pjrv : Messages : 1345-1514 of 4038 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/1345?? )
?
 ?3:08:35

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

#1345
 	From: aeonblueau8008...
Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 9:58 am
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	terri8008

  	  	

Yes, it depends on how your 'raised' or how or what you are naturally, strict
protocol RV is not for everyone, some have it naturally together far better
without ever even hearing of RV.

RV is the newbie, or the 'latest fad' kinda thing..

Ingo style (I guess you could call it? )CRV can be taught, that's the thing,
that's the ease of it.. and relativly quickly(and it tends to be more
accurate? ), and far easier I feel than most other PSI skills, and you don't
necessarily have to be a natural in any field. Most of the natural folks have
their own labels, clairvoyants intuitives empaths or whatever I'm not
familiar with all the terms, Bevy was the most exposure I have had to various
and varying 'other' forms of PSI skilled work. Bevy was also 'before' RV and
had many years of practice/s under her belt, also she felt more comfortable
with the other labels/titles as opposed to the RV label.

There was a show/segament several years ago with JoeM and some other Lady, I
can't recall what she called herself. (Now if I recall any of this
correctly? )There was a missing child, and Joe and the Lady were given the
childs teddy or doll..something. The Lady was by far more accurate or on tgt
than Joe. (That part I recall accurately? ). The lady worked with frontloading
probably all her life. Now she may not have been so hot totally blind to task
as Joe would have.

Impressive for me by any ways and means is whether frontloaded or not,
natural or "taught", how much, how often, accurate verifiable other/unkown
data/information someone can produce consistently.

all the best  ~~Terri

	
#1350
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 11:48 am
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	greenmn900...

  	  	

E.,

Who are the police detectives that got good data from any Rvers?  I've often
heard Rvers say so, but I've never seen those statements backed up by any
police departments.

E. wrote:
> "With the blind method, instead of the
> analytical mind jumping on known data
> and guessing, as it is blind, the analytical
> just likes to jump on the stuff
> that was just written down two lines ago and
> then guessing on that instead".

This is wrong.  By frontloading, you are not providing one problem instead of
another, you are adding one problem to one that you already have.  The
analytical mind will jump on what you've just written down, regardless of
whether you are frontloaded or not.  By frontloading, you just add another
source of aol, you don't replace it with another.  It DOES make it harder.

E. wrote:
> "First, I agree that it definately looks more
> impressive in a demo if the viewer works totally blind."

E., it doesn't LOOK more impressive, it IS more impressive!  Come on! :-? )

Why would a blind session be harder to analyze?

Now think about this E.  YOU say frontloading is more difficult for you, so
you work blind.  I say it's more difficult for me too.  So does Joe M.  So
does EVERY viewer of any accomplishment that I've ever heard of or read about!

Best Regards,
Don

	
#1361
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 8:51 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	k9caninek9

  	  	

> greenmn900...e:
> Who are the police detectives that got
> good data from any Rvers? I've often
> heard Rvers say so, but I've never seen
> those statements backed up by any
> police departments.

Actually I think if I remember my post correctly, I was referring to
police psychics do it the old fashioned way, like using psychometry
or some of the partially frontloaded psi methods like those that
Bevy's groups used and uses.  As for the police, well they aren't
like to admit anything no matter what so it's kind of a tough issue
to prove.

> [e]
> > "With the blind method, instead of the
> > analytical mind jumping on known data
> > and guessing, as it is blind, the analytical
> > just likes to jump on the stuff
> > that was just written down two lines ago and
> > then guessing on that instead".

> [gm]

> This is wrong.  By frontloading, you are not
> providing one problem instead of
> another, you are adding one problem to one
> that you already have.  The
> analytical mind will jump on what you've
> just written down, regardless of
> whether you are frontloaded or not.

But if you are frontloaded, then you are starting for a viewpoint of
correctness, ie that there was a murder or whatever.

> By frontloading, you just add another
> source of aol, you don't replace it with
> another.  It DOES make it harder.

LOL!  You mean in your opinion and according to popular rv lore it is
wrong.  ;-? )  I am not sure if it is wrong as far as the process of
psi goes.  Well it may well be wrong, but I would like to see some
evidence of it being wrong.  I think when you actually have info
about the target, then you are less likely to be building a false
castle in the sky because the frontloading directs you to a more
accurate castle.  Either way, you have a castle.  It's give and take.

IMO, the frontloading could ameliorate some probs while exacerbating
others.  Either way, I suspect that the probs can be solved via
training and experience and what I would like to see is some kind of
evidence that the frontloading is REALLY going to change the progress
of a practicing psychic.  Heck, they've been doing frontloading since
the beginning of time (I know this cuz i'm psychic right?? ).  If
blindness was really the magic answer, I find it hard to believe that
no one has ever tried it and found out about it up until just
recently.  Well sure, it's possible, but it's just a bit suspicious
to me.  Now I totally expect that people will prefer what they are
used to and argue for it and feel that their arguements are logical,
probably because the arguments on both sides do sound logical.  WHat
I want to see is some kind of tiny little bit of evidence that
blindness really makes a substantial performance difference in the
progress of a trainee.

> E. wrote:
> > "First, I agree that it definately looks more
> > impressive in a demo if the viewer works totally blind."

> E., it doesn't LOOK more impressive, it IS more
> impressive!  Come on! :-? )

To me the only think that IS impressive is if the data is right on a
regular basis and not just with one or two sessions now and then.
That does not happen with just guessing from frontloaded guessing and
no psi.  And anything that does not show at least some consistancy
can be written off as a lucky guess, frontloaded or no.  Now don't
get me wrong, I do see what you are trying to say.  It's just to me
it seems like a very unimportant point.  To me, what's impressive is
whatever works.  I feel that rv works, but I am open to the idea of
nonrv stuff also working.  It seems unlikely that our new rv method
courtesy of Stargate is the only best method on the planet.  Other
countries have been researching the heck out of psi as well and for
longer and I'm willing to be dollars to donuts that their end product
does not look exactly like ours.  IN fact, psi is a great weapon for
a lot of the more cash strapped nations who have less access to super
expensive electronic equipment.   You would think they would be much
more willing to invest some time, trainees, pencils and paper, and
some smart people on such a project, also considering that many other
countries don't attach as much stigma to the concept of psi as we do
in the US.

> Why would a blind session be harder to analyze?

I don't know if it would without of course trying both ways but it is
concievable that a blind session might have a lot more off target
aols that could be confusing to the analyst.

> Now think about this E.  YOU say frontloading
> is more difficult for you, so
> you work blind.  I say it's more difficult for
> me too.  So does Joe M.  So
> does EVERY viewer of any accomplishment that
> I've ever heard of or read about!

Well yes of course because we all trained that way from day one like
I just said.  And everyone who has trained frontloaded in other psi
methods say the exact opposite.  So think about that too!  ;-? )  RV is
not the only fish in the sea.  You can't understand the environment
of the sea by only looking at only one inhabitant of it.  Besides, I
might remind you that Lyn seems to prefer working with some
frontloading ie that the target is person, location, etc.  So there
is even a bit of squabbling about it in the rv world.
-E

	
#1354
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 1?:16 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	greenmn900...

  	  	

Terri,

RV is the "newbie" or latest fad kind of thing?  What on earth makes you
think that?  Remote Viewing merely refers to getting information by psychic
means under strict controls that rule out any other means of getting the
information.  If you're not using strict protocol, you don't know if the
information produced is psychically-derived or not.  You never will.

I also don't know what makes you say that CRV is more accurate than any other
psi-skill.  CRV has yet to produce a world-class RVer and has never been
shown to be any better than any other method, including divining, scrying,
tarot cards, etc.  No matter what method you use, the natural ability you are
born with is the primary limiting factor on how good you can be, all other
elements being equal, imo and according to the evidence so far.

Best Regards,
Don

	
#1355
 	From: Richard Krankoski 
Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 7:49 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	Rich_crv

  	  	

> aeonblueau8008...rote:
> There was a show/segament several years ago with JoeM and some other Lady, I
> can't recall what she called herself. (Now if I recall any of this
> correctly? )There was a missing child, and Joe and the Lady were given the
> childs teddy or doll..something. The Lady was by far more accurate or on tgt
> than Joe. (That part I recall accurately? ). The lady worked with frontloading
> probably all her life. Now she may not have been so hot totally blind to task
> as Joe would have.

I remember that show and your recollections are correct,  but I do not know
what form of psi Joe used.

Rich

	
#1371
 	
Date: Wed Nov ?0, ?00? 9:4? am
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	dennanm

  	  	

> There was a show/segament several years
> ago with JoeM and some other Lady

I asked Joe about this and below is his response.  There followed a
private response I can't repeat (DAMN!? ) which is about 17 times more
interesting of course (that is so aggravating...? ) regarding follow-on
aspects.  Anyway, fwiw, the info on the public show was:

[from Joe] The show had to do with a missing child who was killed and
dismembered by a child molester. The woman had full access to all the
facts relevant to the case, I worked it double-blind, only being told
the name of the victim. The idea was to find the body. The body was
never located. They knew who probably did the crime, but without the
body there was nothing they could do but try and watch the guy until
he killed again. I refused to do most of my work on film because I
felt it would be giving the advantage to the criminal who was still
at large and preying on kids. In my personal opinion, I feel that it
was an inappropriate case to work on television and said so, so they
painted me appropriately. [end]

FYI due to some followup issues, the man was eventually apprehended,
and eventually led them to the body, so you might say it had a happy
ending, at least that the issue was resolved. -- PJ

	
#1359
 	From: Weatherly-Hawaii...m
Date: Tue Nov 19, ?00? 8:54 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	maliolana

  	  	

Aloha Don,

Bevy Jaegers worked for them (police? ) for many  years...she had two sons
that became detectives and one or two grandsons...I am sure any one of
them would have a lot to tell you...Most of her USPsiSquad are trained
cops...So she is a good bet for some sound info...Read some of her books
or see a documentary or go to her site and do some research...Bevy passed
away just about a year ago...So you will not be able to speak to her
directly...
I believe her site is still www.USPsiSquad.com

Stephan Swartz...Atlantis Rising ... would probably havre some references
on Bevy for you as well...

Love & Light & Laughter
Mali'o...aka...Dawna

	
#136?
 	From: aeonblueau8008...
Date: Wed Nov ?0, ?00? ?:33 am
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	terri8008

  	  	

Dear Don..

(IMO? )
As the term RV was coined in the early 70's , That it developed and evolved
around that period, I'd say it was the new kid on the block.

Then it became a catch all and is applied (used borrowed? ) to almost every
other form of mystical happenstance... well, I guess that didn't occur until
the late 90's, I'd still say it was the newbie.

I don't feel that just because a someone can or may "see" things, events,
whatever, clearly and accurately once ina blue moon that quals you to be an
RVer nor to borrow the title.

I feel to be (this is my opinion? ), or be called an RVer you need formal
training, follow protocol, and session structure. (I don't go along with
natural RVers (I refer to these sort of gifted folk as clairvoyant/clear
see-ers? ).. I'm (still? ) old school and I feel you have to be taught, unpopular
as that viewpoint is? ).

I know some shockingly fantastic CRVers, old school. I don't know too many
other PSI folks, but from what I have seen of the other PSI skills an
experienced RVer produces the most accurate spot on descriptive,
consistently.

My original goal was to develop my OOB skills, well that's hard and I can't
OOB on demand, my demand, I can't really control it/destination, plus there
are time and dimensional distortions in OOBexperiences, then they can turn
into false awakenings (on return or shifting back? ), so it's a mixed up
mishmash,of what IS real anyway... (IMO? )

RV is quite a bit more level headed, stable, grounded, easier, accurate, in
control.

I feel(IMO remember? ) you are or have been schooled in RV, or you are doing
something else.

I see/watch (net? ) folks, many of the same folks, playing around with their
own breed or form of devised RV protocol-session structure(very little? ), for
years.
For years I have watched them and for all the past years, trial error
discussion and debates. Well, from all appearances it seems they(the
majority? )are still at square one and S1. Now I realize that for the majority
this is just a hobby or a bizarre interest.

But, still, I would recommend training and just get it over with(the
frustration? ).

all the best  ~~Terri

--------------------------
Moderator's note: I'd like to point out that by making 'training' a definition
of RV, you have just excluded Ingo Swann, Pat Price, Hella Hammid, and several
other of the best viewers in the world -- who worked in an RV protocol as remote
viewers -- from the list. :-? )  PJ

	
#1377
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Wed Nov ?0, ?00? 8:17 am
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	greenmn900...

  	  	

Terri,

Joe M. is the best documented Rver, amazingly so.  His advice is DON'T SEEK
TRAINING - TRAIN YOURSELF AND DEVELOP YOUR OWN METHOD.  It's probably also
important to rememebr that ALL the research done in RV, it's scientific
foundation, involves untrained people - the naturals,as you call them. THAT'S
old-school. CRV is what 99% of the training out there entails and it is
unproven.  I have yet to see even one CRVer do any doubleblind demos that are
anything spectacular.  And this CRV training has been around for what - a
decade now?  I'm starting to think the CRV method squelches natural talent!
What it all comes down to is, no matter what method you use, natural talent
always has been and still is the governing factor - all other things being
equal.

Structure means nothing.  Training means nothing.  Protocol is everything.
Tons of personal affort and practice will do the rest for you.  Try it and
you'll see.  You should understand this attitude that you must be trained is
not "old-school".  It's new school and first was put forth by Dames, Smith,
and Lyn - the very people who have never proven anything in a lab!  The
researchers who coined the term "remote viewing" never intended this.  The
best RVers in the world were NEVER trained!

The idea that you have to pay someone to train you to speak with your own
subconscious and access your own natural talent, especially when these people
have never demonstrated their own capability, is BS.  They don't know how you
personally process data, they don't know your own personal symbolic language.
They never will.  This stuff ain't rocket science!  All it takes is a clear
understanding of the rules to insure a doubleblind and the drive and
determination to stick with a consistent practice regimen.  That's it!  All
of that is just my opinion, of course. :-? )

Best Regards,
Don

	
#1440
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Thu Nov ?1, ?00? 3:?6 pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	k9caninek9

  	  	

> Don wrote:
> I have yet to see even one CRVer do any doubleblind
> demos that are anything spectacular.

Yes, it would be nice to see less talk and more do in the CRV dept
and really it's always nice to see it in ANY dept.

> And this CRV training has been around for what - a
> decade now?  I'm starting to think the CRV method
> squelches natural talent!

IMO, natural talent has to do with the mind's ability to think
clearly and CRV or any other method will not squelch that unless you
voluntarily relinquish your power.  I think there are advantages to
being able to think for yourself and also advantages in getting a bit
of help to get started with things.  I feel the balanced approach is
usually the best, not too much or too little of anything.  Besides,
Rich has been doing some nice target sessions lately.  Is his stuff
CRV?  I seem to recall thinking it was.

> What it all comes down to is, no matter what
> method you use, natural talent
> always has been and still is the governing
> factor - all other things being equal.

Well that may be true or it may not be true.  I'd like to see some
data on that.  Even if McMoneagle says something, he is not perfect
either.  Remember, I don't follow ANYONE blindly, even if I do
respect them.  Besides, you then are kinda beholden to explain what
aspect of self constitutes 'natural talent.'  Is it personality,
secret blood enzymes, or what?

> Structure means nothing.  Training means nothing.
> Protocol is everything.

LOL!  I know that's what McMoneagle says, but again, how do you
know?  Just because McMoneagle rocks, how do you know it isn't
natural talent?  It kinda makes me laugh cuz from my understanding
McMoneagle does not want people to just pawn off his success on
natural talent cuz obviously he had to work his butt off to get his
skill.  But also he so often talks about natural talent being the
main contributing factor in rv success.  And so he kinda brings it on
himself in a way now doesn't he?  LOL!

BTW, I don't want you to think I am picking on you.  For some reason,
you've been my favorite whipping post for the last week or so and I
hope it's been as much fun for you as it's been for me!  ;-? )  I think
partly it's just that whenever someone says 'Now this is how it is.
Period,' well then the first thing I have to ask is how do you know
for sure?  Maybe it's the other way eh?  Especially lately, I have
been in the mode to question everything and everyone to spit out the
exact facts to prove their statements.  'SoAndSO said so,' is not
good enough for me.  Maybe I got a virus from Rich!  ;-? )

-E

-------------------------------
Moderator's note: Either that or I've been a bad influence on all of you, lol.
Remember the recent RV Oasis/pjrv interviews with Joe specifically asked: "How
much of psi talent do you think is actually psychology?"  And Joe said, "All of
it." His focus on protocol and practice is related 98% to the development of the
viewer's psychology - not for 'proof in the lab' but for changes in the core
constructs most everyone in our species seems to have to varying degrees. He
seems to believe that once you take care of the belief system issues, the innate
ability everyone has takes care of skill with session practice. -- PJ

	
#1381
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Wed Nov ?0, ?00? 7:34 am
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	greenmn900...

  	  	

E.,

I have worked frontloaded.  For years before I ever heard of RV, because
that's the only way I knew.  When I started working doubleblind, my accuracy
jumped big time.

And please bear in mind, I'm not advocating any certain method at all.  I
personally think CRV is very limited and will never produce a great psychic -
it's almost built into the system, imo.  No really good results have ever
been documented scientifically by anyone using CRV.  My method is sort of a
conglomeration of what I used to do and ERV.  The only thing I'm advocating
is working doubleblind, which can be done using any method you want use.  We
are not discussing RV versus nonRV, we are discussing the protocols.  The
method anyone uses is unimportant, but the protocols are always importnant.
Btw, if Lyn is frontloading his students, then he has no right to call it RV
- but hell, that's par for the course in CRV these days - they all seem
afraid to work doubleblind.  The term RV refers to the aquisition of
information under controls, sounds like Lyn had decided he can slip and slide
on the controls and still wants to call it RV.

E. wrote:
"but if you are frontloaded, you are starting from a viewpoint of
correctness, ie that there was a murder or whatever."

No, you are starting from a viewpoint of what you have been told, which may
or may not be correct.  You are also starting from a point where you are
tainted by the unconscious body language you have picked up from anyone you
have communicated with about the subject.  So, for example, if they tend to
think it's a black guy that did it, or they tend to think it involved drugs,
etc. you'll tend to pick that up.  And ALL of it could be wrong.  Now, you
have deal not only with your own assumptions, but the assumptions of others.
There is no sound reasoning or evidence that frontloading can make it easier,
despite the way it seems that it should.  In fact, it's just the opposite.

It's not a matter of being right or wrong.  It's a matter of what produces
the cleanest, most accurate results.  And I never said the doubleblind was
any kind of magic answer, just that it produces better results.

You want evidence that frontloading is less productive?  Check out "The
Conscious Universe" by Dean Radin.  In this book he summarizes psi testing
over the last ? centuries.  One thing that he states quickly became clear to
researchers is that forced-choice testing is less productive than
free-response.  Any time anyone is frontloaded to even the slightes degree,
you have just narrowed down the possibilities and put that Rver in a
forced-choice position.  If you want you can email Dean Radin from the gotpsi
website and ask him about this.  Frontloading put the Rver or the psychic in
a forced-choice position and that has been shown over and over to be less
accurate than free-response.  There IS research to back this up, E. - check
it out.  I know it seems to defy logic, but it's true.

Best regards,
Don

	
#1466
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Fri Nov ??, ?00? 8:0? pm
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	k9caninek9

  	  	

> Btw, if Lyn is frontloading his students, then he
> has no right to call it RV
> - but hell, that's par for the course in CRV
> these days - they all seem
> afraid to work doubleblind.  The term RV
> refers to the aquisition of
> information under controls, sounds like
> Lyn had decided he can slip and slide
> on the controls and still wants to call it RV.

Actually, Lyn says that it's up to the viewer to decide if he/she
wants frontloading, and if so, it's kept minimal.  You may want to
keep in mind that in the end it will be up to the masses to decide on
the definition of 'rv.'  We've had this discussion before on Stargate
and rv tends to be vaguely defined.  Maybe that is a bad thing, but
it still is true for the majority of people.  I have no prob with the
double blind thing, but just cuz McMoneagle says it and wants it to
be true, in the end, you few may only be able to stem the tide for a
brief while.  I say again that I need to see the stats before
believing anything as 'fact.'  Just cuz it worked for one person,
that doesn't make it true.  Case studies were used to justify
Fruedian theory too, and so you can see why they are not reliable
indicators of fact.

> E. wrote:
> "but if you are frontloaded, you are
> starting from a viewpoint of
> correctness, ie that there was a murder
> or whatever."
>
> No, you are starting from a viewpoint of what
> you have been told, which may
> or may not be correct.

I believe I mentioned in the last two posts (if you will recall? ) that
one should make sure there is a reasonable chance that the starting
data is accurate.  I just did not repeat it for the 3rd time here cuz
I was getting tired of writing it.

> , for example, if they tend to
> think it's a black guy that did it,
> or they tend to think it involved drugs,
> etc. you'll tend to pick that up.

That depends on how the frontloading is done and if a person is in
the room that knows about the target.

> And ALL of it could be wrong.  Now, you
> have deal not only with your own assumptions,
> but the assumptions of others.
> There is no sound reasoning or evidence
> that frontloading can make it easier,
> despite the way it seems that it should.
> In fact, it's just the opposite.

In your opinion, it's just the opposite.  You have just given me a
worst case scenario that in itself carries a number of assumptions
about what I am trying to say.

> It's not a matter of being right or wrong.
> It's a matter of what produces
> the cleanest, most accurate results.
> And I never said the doubleblind was
> any kind of magic answer, just that it
> produces better results.

OK, where is the data?  How do you know?  Give me the evidence.  If
you can't, then it's just your opinion.  It's sounds quite logical
and it may well be true.  But I think it is wise for everyone to
realize when opinions are opinions and when they are supported by
facts.  That is my definition of thinking outside of the box.  I have
a whole pile of opinions, some of them quite strong, that are not
supported by much in the way of facts.  I still believe they are
likely true, but I try to resist the urge to assume that they are
written in stone on the top of Mount Everest.  At least a few of them
will probably turn out wrong in the long run.  I just don't know
which ones yet.  However, I bet I will figure it out faster if I keep
my mind open to opposite opinions and make an effort to understand
them instead of just saying to myself that I 'know' they are wrong
just because some other person told me so.

> Check out "The
> Conscious Universe" by Dean Radin.  In this book
> he summarizes psi testing
> over the last ? centuries.  One thing that he
> states quickly became clear to
> researchers is that forced-choice testing is
> less productive than
> free-response.

Whoa Nelly!  Frontloading is not the same thing as forced choice,
although forced choice does in fact involve frontloading in many of
the scenarios used.  The evidence you are stating means that it is
likely that either forced choice or frontloading makes for less
accurate predictions.  One way to check for that might be to do a
blind force choice test in which participants had to choose A, B, or
C without knowing what A, B, or C stood for.  If they still gave
inferior results, then you would suspect the prob lies with the
forced choice issue.

> Any time anyone is frontloaded to even the slightes degree,
> you have just narrowed down the possibilities
> and put that Rver in a
> forced-choice position.

No, the intuitive is still free to say whatever he/she wants,
including saying that the frontloading may be wrong.  They are not
forced to say anything.

> There IS research to back this up, E. - check
> it out.  I know it seems to defy logic, but it's true.

No actually, I do not feel it defies logic.  I feel that there are
very logical arguments on both sides of the issue and I don't know
which one is the correct one.  I do know how I like to do my stuff
but that does not mean that the same way is best for everyone and I'm
not going to say I know something for sure (at least today at 5PM!? )
unless I can give real evidence for it.  You have just told me about
one experiment that as far as I can tell is not clear evidence about
the pure issue of frontloading.  It also does not tell me if those
tested had already had experience with frontloading or blind work or
if they were total newbies.  And it also does not tell me if the
skill level of the participants was tracked over a reasonably long
period of time.  I'm kind of curious about that stuff actually.

However, I would be interested to know if you had another example of
research that more clearly addressed the issue from the standpoint of
those who were not already conditioned to work blind in the first
place.  Like I said, you may well be absolutely correct in your
opinions but until I see some evidence to prove it, then I can't
justify elevating the idea to the status of 'valid theory.'  For a
long time in the rv community now I've been hearing calls of 'lots of
evidence' and 'it's been studied thoroughly,' etc but yet I have
heard near diddly about the 'evidence.'  So now I've made a rule that
unless someone can tell me exactly where the evidence is, then I am
not going to make too much of a decision on the issue.  And even
beyond that, the research also really needs to be replicated in
various scenarios.

I was psych major and I can't tell you how many times in historical
research an idea was said to be totally proven as fact, only years
and years later to be discovered that there was some tiny little
glitch or factor that was not controlled for in the numerous studies
that made the whole thing hideously wrong.  Rv is so new that I'm
sure that will happen 100 times over with us.  I think research is a
great and valuable jumping point for choosing one's path, but you may
also want to bear in mind that most of the great leaps forward in
science started from a person who dared to entertain the idea that
something might be completely opposite of what it appeared to be and
then started thinking really hard about possible alternatives.
Research is a great thing, but it loses a lot of it's value when it
becomes cemented dogma in the minds of it's followers.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

-E

	
#1398
 	From: Richard Krankoski 
Date: Wed Nov ?0, ?00? 7:43 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	Rich_crv

  	  	

> PJ Gaenir wrote:
> > There was a show/segament several years
> > ago with JoeM and some other Lady
>
> I asked Joe about this and below is his response.  There followed a
> private response I can't repeat (DAMN!? ) which is about 17 times more
> interesting

Great info.  Too bad you can't do a weekly "The Rest Of The Story".
I bet you have more  info than is locked up in the Star Gate files.  :? )

Rich

------------------------
Moderator's note: LOL!  Probably so!  I also have 1? different versions of most
of it depending on who I talked to.  I also have several versions depending on
WHEN I talked to someone about something more than once.  And then there's all
the stuff that I am like sworn to secrecy until I die about.  Some of that's
individual stuff like Joe's.  The better stuff is the stuff that involves two or
more people, and I'm sworn to silence on every version.  You know that saying,
"Hearing both sides of the story usually only convinces a person there must be
more than two sides." LOL.  -- PJ

	
#1400
 	From: Richard Krankoski 
Date: Wed Nov ?0, ?00? 7:55 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	Rich_crv

  	  	

> Don wrote:
> not "old-school".  It's new school and first was put forth by Dames, Smith,
> and Lyn - the very people who have never proven anything in a lab!  The
> researchers who coined the term "remote viewing" never intended this.  The
> best RVers in the world were NEVER trained!
> The idea that you have to pay someone to train you to speak with your own
> subconscious and access your own natural talent, especially when these people
> have never demonstrated their own capability, is BS.

Interesting that trainer's websites in most cases post only student sessions....

Rich

---------------------------
Moderator's note: You guys are verging on heresy.  Speaking of which, I was just
talking about burning at the stake over on stargate.... ;-? )  PJ

	
#1410
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Wed Nov ?0, ?00? 4:03 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	greenmn900...

  	  	

Hi Rich,

Yeah, this is something I've never understood.  If I were holding myself out
as being able to train someone to RV, I think I would be eager to demonstrate
it at every given opportunity.  I would make damn sure the protocols were
fool-proof so that no one could EVER say I cheated in any way.  When it comes
to psi, proof is the best marketing tool there is!  I mean we don't expect
every session to be perfect.  We all know that the hit rate has never been
shown to be over 60-65% or so.

I think what's happened is that people are realizing that inborn talent plays
such a huge part that any method any one might be peddling loses a little of
it's value.  The people who do great using CRV methods would probably do
great using any method, once they were used to it.  The students, being
driven by enough desire to pay for it and study hard - they're not getting
paid to do it like so many of the government Rvers were - are a self-selected
group of people.  So, they probably had a lot of talent to start with and
would be good whether they were trained or not.  That's my theory, anyway. :-? )

Best Regards,
Don

	
#145?
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Thu Nov ?1, ?00? 6:06 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	greenmn900...

  	  	

E.,

No problem.  Keep picking on me all you want!  I've been mouthing off a lot
lately, so I probably deserve it! LOL!  Besides, you argue in a nice, polite
way and I know you are very knowledgable about RV.  I like it.

I know you like to see evidence.  I don't blame you, I'm the same way.  Did
you ever check out Dean Radins' book "The Conscious Universe" and what the
studies show about how forced-choice scenarios result in less accuracy, which
is what frontloading does to the RVer?  I was hoping you would after I
suggested it.  It can show you that I'm not just repeating something Joe or
someone else said, there's evidence for it - a lot of evidence.

I think there's more than likely some awesome RVers out there who work in
CRV.  Anyone who's willing to spend the money and the time to learn is
probably going to do pretty good because they've got the drive to practice
it.  I bought the Psitech tapes years ago and tried working with them and I
never could get a single session where I felt that I had the slightest bit of
target contact.  Working so hard to stay in structure is so left-brained for
me that I came away feeling like CRV was almost designed to stop people from
being successful.  But, obviously it works for some.

Maybe too, part of my attitude is a backlash against Ed Dames and all the
others who feel that if you're not trained in CRV, you're not remote viewing.
  That attitude was so strong and so loud for so long, with everyone talking
about how Ingo's amazing invention was the only real RV, that now, after all
these years, I'm wondering why the same instructors who had that attitude
won't do live doubleblind demos.  I mean, imagine, there I was back then,
several months into learning to RV, getting some direct hits, making target
contact at least half the time, all with my own method - and I've got people
telling me that it isn't RV.  Especially when all the best studies were done
with people that weren't trained in CRV and CRV  instructors act like they're
afraid to do live doubleblind demos.  Oh well...I respect the students a lot
but I'm really starting to wonder about the instructors.

Regarding whether natural talent is the governing factor or not, I'm not just
going by what Joe says.  All the researchers that I've heard comment on the
subject say the same thing - Ed May, Hal Puthoff, Russell Targ, etc.  They
all say that no one method seemed to stand out as being better than others,
that natural talent seemed to be what made the difference.  As to what may
constitute natural talent, I have no idea.  I suspect it's the same thing as
in any area - basically a mystery, but possibly somewhat hereditary.  What is
it that constitutes the natural talent of a world-class athlete or dancer or
musician or writer?  No one knows as of yet, some got it, some don't, but we
all have it to some degree.  In his books, Joe says only about .5% of the
population has the natural talent to be what he calls "world-class" Rvers and
he says many, many studies confirm this.  But I've never seen the studies.  I
don't know if they're published or not.  If you'd really like to see some
data on it, though, maybe you should write to Joe and ask him.

I wrote:
"Structure means nothing.  Training means nothing.  Protocol is everything."

To which, you replied:
"LOL!  I know that's what McMoneagle says, but again, how do you know?"

Please understand, E.  I'm not parroting Joe.  Just because I think he's
right about most things doesn't mean I think he's right about EVERYTHING.  I
may have worded that a little strongly, but that is the upshot of all the
years of research and experience.  If you don't believe it - CHECK WITH
PEOPLE.  Contact Ed May, Dean Radin, Hal Puthoff, Russell Targ.  See if any
of them believe that the CRV structure and training has produced any better
viewers.  Take a look at what happened in the military unit.  It fell apart
when the "naturals" were all gone.  Read Jim Schnabel's book "Remote
Viewers".  You say you want evidence - well, GO GET IT!!!!  It's out there.
When you do, I bet you'll believe the same way I do.  There's no other
conclusion to be drawn.

You wrote:
"It kinda makes me laugh cuz from my understanding McMoneagle does not want
people to just pawn off his success on natural talent cuz obviously he had to
work his butt off to get his skill."

Well, of course.  The analogy I used earlier; dancers, athletes, writers,
musicians; they ALL have to work their butts off to get to where they are.
It's not a question of talent OR hard work.  Of course it takes a combination
of both.  That's true in any field.  That's why I kept saying "all other
things being equal".  If you have more natural talent than I do, and we both
work equally hard - you will be better than me.  That's pretty simple, isn't
it?  It's a fact of life in every other area, why don't you believe it's true
in RV as well?

You say "So and So said so is not good enough for me".  Well, believing the
researchers who are in agreement and have years of experience with many Rvers
is one option.  The other option is disbelieving your entire life because
none of us have enough time in our lifetimes to replicate what they've
accomplished.  I'm not going by what any one person says, I'm drawing the
obvious conclusions from mountains of evidence; scientific, anecdotal,
experiential, and historical.  Now, if you want to be right, E., you really
should agree with me! LOL!

Warm Regards,
Don

	
#1476
 	From: "Glyn" 
Date: Sat Nov ?3, ?00? 5:?4 am
Subject: RE: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	gebega

  	  	

Hi Don,

> It's not a question of talent OR hard work.
> Of course it takes a combination of both.
> That's true in any field.  That's why I kept
> saying "all other things being equal".  If
> you have more natural talent than I do, and we
> both work equally hard - you will be better
> than me.  That's pretty simple, isn't it?
> It's a fact of life in every other area, why
> don't you believe it's true in RV as well?

       I agree that is true, that those with a talent for something should
always have the advantage, but I can see where there could be problems in
achieving full potential even with that talent.

      For a very simple example in order to try and illustrate my point (you
can probably think of a better one? ). Imagine a guy who can swim from one end
to the other of an olympic sized pool in very good time. He has learned the
basics, to stay within the 'lanes', and stick to the basic 'rules'
(protocols? ), but others see his style is not quite like the way you 'should'
swim. So he tries to fit in with what they say should be done, and practices
like heck. He never achieves his potential, and always wonders why, often
blaming himself, and always searching for another 'methods'.

   What he failed to realise was that whatever potential he had.. had been
squashed and forced to fit inside someone elses 'box'. Even his natural
talent couldn't help him because that talent involved being able to use his
own style.

      Just my opinion.

      Kind regards,
      Glyn

-------------------------
Moderator's note: It took me a minute to see how what you said related to Don's
comment.  You're saying it won't help to work hard on something that isn't right
for us.  I'd have to agree with that. :-? )  PJ

	
#1481
 	From: Stanley 
Date: Sat Nov ?3, ?00? 11:50 am
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	stanley014?0

  	  	

> on 11/?3/0? 6:?4 AM, Glyn at glyn.flyers...t.com wrote:
> What he failed to realise was that whatever potential he had.. had been
> squashed and forced to fit inside someone elses 'box'. Even his natural
> talent couldn't help him because that talent involved being able to use his
> own style.

