wide enough to encompass the posibility that these may actually be alien technology.

The rocks in the video, however, look just like rocks, and no amount of world class remote viewing is going to convince me that they are anything other than that. Show me some footage of alien spacecraft made out of solid rock and I might change my mind but as of now it's pretty much set.

That isn't an alien spacecraft. That's a rock.

Marv  

[Loraine]

Yep I agree with Marv ... to me, from the sound of them, and the sight of the rock, it's more possible that the astronauts are bigging up 'veiled' hints to pretend they're seeing something extraordinary, than it is that they're actually looking at something extraordinary. There doesn't seem to be enough spontaneous excitement - it's all words in correct sentences, no natural exclamations.

[Loraine]

Marv ... You said 'Suggesting as they do (via their link to Swann's piece) that we are unable to see the alien spacecraft because it falls outside of our expectations of reality simply adds insult to injury.'

That's precisely the up shot of this project so far isn't it? Insult to sensible dissenting Viewers, and injury to public understanding of RV by wrongly stupidly inferring (by linking to Ingo's article) that RV results (like impressions during psi) are also to be gradually subjectively recognised after learning how to see them. I'd give them a medal for one thing  - they're topping NASA on obfuscation, they're further obfuscating the already obfuscated!

[Marv]

they're topping NASA on obfuscation, they're further obfuscating the already obfuscated!

Which brings me to the supposed 'obfuscation' of the photograph - all I see are a few scratches or stains or whatever over the area showing the largest rock. I don't see any evidence of intentional blurring or alteration as claimed. Again; I am left scratching my head and wondering whether we don't have some kind of parallel dimension time-slip going on here and that two sets of people are actually looking at two entirely different things.  

The irony is that the video 'proof' offered up gives us another perspective of the 'spacecraft'...which looks even rockier and more utterly rock-like then it does in the photograph.  

Marv  

[Marv]

Just done 1 minute's research on the 'shatter cone' they are getting excited about around 6.25 and this is what they are referring to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatter_cone

'That settles that' must refer to some kid of geological hypothesis that they are now able to prove or disprove. They take a photograph of the shatter cone as evidence. The rest of their conversation is ALL about rock.

So we have some astronauts stood next to what is clearly a large rock talking about the rocks that they can see before them and using geological terms to describe the rock formations around them. No mention of alien spacecrafts or artificial wreckage at all; quite where that all comes from escapes me.

Marv  

[Loraine]

Marv, if, as a genned up Viewer you are left scratching your head and wondering whether [for some reason] 'two sets of people are actually looking at two entirely different things', then an uninformed reader would be bound in ignorance to wrongly take the info in Ingo's article as being the [some] reason why, so confirming the false conclusion, and also indicating that remote viewing wasn't their bag cos they can't even see what RVers are on about. At least it's not getting many views or any comments. Best ignored I think.

Username:
Password: