pjrv : Messages : ?830-?830 of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/?830?? )
?006/07/01 00:18:1?

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#?830 	From: Timelord?0?9...
Date: Mon Mar ?4, ?003 8:06 am
Subject: Re: CRV/retasking/RI Denials 	psitrooper?4

  	  	

> PJ wrote:
> This topic involves a degree of RI.   Hence I assume everybody
> 'official' is going to say it's BS.  People will have to
> do their own inquiry if they really want an answer.

Problem is you still get labled as being a conspiracy theorists,Guru worshiper
:-? ),
spreader of disinformation, ill informed, crazy or worse
because your ideas about a specific
RV releated issue is not "officially sanctioned" :? )

students look up to these  Rv pioneers to at least
be honest and sincere in the replies
(not saying the havent been? ) especially
now it seems the mill Veiwers had been developing
their own style or were not aware of what each other
was doing in their specific RV milltary programs .

End result is confusion under the same  "official"
protocol.(CRV? ) How can one mill remote veiwers claim CRI exists yet another
claim its "bogus" or doesent feel it
exists yet BOTH worked on the same RV program
trained under the same trainer, selling the same
brand of CRV ???

At least with HRVG you know what your getting into
same goes for Prus KRV or any other 4th generation RV protocol But its getting
to the point
of being silly with some trainers not agreeing with one another
even though they claim to be using the same CRV protocols.

Iam i the only one who finds this a wee bit confusing?

For me

Just finsihed reading Lyns book by the way "great" read
and a chance for me to utilize some CRV tips outlined
by Lyn together with my KRV and RI training.
He has left me scatchingh my head
on a number of issues though :? )? )

Peace,
Tunde

pjrv : Messages : ?831-?831 of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/?831?? )
?006/07/01 00:18:?4

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------

#?831 	From: "pjgaenir" 
Date: Mon Mar ?4, ?003 8:4? am
Subject: Re: CRV/retasking/RI Denials 	pjgaenir

  	  	

Well Tunde,

It leaves us with the following basic options. Either:

(1? ) Not all people worked on the same things while in the unit. Or,

(? ) Someone has reinvented their history (ie is basically lying,
although the best don't know they are, as by the time they're telling
others, they actually believe it themselves :-? )? ).

The public, which tends to assume the government is guilty of
everything under the sun, nearly always defaults to believing
whomever sides with them 'against' the government or 'in favor' of
dark and/or forbidden things.  An unfortunate tendency for any fair
or well balanced result, even if it is accurate.

Now, I am not sure why you think it's odd that more than one person
could teach the same methodology like CRV and not be in agreement
about what was done historically.  I mean, none of these guys are in
agreement about what was done historically about anything, so I don't
see why methods should be any different! :-? )

The methods, Swann's I mean, are documented in the CRV manual and are
data collection methods.  How to warp the brain of your neighbor is not to my
knowledge part of Swann's CRV.

If someone chose to / was asked to attempt to "psychically influence"
someone else during their term in the unit, that
(a? ) doesn't really prove it worked even if they did,
(b? ) doesn't mean the methods have anything to do with that, and
(c? ) doesn't mean that anybody else in the unit was even involved.

Most alleged RI techniques are just re-dressed, re-wrapped old
metaphysical constants, known to just about anybody who's done the
slightest bit of reading.  The public's ooh-aah quotient is so easy
to invoke it makes my eyes roll up in my head.

I've often been in business situations where one or two people were
asked to do something that others they worked with weren't. Sometimes
this is because they are more trustworthy; sometimes it is instead
because they are more interested hence willing; sometimes it is
because they are more spineless and/or otherwise unable to argue the
request. It all really depends on the situation.

I haven't any idea what went on there in that regard.  What I do know
is that a lot of today's fascinating history of yesterday started
with about nothing, grew a little, grew a little, and seven years
later is finally up to an eye-poppingly evolved campfire story.

Whether things came out gradually, and everybody's getting more
brave, and this explains that gradual evolution, or whether instead
all people mentally tend to revise their history more elegantly and
interestingly as time goes on, I am not sure.  But as I know the
latter to be a trait species-wide, I tend to suspect there is at
least a little of that at work.

Mario Truzzi -- rest in peace Mario, we'll miss you -- told me that
much of why he disputed RV wasn't just science based reasons but
social logic: he did not believe the government would have released
these guys for training if it was effective. In his opinion, if what
they were doing were real and made anybody legitimately dangerous,
it wouldn't have been allowed. That there has been massive "public
outreach", from the media of Dames to the training schedule of many,
made him believe either it was mostly ineffective (harmless? ) to begin
with, or that whatever was being pursued by all the intelligence men
in their public work was some big distraction from whatever the real
thing going on was.  A rock&roll scandal (where alleged "rebellion
against the mainstream authority" is actually packaged and marketed --
a uniform and mental model all its own, which nicely catches in your
net most the folks who wouldn't have bought the party line? ).

He never struck me as paranoid.  To him that was just a logical
reasoning, given what he knew about intell.

I guess we'll never know.

PJ