Glyn,

I agree with you completely.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Sometimes we attempt to create a process that serves the scientists and
researchers well but doesn't necessarily adapt itself to the object being
studied.

trypper

---------------------------
Moderator's note: I think it might apply more to methods than science, which has
almost no constraints at all beyond dblind and feedback, but you're right about
that -- all our rules and our observance often just casts a shadow over the
thing we are leaning over trying to see! -- PJ

	
#1479
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Sat Nov ?3, ?00? ?:09 am
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	k9caninek9

  	  	

> don wrote:
> No problem.  Keep picking on me all you want!
> I've been mouthing off a lot
> lately, so I probably deserve it! LOL!
> Besides, you argue in a nice, polite
> way and I know you are very knowledgable about RV.

Well, I'm glad to see that my ruse worked!

I like it.

> I know you like to see evidence.  I don't
> blame you, I'm the same way.  Did
> you ever check out Dean Radins' book
> "The Conscious Universe"

I just posted another one on that.  I actually haven't read that many
books since I got addicted to the net, but I'll keep it in mind.  You
know, it is kinda fun to come up with your own theories first and
then see what the evidence says!

> I think there's more than likely some
> awesome RVers out there who work in
> CRV.  Anyone who's willing to spend the
> money and the time to learn is
> probably going to do pretty good because
> they've got the drive to practice
> it.  I bought the Psitech tapes years
> ago and tried working with them and I
> never could get a single session where
> I felt that I had the slightest bit of
> target contact.  Working so hard to stay
> in structure is so left-brained for
> me that I came away feeling like CRV
> was almost designed to stop people from
> being successful.  But, obviously it works for some.

Some people really seem to like the structure, but like anything, I
suspect that at some point, one will have to start developing a
unique style.

> Maybe too, part of my attitude is a
> backlash against Ed Dames and all the
> others who feel that if you're not
> trained in CRV, you're not remote viewing.
>  That attitude was so strong and so
> loud for so long, with everyone talking
> about how Ingo's amazing invention was
> the only real RV, that now, after all
> these years, I'm wondering why the same
> instructors who had that attitude
> won't do live doubleblind demos.  I mean,
> imagine, there I was back then,
> several months into learning to RV,
> getting some direct hits, making target
> contact at least half the time, all with
> my own method - and I've got people
> telling me that it isn't RV.

Yeah, from what I've heard, it's mellowed out some since then.  I
actually started as you did doing my own thing.  I lurked for a bit
and got a few of the general concepts and then just put pen to paper
and tried it using some targets off the net.  I didn't need the
structure to do well.  Later, when I took training, I did learn a lot
about the different kinds of ways things come in and in what order
they often come in.  I had seen that already but it was nice to get
it clarified a bit more.  I also learned some tricks for getting more
data which I think is a good thing.

> Especially when all the best studies were done
> with people that weren't trained in CRV
> and CRV  instructors act like they're
> afraid to do live doubleblind demos.
> Oh well...I respect the students a lot
> but I'm really starting to wonder about the instructors.

I think one reason they don't do it is because they don't have to.
Why should they when they still get lots of students?  There is no
motivation.

> Regarding whether natural talent is the
> governing factor or not, I'm not just
> going by what Joe says.  All the researchers
> that I've heard comment on the
> subject say the same thing - Ed May, Hal
> Puthoff, Russell Targ, etc.  They
> all say that no one method seemed to stand
> out as being better than others,
> that natural talent seemed to be what made
> the difference.  [snip] In his books, Joe
> says only about .5% of the
> population has the natural talent to be
> what he calls "world-class" Rvers and
> he says many, many studies confirm this.
> But I've never seen the studies.  I
> don't know if they're published or not.
> If you'd really like to see some
> data on it, though, maybe you should write
> to Joe and ask him.
>
> "Structure means nothing.  Training means nothing.
> Protocol is everything."

> > E. wrote:
> > "LOL!  I know that's what McMoneagle says, but
> > again, how do you know?"

> Don wrote:
> Please understand, E.  I'm not parroting Joe.

Sorry, but you have to admit it does sound a lot like that!  I guess
it always bugs me when people speak in simplified absolutes that to
me are more like sound bytes than real life.  SUre there may be a lot
of truth to it, but life if rarely black and white.

> Just because I think he's
> right about most things doesn't mean I
> think he's right about EVERYTHING.  I
> may have worded that a little strongly,
> but that is the upshot of all the
> years of research and experience.
> If you don't believe it - CHECK WITH
> PEOPLE.  Contact Ed May, Dean Radin,
> Hal Puthoff, Russell Targ.  See if any
> of them believe that the CRV structure
> and training has produced any better
> viewers.  Take a look at what happened
> in the military unit.  It fell apart
> when the "naturals" were all gone.
> Read Jim Schnabel's book "Remote
> Viewers".  You say you want evidence -
> well, GO GET IT!!!!

Actually, that book is the next on the list.

> E. wrote:
> > "It kinda makes me laugh cuz from my
> > understanding McMoneagle does not want
> > people to just pawn off his success on
> > natural talent cuz obviously he had to
> > work his butt off to get his skill."

> Don wrote:
> Well, of course.  The analogy I used earlier;
> dancers, athletes, writers,
> musicians; they ALL have to work their butts
> off to get to where they are.
> It's not a question of talent OR hard work.
> Of course it takes a combination
> of both.  That's true in any field.  That's
> why I kept saying "all other
> things being equal".  If you have more natural
> talent than I do, and we both
> work equally hard - you will be better than me.
> That's pretty simple, isn't
> it?  It's a fact of life in every other area,
> why don't you believe it's true
> in RV as well?

You took that out of context.  I stated that as saying I agreed with
it.  What made me laugh was that although McMoneagle so often speaks
of natural talent, he seems to get a bit irked when people keep
saying he has it.  You have to read the whole 5 sentences of the
original paragraph to understand my meaning on that one.

> You say "So and So said so is not good enough
> for me".  Well, believing the
> researchers who are in agreement and have years
> of experience with many Rvers
> is one option.  The other option is
> disbelieving your entire life because
> none of us have enough time in our
> lifetimes to replicate what they've
> accomplished.  I'm not going by what any
> one person says, I'm drawing the
> obvious conclusions from mountains of
> evidence; scientific, anecdotal,
> experiential, and historical.  Now, if you
> want to be right, E., you really
> should agree with me! LOL!

