An article about the 2013 RV prediction work

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]

This is why, IMO that people should do their own research about whatever it is.....and still more research.
There have abeen a number of RV'ers that have RV'd past this date and did not come across anything of a worldwide event.

As with RV the interpretation of certain material can be.....umm....manipulated, for the want of better word.

Let people do their own Sessions and see what they get. Then they can make a call on their work, not others.

Rick

Exactly. One of the first things I did after training was to resolve the '2012' unknowns for myself. A few personal future targets soon let you know that life is 'business as usual' after 2012, with 'normal' family events and obvious current trends continuing at the individual level much as any astute awake person would rationalise would be the case.

[Qetuoadgjl]

If you owned a $1M home in Key West, would you sell it for $1M or keep it assuming money doesn't matter to you?

Depends. What other factors are involved in this scenario?

None; make your decision  based on the 2013 work being discussed.

[PatMcDonald]

Well, in that case I'd keep it.

If I'm dead after the event, it will not have mattered. I would not care (as I would be dead).

If I'm alive after the event, I'd be pissed off if nothing happened and I sold my pad for a song. If money does not matter to me, then it is not my only place of residence anyway. If the event happens and I'm not home, insurance would cover the loss, unless the credit system itself breaks - in which case it's everyone for themselves anyway so owning a home isn't nearly so important has having a sustainable and defendable system of living.

Wassamatter? You want to live for ever?

[PatMcDonald]

http://www.viewzone.com/rv2013.html

Since the mainstream of science has not embraced "the existence of life not originating from Earth", we can toss out Timeline B.

Truth is not solely based on what "the mainstream of science" embraces. In fact, sometimes the majority are wrong, and the few are correct.

[Qetuoadgjl]

Well, in that case I'd keep it.

If I'm dead after the event, it will not have mattered. I would not care (as I would be dead).

If I'm alive after the event, I'd be pissed off if nothing happened and I sold my pad for a song. If money does not matter to me, then it is not my only place of residence anyway. If the event happens and I'm not home, insurance would cover the loss, unless the credit system itself breaks - in which case it's everyone for themselves anyway so owning a home isn't nearly so important has having a sustainable and defendable system of living.

Wassamatter? You want to live for ever?

I expect to.

You wouldn't have sold it for a song, I made that point clear and what about estate planning?

[PsiSpy]

quote from  Qetuaodgjl

what about estate planning?

Plan...before you die !

 

[PatMcDonald]

Wassamatter? You want to live for ever?

I expect to.

Well, we all need an ambition. But that sort of ambition costs quite a bit - hope you got the coin to pay. It's not money, but you still need quite a bit of it.

You wouldn't have sold it for a song,

Speculative. I have never sold or bought real estate. Incompatible with my world view. So your statement is an assumption. It might be correct but we'll never know.

[katzenhai2]

[...]
The three conditions were:

1. The date of June 2008

A. "June 1, 2013, 12 noon target local time, following the timeline in which the leadership of the mainstream global scientific establishment continues to ignore or deny (1) the reality of the remote-viewing phenomenon, and (2) the existence of life not originating from Earth."

B. "June 1, 2013, 12 noon target local time, following the timeline in which by the end of 2009 leaders of the mainstream global scientific establishment publicly recognize (1) the reality of the remote-viewing phenomenon, and (2) the existence of life not originating from Earth."

Each remote viewing session that had already been recorded was associated with a specific geographic location and condition. The results, originally thought to show changes in sea levels and climate, were dramatic.

Those sessions which were linked to assignments in 2008 showed the locations as they were. An example is seen below. This session was linked to the Sydney Opera House (at sea level).
[...]

Maybe it's my lack of english but I don't understand the Tasking of Courtney Brown. The Tasking for 2013-A and 2013-B looks odd because of the extension of "following the timeline in which by the end of 2009 leaders of the mainstream global scientific establishment publicly recognize (1) [...], and (2) ...". For my eye it looks like an assumption which is now part of the tasking and could result in very strange results.

Were these tasking extensions tested prior on other targets and what was the result?

[RedCairo]

I find such projects interesting but philosophically problematic when applied to RV so I prefer to call them psi projects, not remote viewing projects. (Mind you I still think they are fascinating. I am not denigrating their worthiness, merely categorizing them differently.)

One of the things I loved about RV from the instant I heard of it was the 'relatively objective feedback' element. The multiple probabilities concept (despite I have considered this, both philosophically and literally, a given since circa 1994) really complicates things.

Maybe it doesn't matter how many probabilities there may be. All that really matters is the one the 'us' looking at feedback has experienced. The problem is, many versions of you may be reading this message, seeing the feedback. Not all of them may have the same reality 'objective feedback' experience. This seems like it almost by definition would make all RV highly subject to accuracy issues... which it is.

I feel everything already exists, and we 'creatively choose our path through it', as opposed to things happening in sequence, or happening-vs-not... the past is as creatively defined as the future, and at the same time the future is -- both done from within the now. I think if I could see it visually it would look a lot like the crown chakra once showed me, a sort of "fountain" effect.

As for the tasking, it becomes an IF/THEN tasking when assigning by probability. That is fine. This kind of tasking works as well as 'describe the target that {person X, or, YOU} assign to this session' or anything else.

I have no problem with that, but I will observe that merely creating such probability taskings
(a) tells you a good deal of the paradigms of the tasker, and if they're also top manager of the product their "intent" is likely to affect all of it; and
(b) that there is some included paradigm in this one.

For example:

"Ignore or deny"? I think perhaps the assumption is that "they have not publicly announced it"?

And who precisely are the leadership? I would literally specify an organization or individual because who is 'really' leading vs. who is merely a figurehead might be in question, plus, there may be things done that are not obvious but ARE actually part of gradual public release of such info, even by those people directly or indirectly.

What if
(a) that leadership is someone other than we 'assume', and
(b) they are totally NOT ignoring it at all but merely not saying anything "overtly" and publicly? 

Yes, some things are 'assumed', but in this tasking we have basically three primary points: (1) time, (2) 'the leaders' and (3) the actions of the leaders. That 2 of the 3 are worded in such a way as to include certain assumptions rather than making something specific, kind of complicates trying to boil this down into something as specific and hopefully semi-objective for "eventual" feedback. We can 'assume' now, but a few years from now that tasking is going to sound like a newspaper astrology* blurb and we'll be able to make it fit all kinds of potentials.


*

It is very difficult to work through all the possibilities in any sort of tasking, even binary, no matter how simple. Even the MOST simple questions often turn out to have a ton of stuff below the surface when you start digging in. For example, here's an essay I wrote many years ago (circa 2002 I believe) about binary tasking. I just put it on one of my blogs so I'd have a link to it, since I can't find it online anymore (my old Firedocs site is a labrynth of hidden content even google can't help with, sigh).

http://www.palyne.com/blog.redcairo/blind-binary-dowsing/

Still, projects like the one referenced are fun for viewers and I think, whether perfect or imperfect, can provide not only something of interest for the field but often educational insight -- sometimes by accident more than design, or even by imperfections more than cosmic  insight, but all of that has something good to it in the end.

PJ

[Slorri]

Hi folks.

Have you thought about the similarities between these two images?

Kilimanjaro

Image from http://www.viewzone.com/rv2013.html

Fuji

Image from wikipedia

There is pressure building under the Mount Fuji now.

Username:
Password: