Several years ago Teresa Frisch was kind enough to post on her web site a report of work that we had done in the Aurora RV group on the murder of Nina Reiser. http://www.aestheticimpact.com/Home.html
Daz also posted it on his blog:http://cosmicspoon.blogspot.com/search?q=reiser
Recently Teresa took the time to reread the report and comment on ways she would task the project herself. We posted some more and I suggested that we do so in another venue, since the Facebook format is not conducive to extended discussion (e.g. even getting paragraph spacing is a chore). Palyne suggested we open a thread here.
The preceding discussion on Facebook took place here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/remoteviewingadmin/
One point that I could raise often below but will make just this once: I understand that Teresa does not yet have any reports of her own work available to provide a concrete example of the precepts she espouses. She is just starting out. If she had any, it would of course have enhanced the dialog. Apparently there are no examples of reports either from her teacher, Lyn Buchanan, which could be looked at along with the Reiser report for comparison. Having one or more reports could lead to a more fruitful exchange about the precepts and practices different remote viewers have used in specific cases. And, when Teresa says, for example, you “never ever Ever” do something – one really wants to see examples of the overall method Teresa is promoting which might persuade someone of the merit of that assertion.
Below I intersperse Teresa’s comments from the Facebook thread with my responses. I hope others will join in with their own experiences in tasking, analysis and project management (I suggest confirmable targets only).
On Facebook, Teresa wrote: I reread the report as a learning exercise - from a Project Manager and Analyst point of view. Not armchair quarterbacking or saying I could have done any better, but the way I was taught is that the tasking (question(s) posed by the customer) were heavy. Reference Lyn's "well formed question to a psychic" in terminology on www.crviewer.com
(Here is Lyn’s definition:)
“A well-formed question to a psychic is formed in a manner which first tasks the viewer’s or psychic’s subconscious mind with a problem, then immediately gives the viewer’s or psychic’s conscious mind something to do, in order to keep it out of the way. As such, it is always formed in two parts. The first part is the task to the subconscious and the second part is a present-tense directive to the viewer’s or psychic’s conscious mind, tasking him/her with performing a specific conscious-minded task. This helps increase the accuracy rate of both CRVer, practitioner of any other remote viewing methodologies, and natural psychic alike, and should always be used in tasking any psychic question.
“…Examples of well-formed questions to a psychic are:
• ‘The target is a location. Describe the location."
• ‘Move 100 feet above the target. Now, tell me what you are seeing.’
• ‘Mentally touch the target. Tell me its temperature.’
• ‘Mentally turn around at the site. Report what you are seeing now.’”
JK: First, the customer did not pose the questions . Second, what do you mean by “heavy”?
Third, on the idea of “a well-formed question”:
The first tasking I posed was: “The person or persons who left Nina Reiser of Oakland, California's minivan in Oakland's Thornhill neighborhood in September 2006. Viewer will describe the person or persons in detail."
I don’t know if Teresa or Lyn would consider this a “well-formed question”. It appears to be similar to what Lyn writes, if more wordy. In any case, this kind of question has been serviceable in client and other work I’ve been involved with in TDS, the Aurora group and in other venues. However, I don’t think all questions need to be in this two-part form.
It is questionable to me that such a framing addresses the conscious mind with one part of the tasking and the subconscious mind with the other part. (The first and second sentences in the definition Lyn Buchanan gives.) For example, why is “mentally touch the target” only applicable to the subconscious while “tell me its temperature” is only applicable to the conscious mind? Further, a single sentence tasking such as “Describe such and such…at X time” has often worked fine.
I also note that the definition of a “well-formed question” does not include some reference to the time (e.g. hour or day or month or year – something) at the location. As Pat Price session first showed, this can make a huge difference in what is perceived at the location (the large tanks or similar structures that had been present earlier but no longer were. The time had not been specified in the tasking and Pat Price had apparently moved to the site at an earlier time. Russell Targ has written about this in one or more of his books). Perhaps this timeless format has worked well for Lyn –which if so would reinforce the notion that there is more than one good way to pose a question and solve a problem, just as there is more than one method of remote viewing that works, and works well.
In this instance, the data from just one viewer, Athena, led me to think that Nina Reiser’s husband, Hans, was the perpetrator. Other data corroborated that view. The police already had had Hans as the leading suspect. Our viewing confirmed that. That is the question I chose to start with (see below).
Teresa: In The Seventh Sense there was a hostage and the Unit / Lyn was tasked, sometimes several times daily with his condition.. When it was over, Lyn viewed him face down. The other viewers said the opposite. The next morning other Intel came in and Lyn was right. It was Terry Anderson. He was held hostage and moved frequently over the next several years.
Teresa: In Nina's case, my well formed question to a psychic (first tasking / question) would have been Nina Reiser's condition (first).
JK: It had been three months between the time Nina disappeared (Sep 4, 2006) and the time I tasked the first objective (Dec 6, 2006). In retrospect, I could have first tasked the condition of Nina, in case she was alive. If she had been alive, that would have accelerated our efforts (though we had no direct involvement in the case at the time). However, it was only three days later that I did task “The present location of Nina Reiser of Oakland, California, or her remains.”
Teresa: Frontloading, if anyone wanted it, would have been: The target is a biological. Describe the biological.
JK: We didn’t front load. Nor did TDS – ever, that I can recall. That is in accord with the scientific protocol. What we did do was: After a session had been received, we might ask the viewer to do another session, based on the data on say “page 3” of that viewer’s session. We didn’t need to frontload for this case, so we didn’t. (I agree with the view that in some circumstances frontloading such as that you describe may be useful – for example, it may expedite the work – when time is of the essence in the matter. However, frontloading has been widely abused in this field so it must be handled with great care. (There are more than a few posts on TKR addressing this issue, probably on the Stargate forum as well.)
Teresa: Odds are in favor that the perceptions would give you indicators if she was still alive or dead, but as you just saw with Terry Anderson, Lyn was the only one who nailed it. His strong suit was people though, and they knew it.
JK: As I say, we quickly surmised that Nina Reiser was likely dead. I don’t know if you are intending to make any other point, but your comment shows it is important to know the RV work of the viewers on your team, their strengths and weaknesses. (For those who aren’t aware of it, Lyn Buchanan is the only one in the field promoting databasing of viewers (using MS Access) so that one can quantify their strengths and weaknesses. Teresa knows about the availability of this database; I don’t. There is also the question of how to quantify symbolic data.) In this regard, I knew the work of the viewers on the Aurora team and took that into account in doing the project. For example, both Athena and Daz have very good records with “low level” sensory data (as well as other aspects), and I could trust a great deal of their data going in, and their sessions confirmed that.
Teresa: I would have looked at the summaries and sketches from the first tasking for possible re-taskings -- which could have led the team into several investigative avenues.
JK: We did this. From the Aurora report:
“The analyst then scrutinizes the data using skills and methods developed in that school of remote viewing. The viewers may be tasked again to learn more about a specific objective. If so, they are given new tags for each re‐tasking. They then may be told to utilize specific techniques or undertake certain maneuvers, such as "View the objective from 100 feet overhead" or "Move to one hour earlier." This may help the viewer focus in on what the client needs to know without telling the viewer anything specific about the objective.”
Teresa: One thing: you never, ever, EVER re-task one viewer on the perceptions of another.
JK: If a viewer is producing data suggesting something likely about the objective, and you want to explore that further, e.g. that a location you seek is within 5 miles of the Campanile, you can and I did retask members of the team about salient structures within 5 miles of the Campanile to help narrow the focus. Similarly, when we got data that the location was within 1 mile of what appeared to be the Chabot Observatory. You build the scenario as you go, tasking by tasking, session by session by the viewing team, amongst whom there often appears to be a subconscious “division of labor” as to the data of interest. I’d like to hear more about the basis for Teresa’s... finger-shaking assertion.
Teresa: Next, which might have evolved from the re-tasking, would be to ask for information about the location. Being objective, not as an analyst leading or overlaying, I try to look for something that might be unique to the environment.
JK: This was a long project with many sessions. We did retasking and did ask for information about the objective, including things unique to the environment. These turned out to be, first and foremost, the Campanile (Sather tower), the Chabot observatory and a very very curvy road (Pinehurst Road). These were all honed in on from the sessions.
Teresa: As you noted here, the entire area is heavily wooded. Everything looks the same. My favorite analogy is "Unless we get lucky and Babe the Blue Ox is sitting in the middle of the town square, everything is the same. Jungle / village. Desert / village." So I try to look for something unique to the scenario that might be a key element for further observation. Again, this has to come from the summary or sketches, not from the session.
JK: As to your last sentence - Not in my experience – which goes back to the days of TDS’ successful business and in the many projects we did in Aurora (not all were client projects in Aurora; the majority were done over a period of years in preparation for client projects). The session itself will almost always contain vital verbal information, and sketches are included within the session, in every session I’ve seen, by whatever method. I am surprised you think the summary can encompass all the useful verbal information that is produced in a session.
Teresa: The session is full of conscious mind interjections and pollution.
JK: This puts it too strongly, IMO. Many sessions are not “full” of these things. First and foremost, the session contains the data that you need for the work. It contains literal data and in many cases symbolic or analogical data, which is interpretable and useful. Other times the symbolic data is not interpretable. Other times, it just seems the data, of whatever type, has no bearing on the objective. The analyst is stumped. The AOL designation is supposed to help set aside “conscious mind interjections”, as you know.
Teresa: The summary is supposed to weed those out.
JK: In my understanding of it, the summary is supposed to give the viewer’s conscious mind account of what she felt the session was about, what was valid in the session. The analyst takes that under consideration as well as the session data, to reach her own conclusions about what the viewer is conveying.
Teresa: The sketches themselves are ideograms.
JK: That’s an interesting way to put it. If so, how do they differ from the ideograms which we use at the start of a session? One can probe sketches and I’ve used a variety of techniques in TDS work and in Aurora to probe and/or further “decode” drawings. That’s too detailed to go into here.
Teresa: Occasional P2 sketches are not ideograms when the viewer simply is unable to put words to what they are trying to describe.
JK: I am familiar with Phase 2 but don’t quite know what you mean in the above sentence.
Teresa: I would have used move commands and increasingly finite Stage 6 / Phase 6 tools if I had seen anything that might be of a reference point nature regarding the location.
JK: We did use several move commands. My conclusion from the immense amount of effort we devoted to trying to find the location of Nina Reiser’s body is that because it was, as the police put it, hidden in a “clever place”, the chances of pinning it down via RV were remote. Standing on the spot, the police said they had no idea where the body was and initially did not believe Hans Reiser when he said it was there. This was on the side of a hill, down a steep incline, trees and brush and poison ivy all around. The area to be searched was vast. All this combined led to the failure of the many search efforts made at the time. Maybe if Pam Coronado were in the area and near the spot, with her native and RV abilities, she could have suggested the location. Maybe. Pinpointing a location with remote viewing is one of the harder things to do. (And I'll conclude with: don't ever pay a dowser for a location unless you've seen evidence of his or her successful work first!)
Teresa, thanks for putting your views out there about tasking and the like. I look forward to your responses, and to those of others.