pjrv : Messages : 1?8?-1490 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1?8??? )
?
?3:05:39
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#1?8?
Date: Fri Nov 15, ?00? 1?:04 am
Subject: Frontloading & Rapport vs. Target Contact dennanm
I almost responded to a post on another list, and then copied it out
and decided to post it here instead.
In generalities, a person asked about frontloading, and another
person commented, and another person asked some questions.
The following were just my two cents on a topic I think is worth
talking about, which I think due to the brains and conversational
abilities of many on this list are much better placed here.
---------------
IMO most tasking that involves frontloading is a ?nd or later session
issue and done for first session is usually a mistake.
How about, "Describe the Target."
Then, IF the viewer describes something clearly related to the lines
of your focus,
"Tell me more about what you said was _______."
Telling someone the target is a building, if you don't know much more
detail than that, means every remotely building-related piece of info
they might come up with, you cannot really validate as psychic as
much could be logic, mental stats, guessing, even sheer luck, et al.
Skip the tasking for a proper doubleblind and anything they tell you
about a building is likely to 'validate' that they indeed have made
target contact. Which makes the % of faith you can place in other
data in the session much more clear.
Lack of validation of existing info may not seem relevant to people
playing around but in operations where someone might actually want to
USE that info in some way PRIOR to having a real-world answer for
feedback, it's critical.
The common argument I hear is that "it's faster" to tell someone "the
target is a person (or a building? )" then have them do an initial
session and tell YOU that before continuing. Since accuracy is the
most important thing, not speed[1], that is really a pretty lame
excuse.
{[1] OK maybe once in awhile for people like McMoneagle someone could
die if the answer isn't found in ?0 minutes. Who knows. Then again,
by the time a person is experienced/skilled enough to do that level
of work, they are frontloaded about 15 seconds into the session
anyway. So then, FL is a constant practice they've learned to deal
with. I've never seen it be necessary outside such a situation.
Taskers who think it is, usually come to this conclusion because
their "tasking intent" behind "describe the target" did not get the
data they wanted. Hello. That means it wasn't a good session. Not
that you now need to worsen the viewer's skill situation by
frontloading them on top of it!? )
But IMO nearly all data/session experience's primary value is to
increase the viewer's target contact. Nail that really hard and in
1.5 seconds the viewer can grok more info about the target than 7
sessions without half that contact.
I believe frontloading can increase the "rapport" psi between tasker
and viewer. I believe it can decrease or at least blur w/rapport the
actual target contact.
The rapport contact may actually make one "feel" it more
kinesthetically in session, similar to magical rapport, which is very
misleading, as rapport tends to create a great sense of validation-
just-from-session-experience for the viewer. I believe this not only
is greatly detrimental to accuracy if dropped into a doubleblind
situation where the tasker doesn't know the target, but can even be
harmful to the developing skill of a viewer, who really needs to tune
to the clearest contact between them and the target (with feedback? )
possible just for basic learning theory and practice.
I think the issue of rapport is a very important one in the "field"
of RV, as it actually bleeds into issues in most of the RV groups,
but is studiously avoided and dismissed.
This is kind of funny if you think about it. We have groups who
think accidental usage of the same tasking# 8 years ago
will "pollute" your session; or that someone else viewing that target
will (there are select circumstances where I'd agree on this? ); but
some of the same people, who work constantly with a tasker who is not
blind to the target, dismiss the issue of "practiced rapport" with
the tasker being more of an answer for their sessions than remote
viewing, as if this could not possibly be a consideration. Or funnier
still, they then decide that maybe that is 'mostly' psi too, so is
just as good. I guess as long as your tasker is OMNISCIENT this logic
probably holds up pretty well, lol.
The small number of good viewers I know hate frontloading like some
people hate standing in line for 4 hours in a government building.
I'm curious as to what people on this list think about frontloading a
first session (or a second session based on anything beyond the
viewer's data, for that matter? ).
I'm curious as to what people on this list think about "rapport" as a
form of information transfer, and the issue of (a? ) groups working
together over a period of time, and (b? ) working with the same tasker
over a long period of time.
(If the tasker doesn't know the answer btw, then the rapport is not
IMO an issue. Not that it can't happen, just that it's as much
guesstimation on their part as the viewers -- not "accepted answers".
This depends on the tasker's ability to suspend judgement of course.? )
PJ
#1?85
From: "Scott Ellis"
Date: Fri Nov 15, ?00? 1:?0 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & Rapport vs. Target Contact scottrver
Hi PJ,
> I'm curious as to what people on this list think about frontloading
How do you know you're not fooling yourself if you're frontloaded?
And isn't McMoneagle probably right that KNOWING you're not fooling
yourself is the biggest part of psi development? This is the reason
why I like doing ARV or having sessions judged against decoys. I am
immensely grateful for the objectiveness of this experience and to be
honest, the thought of frontloading generally scares me in that I
don't think I could trust my session data. Maybe that will change
after about 1000 more sessions.
Speaking from the position of very little personal experience with
frontloading, please take the following with a grain of salt:
I'll hypothesize that for most viewers, their data gets lost in the
noise already and picking it out is difficult enough. If you
frontload them, I think that any real data not directly described by
the frontloading will be discounted even further along with the noise.
From what I've seen, the VAST majority of viewers do not produce
sessions good enough to indicate a level of ability I presume
necessary to be able to deal with frontloading. Their noise levels
are just too high. Some good examples are in the CRV sessions I've
seen posted on Stargate recently. While they get some data that is
congruent with the target, it's pretty much lost in the noise. From
what I've seen these are pretty typical CRV sessions. Also, on a
recent TV show, Pru's whole team was tasked with Lindberg's landing
and they got a crowd of people, probably indicating some target
contact, but no airplane. I think that's another example of the
noise. I don't think frontloading in these situations would have
increased the breadth of their data but rather made them ignore what
data they did get.
(The interesting thing is that when you look at Greg K.'s sessions,
which IMO are at a much higher level, he's another guy who does
everything BLIND and typically against multiple target choices (also
using ERV? ). So either some people simply have more innate talent,
making results objective (no frontloading, multiple targets, blind,
etc.? ) helps, or ERV is generally a better methodology. My personal
experience and thus opinion is that it's all of the above, I guess
that might be Joe M's too.? )
BTW, I don't think that Joe M. qualifies as being frontloaded once
he's into a session - he doesn't hit all the time and being skilled is
not the same thing as being frontloaded. He also talks as though he
doesn't get the whole picture immediately and that he starts by
getting disparate parts. This would be an interesting question for him.
Scott
#1?87
Date: Fri Nov 15, ?00? ?:51 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & Rapport vs. Target Contact dennanm
> From what I've seen, the VAST majority of viewers do not produce
> sessions good enough to indicate a level of ability I presume
> necessary to be able to deal with frontloading.
That is my observation as well. Then again, I'm not observing everybody
who's anybody, and most of my info is ?ndhand or 3rdhand reporting or self-
reporting (all of which is entirely unreliable? ).
> Also, on a recent TV show, Pru's whole team was tasked with
> Lindberg's landing and they got a crowd of people, probably
> indicating some target contact, but no airplane.
One of the problems with RV in the media is that they want a session and ta-
da, they want an answer. With some exceptions, most RV is going to require
more than one session, sometimes more than one viewer, in an attempt to
gather enough data, which can be comparatively correlated with what little
might be known about the target or its nature, for any intelligent conclusions.
Media really wants the Magical Mystery Show. I think if I should ever feel
remotely qualified enough to do such 'challenge' RV, I would probably do 1?
sessions on the target prior to ever getting anywhere near the camera. :-? ) Of
course, then if I was wrong, boy I'd be spectacularly wrong. :-? )
The one-session thing is part of the same usually-bogus mentality that makes
people think if they hand over money to some alleged expert they, too, will be
"nearly omniscient". (Ya gotta love how Courtney gave us so many quotables
in his day. ;-? )? ) You know, like 40 minutes at a table and we've wrapped up
the Deep Soul Probe, the Character Profiling, and allegedly sketched the
blueprint of that Secret Underground Facility. ROFL.
> (The interesting thing is that when you look at Greg K.'s sessions
I love Greg's site, and he seems to be doing wonderfully. But there is really
no telling how much data he got for anything. For all I know, he could have
done 4 sessions full of off target stuff and 5 sketches, and one of them ended
up being a lot like the target, it turns out after feedback, so that's what I
see
on the site. Was that his ONLY data? Out of the maybe dozen really cool
examples, how many sessions does that encompass -- thousands? Greg, I
am picking on you only because this represents an issue across the entire
RV-internet field, and you are accessible and hopefully won't take it
personally. ;-? )
Regards,
PJ
#1?91
From: aeonblueau8008...
Date: Fri Nov 15, ?00? 1:?1 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & Rapport vs. Target Contact terri8008
> palyne writes:
> With some exceptions, most RV is going to require
> more than one session,
I've only seen ? folks thoroughly nail that (a? )tgt in one session, both were
"advanced" trained and years of experience under their belt.
That's a good statement for the newbies to absorb, I see all sort of somewhat
misses somewhat hits on the first session on net photo tgts or events I
guess, and I see folks getting discouraged and or frustrated with themselves,
when actually it needn't be. (such is do it your self or net RV?? ) It's simply
the first session(usually stuck in S1? ), and they are trying to manage the
whole ball of wax, wear all the hats all by themselves.
The vast majority are on, and they just need re tasking.
I pre-cog or pre-view as I call it all my tgts, I work a solo session before
I have the coords. Then I work one or two off the "official" coordinates.
all the best ~~Terri
#1?99
From: Richard Krankoski
Date: Fri Nov 15, ?00? 9:?6 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & Rapport vs. Target Contact Rich_crv
For one of the targets I submitted to the MadDog group I asked for early session
data so that I could retask each person individually. It was an interesting
experiment and I hope to try it again. It does make things difficult in that
most of us wait till the last minute. :? )
Rich
> > palyne writes:
> > With some exceptions, most RV is going to require
> > more than one session,
#1314
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 4:?5 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting docsavagebill
Hi Richard,
> --- Richard Krankoski wrote:
> For one of the targets I submitted to the MadDog
> group I asked for early session
> data so that I could retask each person
> individually.
Retasking IMO is really not withing the RV protocol of
staying totally blind. I'm willing to try it and it
may well work in practical situations....but it
involves serious frontloading issues IMO.
Best Regards,
Bill
--------------------------
Moderator's note: You realize that retasking doesn't actually mean you were
right about whatever you're retasked on, though it often does. It can also mean,
"We have no idea what the hell you are talking about here!" or "this sounds like
two things and we don't know which it might be, if either" or something like
that. The retasking itself can STILL be "describe the target" and nothing more
in fact, with the "intent" changing -- you don't even have to know it's
retasking. If you do, even if directed, one should only be directed by the data
they already provided. E.g., "describe the "swift" you wrote down here." That
really doesn't give you any more frontloading beyond you MIGHT be on-target with
something swift. That means it could be a rollercoaster, a galloping horse, an
airplane, an olympics runner, a speedboat, the fall of a building, a sudden
change of major circumstance, someone or a company or product NAMED 'swift' or
anything that conceptually relates -- well you get the idea, it could still be
damned near anything in the world. In this case you are not so much frontloaded
-- that would infer ACCURATE data was pre-given you -- as you are "at much
higher risk for AOL" I would say. My $.0?. -- PJ
#1316
From: greenmn900...
Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 1?:48 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting greenmn900...
Hi.
You're right PJ. Bill is correct to worry about the frontloading issue as
well. Retasking is an art and not every tasker can do it properly and
sometimes those that can, don't understand how to do it effectively so that
the most information possible is gained from each follow-up session.
The best way is to simply write out a question on a piece of paper, seal it
in an envelope, and then toss it into a practice pool so that the tasker
still doesn't know when it comes up again. This keeps it doubleblind. The
question doesn't alway have to be based on data the viewer already came up
with. It could be just a better way of framing the question or or just a
question that more clearly reflects the taskers intent. Sometimes,
especially in applications, the taskers' intent may change as events unfold.
Regardless, doing it this way insures a doubleblind.
ANYTHING said to the RVer before a session constitutes frontloading, as does
even a written question that the RVer might see. This is why in
applications, I think it's best if the tasker is kept blind to that target as
well from the very beginning. That way, when the raw data is given to the
client, the client can then ask several questions of the tasker or tell the
tasker what piece of data they are interested in - without telling the tasker
why. Now only the tasker is mildly frontloaded. The tasker doesn't even
know what the end goal of the RVing is. Now, at this point, if the tasker
asks the RVer to elaborate on something, the tasker doesn't even know why
s/he is doing it. So the frontloading issue is cut back a little more.
It's important to remember too that just because an RVer is asked to give
more data about some piece of information they got in a previous session
doesn't neccessarily mean that piece of information was correct. Let's say
the goal is to try to discover if a house in Florida that burned down last
summer was the result of arson. Now the RVer comes back with some data that
describes cold, wet, etc. It doesn't fit the target at all as far as we can
logically tell. So, the RVer might be retasked on that part of their
previous session just to see what the hell they were referring to. Later,
after several more sessions, it becomes clear that those descriptions were
just plain wrong.
The first internal rule in RV is also the final rule: assume nothing. Just
doing that will protect the viewer from a lot of both intentional and
unintentional frontloading. Always keep in mind that the person who is
tasking you, even if they know what the target is, may be making assumptions
based on what they know about the target, even if it's just a picture target.
Bearing that in mind, you can see that sometimes even well-intenioned and
careful frontloading can be wrong and can even lead an RV toward a long
unneccessary aol-battle.
Best Regards,
Don
-------------------------------
Moderator's note: Good post. When I said 'data that had been produced', I meant
IF one was going to verbally TELL the viewer a tasking much like you'd give a
movement exercise as a monitor, as opposed to hide the tasking. If they don't
see the tasking (to avoid AOL/FL? ), it wouldn't matter of course. -- PJ
#13??
From: Richard Krankoski
Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 8:?9 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting Rich_crv
I don't see how. All I did was give the RVers another reference number. Any
front loading was limited to their own session data, which they would have if
they decided to reRV the original task.
All it should do is focus them as would any tasking.
> Bill Pendragon wrote:
> Retasking IMO is really not withing the RV protocol of
> staying totally blind.
> PJ wrote:
> are not so much frontloaded -- that would infer
> ACCURATE data was pre-given you -- as you are
> "at much higher risk for AOL" I would say.
I would say only in the same way that the risk occurs at anytime you are going
over your data, probing ideograms, sketches, column headers, etc.
Rich
-------------------------------
Moderator's note: I didn't know you didn't task specifically. That's a good way
to do it. I was sort of responding to the topic in general. I think most
people who think of 'retasking' think of a "specific directive" for a ?nd
session often based on specific data in the first one. -- PJ
#1380
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Wed Nov ?0, ?00? 11:46 am
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting docsavagebill
I think its just find Rich..G
I only mentioned it because of Joes apparent dislike
of retasking. He feels it can be like a game of ?0
questions if abused. But he is concerned with proving
psi in a 100% information leak proof situation. But in
application situations, why not.. no reason not to
proceed....:-? )
Best Regards,
Bill
#13?3
From: Richard Krankoski
Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 8:47 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting Rich_crv
> Don wrote:
> The best way is to simply write out a
> question on a piece of paper, seal it
> in an envelope, and then toss it into
> a practice pool so that the tasker
> still doesn't know when it comes up
> again. This keeps it doubleblind.
In this practice group there was only one double blind target that I know of.
I gave a target that someone else had given to me many many months ago
that I had never done. As a rule, members alternately provide targets for the
others to work. ( I am sure you would be welcome to join in.? )
> I think it's best if the tasker is kept blind to that target as
> well from the very beginning. That way, when the
> raw data is given to the
> client, the client can then ask several
> questions of the tasker or tell the
> tasker what piece of data they are interested
> in - without telling the tasker
> why. Now only the tasker is mildly frontloaded.
> The tasker doesn't even
> know what the end goal of the RVing is.
Why even tell the tasker? Why not write the matter of interest in the famous
sealed envelope and let the tasker you want more info on the previous target?
> PJ wrote:
> If they don't see the tasking (to avoid AOL/FL? ),
> it wouldn't matter of course. -- PJ
yep
Rich
#13?4
From: "Sharon Webb"
Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 10:46 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting sharwebb_3051?
Hi,
Please pardon my RV protocol ignorance, but I am having a hard time
understanding what the problem is about frontloading.
The way I learned...and operate...is not RV, so I'd really like to understand
what the hangups are about it. I just don't understand how practical psychic
work, as opposed to grokking pictures, can be done without it. I mean, if the
police tell you, "So and so was murdered and what can you find out about it?"
what's wrong with that? How else could you approach this sort of situation?
I'm not arguing, btw, I'm just puzzled. :-? )
Sharon
sharwebb...t
www.fractalus.com/sharon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
#1389
Date: Wed Nov ?0, ?00? 4:44 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting dennanm
Howdy Sharon,
> I am having a hard time understanding what
> the problem is about frontloading.
RV is just a different approach to psi is all. It's the same psi
used since the dawn of man; but RV has its own protocol (way of going
about something? ).
> I mean, if the police tell you, "So and so
> was murdered and what can you find out about
> it?" what's wrong with that? How else could
> you approach this sort of situation?
Well one thing I notice different between RV and psychic work is that
psychic work tends to be a lot more general. It is often a lot more
like, "describe something about ___." Pretty much anything. RV is
more like, "Describe the target" (blind? ) but the private tasking
might be, "The target is the murder weapon. Describe it and its
location." The psychic can spend days getting info on anything and
everything related to the overall crime, which may or may not include
that; the viewer is expected to spend somewhere between 40 minutes to
a few hours and _specifically_ describe that murder weapon and its
location. They might also get other stuff about the murder, as most
things come in context. But you see in psychic work, 3 days of data
relevant to the murder would be great stuff; in RV work, the data
might be 'relevant and indicative one has target contact' but if you
don't SPECIFICALLY describe EXACTLY what is desired by the tasker,
then frankly, it wasn't a good session. This doesn't mean the
project manager can't use your other data. Just that the whole point
of tasking specifics is so you can -- well, task specifics, lol.
In RV, if the viewer does not describe a heavy blunt object and the
police know THAT much but not any detail (was it a bat? A trophy?
etc.? ) then the analyst knows they are probably not on target. Had
you told them they were describing the murder weapon, there's pretty
much a small number of 'main categories' most of those fall into, and
it's hard for an analyst to be sure the accurate data is really
target contact and not stuff more analytically derived, even if
subconsciously.
This being said, I happen to believe that sometimes, data may
function as the 'witness' in psi. By this I mean, that the data
itself (the knowledge of this murder? ) might act a bit like the tea
leaves or whatever, and SOME people, in SOME circumstance, can get
accurate psychic info from how their mind "peers into" what little
data they have. If a pot of boiling beans can provide a pattern the
brain feels it interprets as psi data, then I suppose anything can.
I suspect that your own channeling background makes you more used to
having some information and then just 'opening up to your intuition
about that subject'. I think practice helps with that because most
people would still be so left-brain that intuition would be overly-
clouded with analysis. You can see this in people learning to
channel, sort of the "too much of THEM" in the data that as they get
more experience gets out of the way for more intuitive, less
personality-influenced information. RV protocol is structured in
such a way as to try and get as much of the 'influence' of the
logical mind out of the way right up front.
Also, psychics often work Ops or people, which are usually more
interesting, more important, and as you find in RV, often the best
contact targets due to the viewer's psychology just being more vested
in the outcome and the experience. But they don't usually work on
the *detail* such as what you see in a photograph for feedback; and
what constitutes a 'good session' with photo feedback for a psychic
vs. a viewer is probably different. This goes back to the first
example of viewers trying to be fairly specific about whatever
the 'specific tasking' is.
I'm no expert on this, just trying to flesh out my thoughts. I think
both psychics and viewers probably have a little to learn from each
other. There is an emotional connection psychics have that often
brings a lot of conceptual data that is invaluable in RV as well.
PJ
#1450
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Thu Nov ?1, ?00? 7:51 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Suggestions for telepathy anyone? docsavagebill
Hello PJ,
Pru had some interesting suggestions for doing
telepathy. In fact as mentioned earlier..she read me
blind in such a way that I was shocked! Now desptite
having at least some success with all of Pru's ideas
.. I have not gotten the telepathy method to work for
me, although I have only tried with a lot of targets
yet. Do you or anyone else have a telepathy protocol
that you feel works well?
Best Regards,
Bill
-------------------------
Moderator's note: Not I. I can think of no way to separate, in study or
practice, telepathy from RV(clairvoyance? ). -- PJ
#1453
From: "Elizabeth Hambrook"
Date: Thu Nov ?1, ?00? 11:16 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Suggestions for telepathy anyone? ozblueriver
> Now desptite
> having at least some success with all of Pru's ideas
> .. I have not gotten the telepathy method to work for
> me
Hi Bill,
Are you asking how to read someones thoughts? Here is my suggestion.
Use the same method you use for normal RVing because it is just information like
everything else is. Focus on the person you are using as a target and then go
blank and wait for the information to flow through. Oh, and be prepared for
surprises! :? )
I'd be very interested to hear what Pru suggested.
Cheers
Liz
#1475
From: "Eva"
Date: Sat Nov ?3, ?00? ?:17 am
Subject: Re: Suggestions for telepathy anyone? k9caninek9
Pru has a specific method to help with it. SHe uses it for both
healing and just finding out more about the biological in question.
You start with drawing a gingerbread shape for the biological and
then you probe for whatever info you can get all around the body.
Probing is just your standard poking with a pen onto the paper.
After the gingerbread, you draw a circle that symbolized the mental
activity and divide it into 4 sections: conscious condition,
conscious thoughts, subconscious condition, and subconscious
thoughts, and then you pull out info for each category. If you are
doing a healing, then you can also at that point send whatever is
needed back into the subject in question.
-E
#1488
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Sat Nov ?3, ?00? 8:03 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Suggestions for telepathy anyone? docsavagebill
Hello Liz,
Pru uses a method which is an extention of a remote
healing technique. I've used the remote healing part
successfully, because it was a kinetic ( feelee ? )
input. The telepathy extention involves drawing a
persons head.. denoting the subconcious and concious
thoughs and feelings ( separately? ) and they probing
with a pen..and as in RV receiving thoughts as one
probes. Since people are often full of diverse or
conflicting thoughts, I think this is a good method..
I just have a hard time getting the thoughts flowing..
the latter is a word oriented method..
Bill
#1454
From: greenmn900...
Date: Thu Nov ?1, ?00? 6:?7 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Suggestions for telepathy anyone? greenmn900...
Hi,
I agree with PJ on this. Pure telepathy is hard to prove. It's like trying
to separate psychokenesis from precognition.
But, on a macro scale, if you can "will" a tank to levitate 50 times in a
row, it would be pretty hard to argue that it was precognition and not PK.
Similarly, if you can correctly tell someone distant from you their current
thoughts, and repeat this 50 times in a row, it would be hard to argue that
it's not telepathy. As long as you don't write it down that is, then it
could be precog clairvoyance. No, wait, if they even verbally agree that
what you are saying is exactly what they are thinking, then it you could
always be precoging the words you both speak via clairvoyance....
Yep, there must be no way to absolutely seperate telepathy from clairvoyance.
Seems like I've thought all this through before...... or maybe THAT was
precog clairvoyance! LOL!
Seriously Bill, I did a session today that involved telepathy and it was a
direct hit - so I'm feeling pretty smug tonight - which probably means I'll
miss the next ten targets! My subconscious usually slaps me down that way
when I start thinking I'm pretty good.
Once I feel like I've perceived a person, I often will just think to myself
something like, "Okay, what is this person thinking, what's going on in their
head?" Then, if it works, their thoughts come through sometimes like I'm
hearing them talk and sometimes like just pure thoughts, really fast. It's
that simple. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I'd like to hear if
anyone has a really good method for doing it though. I just use this one
because I don't know any others.
Best Regards,
Don
#1490
From: "Elizabeth Hambrook"
Date: Sat Nov ?3, ?00? 10:11 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Suggestions for telepathy anyone? ozblueriver
Hi Bill,
thanks for the info. It sounds like an interesting thing to do. I think it was
E who pointed out Pru's gingerbread man technique. I might test it out.
A good way to get thoughts flowing is to pretend you are on the phone listening
to someone talk to you. Maybe start the 'conversation' with a question like
"What are your thoughts", and then listen for the answer. It might work for you.
Cheers
Liz
#1467
From: "Eva"
Date: Fri Nov ??, ?00? 8:?4 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting k9caninek9
> PJ wrote:
> This being said, I happen to believe
> that sometimes, data may
> function as the 'witness' in psi.
> By this I mean, that the data
> itself (the knowledge of this murder? )
> might act a bit like the tea
> leaves or whatever, and SOME people,
> in SOME circumstance, can get
> accurate psychic info from how their
> mind "peers into" what little
> data they have.
Of course, one also has to be careful to not assume that accurate
nonrv psychics are successful just because they are the rare skilled
ones, while at the same time saying that the accuracy of rv is due to
something in the methods instead. It could just be that some people
skilled and can get the info no matter what method they practice and
others aren't as skilled. Or it could be that the method that works
best might be dependent on your personality.
> Also, psychics often work Ops or people, which are usually more
> interesting, more important, and as you find in RV, often the best
> contact targets due to the viewer's psychology being more vested
> in the outcome and the experience. But they don't usually work on
> the *detail* such as what you see in a photograph for feedback; and
> what constitutes a 'good session' with photo feedback for a psychic
> vs. a viewer is probably different. This goes back to the first
> example of viewers trying to be fairly specific about whatever
> the 'specific tasking' is.
Interesting concept. It brings to mind the little informal study
done at the IRVA conference that compared blind rv to frontloaded
psychic work. The frontloaded psychics did a bit better it turns
out. Who knows if that would hold up in a rigorous study but I
thought it was interesting. It occurs to me that nonrv psychics
regularly do answer very specific questions like 'Describe the murder
weapon." They just do it frontloaded.
> I'm no expert on this, just trying to
> flesh out my thoughts. I think
> both psychics and viewers probably have
> a little to learn from each
> other.
Which is probably true of all people in general if you think about
it.
-E
#13?6
From: greenmn900...
Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 6:05 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting greenmn900...
Rich,
The real point of the doubleblind is that, once the target is chosen, there
is no contact between anyone who knows what the target is and the remote
viewer until after the session is completed. You're basically trying to rule
out any kind of accidental or unconscious information transfer so that
nothing possible is left but psi. So it sounds like you guys may be working
essentially doubleblind anyway - as long as whoever sets up the target posts
nothing but the target number, that is. Of course, this then doesn't rule
out pure telepathy between the tasker and the RVers, but that's probably
getting a little nit-picky. :-? ) It sounds to me like you guys have a pretty
good system set up.
You wrote:
"Why even tell the tasker?"
You're exactly right, that would be the best way. But in applications you're
usually dealing with clients who no zip about all this stuff and sometimes
it's inevitable that the tasker will learn something about what the client is
after - hopefully very little, though. Of course, if you have a team of
people (and not just ? as in my case? ) working together, somone else can
handle the clients. But you're right, the tasker should also be kept
completely blind. I'm glad you pointed that out, Rich. It's nice to see
others who are as fanatical about the protocols as I am.
Listen to this: I use to try to do everything so perfectly that I wouldn't
even let my wife (my tasker? ) leave a practice target (sealed in an envelope? )
in the same room with me when I was RVing. I'd say, "Get that thing outta
here! I could cheat and you wouldn't even know it!". One day I realized
these practice targets were for me. I wasn't trying to prove RV to anyone
but myself. I can get a little obsessive. :-? )
Thanks for the invitation to join. I better not, though. My wife is my
tasker and we've been working together for 4 years now.. Besides being very
good at intuitively knowing what kind of targets I need to keep me interested
and improving (and knowing how to retask me very well? ), she might get a
little upset if I toss her aside! :-? )
Best Regards,
Don
#13?9
From: greenmn900...
Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 6:34 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting greenmn900...
Rich,
You're right. That's a clean, no-frontloading way to do it and well within
RV protocol. Actually, that's probably the BEST way to retask.
Best Regards,
Don
#1330
From: Weatherly-Hawaii...m
Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 11:11 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting maliolana
Aloha PJ,
Rich only sent the target ID #...The tasking was blind to me...I was just
wondering about the telepathic thing...since Rich was not blind to the
target...
I might have just got it straight from Rich... rather than a double blind
type signal line...I don't know how to put this right...but I do have a
question!hahahha
My session was never retasked...Just the original TID...and resultant
data...
Love & Light & Laughter
Mali'o...aka...Dawna
#1335
From: greenmn900...
Date: Mon Nov 18, ?00? 7:10 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting greenmn900...
Hi Sharon,
Well, remember first off that RV was developed within a lab, so they used
stringent rules to make sure no cheating was going on. The doubleblind,
where no one who comes in contact with thr RVer knows what the target is, is
probably the single most important thing that seperates RV from all other
forms of psychic information-gathering.
But when it comes to practicing RV, trying to develop and get better, the
doubleblind is important for several reasons:
The first is that it creates a situation where there is absolutely no way you
could have gotten the info except psychically. As an Rver develops, it's
amazing what this knowledge does for the RVer. It removes absolutely any
doubt from your mind that you can really do this, that you really ARE
psychic. This changes forever your whole view on reality and how it works.
And in practice, everytime you get a hit, you are proving it to yourself over
and over. This is great for your confidence and really great at helping you
to learn to understand your own subconscious symbols.
The second is that it actually makes it easier, though it seems like it would
make it harder. This is because when you know what the target is, the mind
is flooded with input from the conscious, logical part of the mind. Using
your example of finding a murderer, the average persons' mind will
immediately try to start jumping to conclusions; it's probably a man, it was
probably done for money or jealousy or drugs, it probably happened at night,
etc. Just knowing what the target is causes the mind to do this and then you
have to fight off those thoughts because they get in the way of psychic
information. And it's been proven that's it's impossible to seperate
consciously-derived deductions from real psychic data. So, you can never be
sure if your success is based on psi, logical deduction, or a mixture of the
two. When you practice, if you always do it doubleblind you have no choice
but to use psi and so, you get better and better at using it. It makes you
develop into a good psychic much faster.
Another reason is that even if a cop just said, "Sharon, I have a case for
you to work on", you can pick up all sorts of clues about what he might want
just by the way he says it, the way he stands, the look in his eyes, etc.
This is reading body language and we all do it all the time, even
unconsciously because we're such a social animal. so, you might
unconsciously pick up on what the cop thinks or suspects about the case - and
he could be wrong. So, your unconscious reading of his body language would
then lead you down the wrong track and make your remote viewing that much
harder.
There are probably many other reasons that aren't coming to mind right now,
but those are some of them.
So, what we do is have someone write out the question, "Give information
about the murder of so-and-so" or something like that. This is then sealed
in an envelope and a number is wtitten on it. Then the RVer is only given
this number.
As the RVer goes to work, the subconsious mind knows what the question is
just as well as it can know anything, so it starts giving you the answers to
the question in the envelope. It's kind of a ?-step process, if you think
about it. First, the mind ascertains what is wanted (what the questions is? ),
then the mind starts giving you the answers. The Rver doesn't learn what the
target is until after they are done with the session. Hopefully, the Rver
will be right and then their information can be used to find the murderer.
Since the RVer didn't know what the target was, if their information seems to
match the subject (a murder? ), then you can be pretty certain most, or at
least part of their information will be right. So, the doubleblind is also a
good way to tell if the psychic is likely to be accurate.
I'd suggest you buy the books "Mind Trek" and "Remote Viewing Secrets", both
by Joe McMoneagle and then read them in that order. They are really good for
teaching you the rules of RV. That's how I learned. And the rules of RV can
be applied to any form of psi info-gathering - to what you already do now.
If you're pretty good now, I can almost guarantee that working under the RV
protocols (the doubleblind situation? ) will make you even better. It's tough
at first because you'll feel like you have nothing to go on at all, but
you'll soon see that you can get good data with no one telling you anything
about the target. Basically, you'll get to where someone doesn't even have
to ask you the question. You'll be able to figure out both the question and
the answer to the question!
I hope this makes sense and helps you understand why we do it this way. Let
me know if I can help or explain anything better. btw, what do you do now?
What methods do you use?
Best Regards,
Don
#1336
From: "Eva"
Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 3:0? am
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting k9caninek9
You know, this is an interesting question. Now before I say anything
more, let me say that I like doing my targets blind and find
frontloading to be stressful for me. I get almost all my targets off
the net as blind targets and most of those are even done wildcard, ie
before they are even tasked, so there is no way I get any 'clues'
about what the targets might be.
However, I do have to wonder if a person started from scratch
learning to always do stuff partially frontloaded, if one might over
time reach the same ability as if they had learned it via rving
blind. Heck it seems to me that as it is, there are a lot of
inaccurate rvers and also as rumor has it, there are a lot of
accurate police detectives like the late Bevy Jaegers. SOmehow, all
these police detectives managed to still get good data despite all
the pitfalls that are often mentioned. Have their been any studies
comparing accomplished rvers with accomplished psychommetrists for
instance?
I suspect that a lot of it has to do with what you are used to. I am
used to doing it blind so I hate it when I have any clues. Maybe if
I had started from day one doing it the other way, I would have
developed at the same rate and would hate doing it totally blind.
Also, let me go through these points one by one. First, I agree that
it definitely looks more impressive in a demo if the viewer works
totally blind. But that is only a major issue on the rare occasions
when someone is trying to impress a skeptic. Most of the time, the
only important thing is accuracy of data, not impressiveness of the
process.
As far as impressing yourself, I guess that depends on just how
stubborn you are to accept it to start with. Some people are instant
believers and some will never accept it. I am in the middle and
given a reasonable amount of evidence that can't be explained away, I
will start to get convinced. And I am not so skeptical to think that
just because I knew something was a 'place' for instance, that that
could explain getting other specific and sometimes unlikely bits of
info. This would be even more the case for police detectives who
would often work on cases in which no one knew the answer until after
the case was solved. My point is that I think this arguement depends
on the person in question and may not be such a universal rule.
As far as making it easier, again, that may depend on what you are
used to doing. With the blind method, instead of the analytical mind
jumping on known data and guessing, as it is blind, the analytical
mind just likes to jump on the stuff that was just written down two
lines ago and then guess on that instead (aka castle building? ). It's
still almost the same freakin prob! In fact, it could be worse
because when blind the analytical mind may be more likely to be
pouncing on bits or assumptions that are wrong. If frontloaded with
a murder, well at least the analytical mind will be pouncing on
something that is likely to be accurate as long as the police didn't
make some kind of really bad blunder.
Now this last arguement is a good one, ie that if the viewing is done
blind and the session talks about what it should talk about, one
would assume that's a pretty good sign that the session might be
accurate.
But on another issue, it may be that blind sessions might be harder
to analyze.
One thing about any lab testing is that it usually cannot go in all
directions and once. Decisions are usually made in the beginning and
research branches out from that point. Every single variance
cannnot be tested and viewers once trained one way may not be able to
do a completely different thing and still be expected to do as well.
IN addition, there is time and financial pressure to get results fast
and also meet certain preconcieved expectations of the higher ups.
How long did it take them to simply figure out that a random string
of numbers could replace the outbounder?
Now all of the assumptions may in the end prove to be true. However,
I am leery of quoting them as fact with the field still in it's
infancy and no empirical evidence that I can lay my eyes on.
-E
#1339
From: aeonblueau8008...
Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? ?:?0 am
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting terri8008
With RV there should be zero frontloading (unless your quite advanced and
practiced? ), with "other" form of PSI-seeing I guess frontloading works, many
clairvoyants I've worked with require frontloading to work 'their own' form
of RV.
with "more traditional" RV IMO-
There would be no more data, verbal or written with the second task.
The second being the same as the first just a simple set of coords, perhaps
include a number two to indicate second session.
UNLESS you are training or teaching folks, then you help the folks along and
hold their hands a bit, till they get the hang of it and their confidence up,
in training or practice there needs to be quite a lot of validation and
verification.
Tasking can be very simple, on the other hand complex, IMO it's a fine art
that requires practice and it's a heck of a lot of fun, there's no end to
what you can do or manage.
A set of coords can be very basic, or in general(haphazard? ), or they can be
painstakingly in depth and very precise.
Via the net, (which can skip the/a monitor, even the tasker can be long
gone? ), your working with net/new/solo/self taught RV/ers, a good way to task
is first session, 'to locate or location', then second session 'to
investigate', third session from tasker can even be more direct or precise.
Practicing training RV via the net is a bit different from being trained
(tasked-monitored? ) first hand, so (many? )adjustments are made.
In ERV you may work more sessions (it's harder, slower? ), with CRV, the old
format or original structure, it tends to pull(cover,go over? ) most of the
data up or out, that's the way it was designed, it repeats back on it's self
over and over in various ways or stages so you get the/more detail.
Yes, working with the same monitor and tasker does build rapport and from
what I've observed produces the better sessions (and viewers? ), RV has a lot
to do with self trust and confidence(all'round? ), being able to or trusting
and depending on tasker monitor is a boon.
That's why I don't take many/any or in general 'net' taskings, god only knows
how what or why they were or are tasked.. not that that's bad but a net tgt
can have you stuck, or doorknob-ing or all over the place or no place at all.
In tasking I don't write anything down, don't put anything in an envelope or
folder.. I have had the odd(rare? )viewer, RV, locate and describe the envelope
and it's location.Such is the viewer who is trying to view, or possibly
mistakenly RVing the feedback instead of the actual site/siginal.
(which is being psychic, very much so, but not what I'm after? )
all the best ~~Terri
#1346
From: "Sharon Webb"
Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 3:?7 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting sharwebb_3051?
Don,
Thanks for your answer. What I am learning from it is that the double blind
protocol is primarily for two reasons: 1. to convince the seer that he/she is
REALLY doing this. ?. to convince skeptical outsiders of the same. Is that
correct? I am not being facetious when I ask this; I really want to know.
I can't help feeling that no front loading is similar to handing an object to a
blindfolded person and saying, if anything is said at all, "Do something with
this," while the other option is saying to the blindfolded person, "Here is a
tail. Pin it on the donkey." If the donkey ends up with a tail more or less in
place, regardless of method, isn't that the ultimate reason for the exercise in
the first place? In other words, isn't the End more important than the Means?
I have read some of McMoneagle's work, including his latest book and enjoyed it
very much.
The body language thing is valid, IMO. However, in the largest part of this
sort of work that I have done, the request has come by phone (usually conveyed
by an intermediary? ) or email, so body language doesn't figure in. In the
majority of the in-person requests I get, they are conveyed by an intermediary
as well. Someone concerned about a friend's family for example. Many of these
requests come from former instructors.
I'll give you an example based on the "murder" I wrote about. I was told by an
intermediary that the subject was a murdered woman whose body was thrown into a
culvert.
What I got initially (there were weeks of work to this one involving me and two
others? ) was that the "body" was still alive when she was thrown, head down, into
a vertical drainage shaft. I saw her fingers and her nails were broken and
there were claw marks, traced by blood, on the rough walls of a concrete
culvert. Dead people don't bleed.
We didn't get any feedback...just lots of questions...during a three week
period. We were asked to checkout various suspects, locate the prime suspect,
detect his motives and plans, find material evidence, determine his escape
plans, and on and on. We didn't actually get any feedback, other than what we
gleaned from the nature of the questions, for over a year...on the day the guy
was found guilty.
In view of the above, it seems to me that if we had been forced to operate
without questions, that it would have hindered our efforts and slowed things
down. If, for example, the police were wanting to know if persons B and C were
involved, and if they hadn't specifically asked for info about them, then we
probably would have kept on keying in to person A. I could be wrong about this,
though. In the case above, the police were checking out another person. They
wanted to know where he was the morning of the murder. We all, separately,
found him reading his Sunday paper and eating breakfast in a local cafe during
the time of the murder...so (as we later learned? ) the police crossed him off
their list when they corroborated this.
The method I was taught is the Silva Method, which involves going to
"level"---an alpha 10 cps altered state. I use time-shifting to pick up past
data. I "see" the data I get in the form of pictures which are sometimes like
movies, sometimes like still shots. I also get emotions and sometimes hear
snatches of dialogue. But most of the time it is objective viewing.
My bias toward Silva is because 1. that is what I was initially taught, and so
it is more natural for me. ?. Silva is hands on...and most of the cases
involve healing. Practicing Silva grads don't just observe; they actively
intervene to effect change.
Sharon
sharwebb...t
www.fractalus.com/sharon
#1356
From: greenmn900...
Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 1?:40 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting greenmn900...
Hi Sharon,
I've studied the Silva methods a lot too - just by tapes and reading, though.
I still have a Silva tape that has the alpha sound on it and I use it quite
a bit for light meditation. It gets me there very fast. It works well for
RVing too, actually I used it just a couple days ago.
In your scenario, it shouldn't have taken any longer to do it blind than
doing it frontloaded. That's always been a general misconception. See, the
RVer operates mainly by the intent of the tasker. You don't have to be told
what the question is, you'll answer it without knowing. Here's an example
that shows how it works that happened to me several years ago: I was out of
practice targets, so I asked my wife to make a few and I'd do one - not a
perfect situation, but I was in a hurry and wanted to get a session in. So,
she made several targets, put them in envelopes and sealed them up. She
numbered one of these and laid it aside. Then she called to me from the next
room and told me the number. I started doing the session and began getting
data that seemed like a greenhouse with a red floor and mostly dead plants
inside. Suddenly, everything changed and I was seeing a mushroom cloud and
then a building getting torn apart by high winds from an A-bomb blast. It
seemed odd at the time because the data changed so radically so suddenly.
After the session I found out what happened:
My wife thought she knew which target I was working and thought it was one
about the first series of A-bomb tests. She had left out a page with some
photos on it, so in the middle of my session, she laid this page next to the
envelope I was working on so I'd have it for feedback later. But she was
wrong, the photo in the envelope WAS a greenhouse. What had happened was
that my data changed when her intent changed! Right in the middle of a
session! This really demonstrated to me just how important the taskers
intent is.
Other than convincing yourself and others that this stuff is for real, there
is probably a more important reason for the doubleblind and that is that it
makes it easier, far easier, to get good results. THAT'S the most important
reason for the controls. You no longer have to fight off or deal with as
much input from the conscious mind.
We can all work however we want to and you should probably do what you're
comfortable with. But I would encourage you to try working under the
doubleblind for ?0-30 targets. When you get a really good hit, it's a whole
different feeling than when you do the same thing frontloaded. Try it and
you'll see what I mean, it's an amazing feeling. And I bet you'll become
even more accurate. Most people, no, everyone I've talked to about it agree
that they are mpre accurate when they work doubleblind. It's just hard to
get used to in the beginning.
Btw, I really liked Joe's last book as well, but for instructional purposes,
I think the other two are the best things I've ever read.
Sounds like the murder case was some very interesting work. The application
stuff like that is a lot more exciting than just doing practice sessions.
Best Regards,
Don
#1366
From: "Glyn"
Date: Wed Nov ?0, ?00? 5:17 am
Subject: RE: Frontloading & retargeting gebega
Hi Don,
> What had happened was that my data changed
> when her intent changed! Right in the middle of a
> session! This really demonstrated to me just
> how important the taskers intent is.
Intriguing, and to me that sounds like a prime example of 'future memory'
at work, but that is just my opinion and I'm not going to bore
you all with that ..again :-? ).
Besides there are still 'holes' in FM theory that I am not happy with, so
I can't really enter into a constructive discussion with anyone until I've
filled them up, to my own satisfaction anyway. ;-? )
> .... even more accurate. Most people, no,
> everyone I've talked to about it agree that
> they are mpre accurate when they work doubleblind.
> It's just hard to get used to in the beginning.
I absolutely agree with that Don. I prefer it if even the tasker does not
know the target, but unfortunately that is not practical all
the time. However, I don't really like to be given even a 'teensy-weensy'
frontload. If someone says 'its an event', or 'it's a person', or tasks me
near to the time of a major media event which I suspect may be the
target..then probably because of my inexperience, that causes all sorts of
associations and castle-building in my sessions, and rather spoils it for me
. Rightly or wrongly I am not interested in proving anything to anyone else,
I want to prove it to myself and develop my abilities as far as I can, and
that sort of thing definitely doesn't help me.
The trouble with most of the data I get in my sessions is that I can often
see that I was on target because there are plenty of 'bits and pieces', but
there are just not enough specifics for me to be able to say 'Yes! I really
hit that'. Much of the data I get could be applied to so many other targets
too. I've had enough results to know that RV works for me, but it's quite
weak, and I just want to try to go to that next stage now...more *detail*.
That's a hard one, and I believe high interest targets are a must! For
instance in your example above, you were definitely provided with a target
to remember IMO, even if unintentionally :-? ) :-? ).
Kind regards,
Glyn
#1358
From: "Sharon Webb"
Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 10:1? pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting sharwebb_3051?
Don,
Your greenhouse/A-bomb story is amazing. And very neat. :-? )
And...please understand...I'm not knocking RV protocol...just trying to
understand it and perhaps reconcile it with what I do. But then, maybe the two
methods are just too different for that?
Sharon
sharwebb...t
www.fractalus.com/sharon
#1373
From: greenmn900...
Date: Wed Nov ?0, ?00? 7:55 am
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting greenmn900...
Glyn,
It sounds like you are definitely on the right track. Practice and more
practice is EVERYTHING!
Something that seemed to help me a lot when I first started, was doing
outbound targets. You don't really have to have a beacon person, just have
someone take a picture of a location and maybe write down the street address
and put it in an envelope. Make a bunch of them. Oh, be sure it's
understood that you are targeting the site at the time you will be going
there for your feedback! That way, you might get things like a
certain-colored car or something. Then when you go for your feedback and see
that same car sitting there, it really blows your mind! Maybe it's just that
picture targets get boring after awhile, I don't know. Several months after
I first started RVing I did quite a few of these and they seemed to suddenly
propel me to another level. I became more accurate, started getting more
details, more conceptuals, etc. Maybe it will work for you too.
Best Regards,
Don
|
Dojo Home > Dojo Library > Psi Archives > RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion List Archives