Well you are saying again that you are going by all this evidence,
but you haven't quoted me one single piece of it that speaks directly
to my points.  Now I would not be surprised if it's out there, but if
you want to avoid sounding like everyone who keeps
yelling 'Evidence!' then you should probably start quoting some of
your evidence.  I certainly said I never believed any of it or that I
wouldn't get around to reading the book, but I figure if there is
soooo much of this evidence, then maybe you could give me a sneak
preview eh?  Time to put your evidence where your mouth is!  ;-? )
-E

	
#1460
 	From: aeonblueau8008...
Date: Fri Nov ??, ?00? ?:19 am
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	terri8008

  	  	

> Take a look at what happened in the military unit.  It fell apart
> when the "naturals" were all gone.  Read Jim Schnabel's book "Remote
> Viewers".  You say you want evidence - well, GO GET IT!!!!
> It's out there.
> When you do, I bet you'll believe the same way I do.  There's no other
> conclusion to be drawn.

Well.. just gotta make one comment Don, I think it's visa versa, the unit
started it's demise.. everything for a reason and it did have a good long
run.. but in the end with new or changed uppermanagement that's when the/some
quote unquote  'just' naturals (street corner psychics? ) were brought in.
I wasn't there so I don't know the whole story, but it got pretty goofy,
silly.. parlor trick variety.

Originally, "Naturals" sort of gravitated toward the 'old' unit(very few? ).
It wasn't like any ole body would get posted, that obviously wouldn't and
didn't work.
Then the naturals were trained in CRV. (or worked ERV style, monitored? ), that
was just part of the package, or was the package, training. Everybody was
trained, everybody worked both CRV and ERV.
Some were, are better than others, develop strong points in certain areas,
aka are that way naturally.

If it weren't for (Ingo etc etc etc etc? )the old unit, Atwater, none of us
would working any RV, we would not know the name, skill, protocol. The
Russians didn't term psychic phenomena RV, Joe didn't name it such.

CRV training or ERV monitored, somewhat fine tuned or focused the PSI
process, added some dependability and accuracy, more than just by natural
chance.

Most of what you see out there(taught? ) today (all the various methods? ) came
from CRV style or Ingo I guess.

I don't want to get into heavy discussion over this, most of what I don't
know.. but if you want more info I would suggest writing one of the old
guard, respectfully of course (that is... if you don't know everything
already? ).

Sorry for your experience with Dames, not a good way to start out.

Re Schanbels book.. one of the fellas told me one time, things (information? )
he should never have known he found out, some things he should have easily
known he missed. It is the best book out there on the history of the unit,
but some of it is wrong.

Joe is just (mighty? )Joe- highly gifted rarity, but it's always been
acknowledged Joe works Joe RV.
Then again if we were all afforded the opportunity to work with Atwater and
Monroe for a decade we might all be all "naturals". Joe didn't get to where
he is today all totally by himself, he had the pleasure of much of the best
in field for a number of years. Not saying it's easy I don't mean to water
down any aspect... lot of it is just a long hard haul, trial and error, hit
and miss.

For those of us who aren't JoeM's.. training is a good way to go, at least
it's good experience to have under your belt, and as with anything take what
works for you file the rest away.

all the best  ~~Terri

	
#146?
 	
Date: Fri Nov ??, ?00? 11:13 am
Subject: RV History 	dennanm

  	  	

Hi Terri,

> Originally, "Naturals" sort of gravitated
> toward the 'old' unit(very few? ).
> It wasn't like any ole body would get posted,
> that obviously wouldn't and didn't work.
> Then the naturals were trained in CRV.

This does not coincide with at least 8 different accounts I directly
received from people who were there (early and late unit years? ) plus
other research I've done and have off the top of my head.

First, the selection process that created the unit obviously
had 'naturals'; the unit was put together in 1977 and began formally
in 1978.  Swann didn't even start putting together and teaching par-
time the first stages of his experimental methods until 1983.  There
was no such thing as someone who wasn't a natural, even if they'd
never even thought of psi before.

For that matter, up until Swann's CRV and that tiny little niche of
psi interest, anybody involved in remote viewing, dowsing, or for
that matter any other psychic field, seldom considered "training" in
the way modern methods RV does. For example, if you talk to someone
who did psi for the police in the 1960's, or who does it now, or who
does RV - now or then - in the lab or in ops - you may find they
trained in silva, or some scientology techniques, or various
exercises by a variety of authors, or eastern gurus, or what have
you: they don't consider themselves the product of that training,
they consider themselves psychics who happen to have experience with
a variety of ways of going about it.  It didn't seem to be until CRV
came along that people considered a method more important than the
individual, a side effect of the infamous 'talent be damned -
structure is everything' slogan.

Second, the individuals selected for training with Swann were chosen
according to his specification that they NOT be psychic, at least as
far as anybody knew; that they know as little about it as possible --
he wanted to mold their belief systems, knowledge, etc.  Those
trained in CRV were hence the anti-thesis of 'naturals' as far as
being openly, naturally gifted in psi goes.

Unfortunately since the management of the lab at that time (Puthoff? )
apparently didn't take Swann's training seriously enough to consider
it scientific, no lab supervised baseline testing was done on the
individuals to begin with. So whether his method was brilliant or
not, there would actually be no evidence for measure, to separate
whether a person 'trained' was successful due to training or due to
having more natural talent than the next guy or how much difference
it might make.

Third, that CRV came to become 'the way' of the unit for the most
part related to management both in lab and unit not wanting to take
the money from their budget to do another search for more naturally
talented folks, and procrastinating it on and on, yet the tasking was
increasing fast, 10%/mo in the early 80's says McMoneagle in his
latest book.  Eventually they realized McMoneagle was in poor health
and intended to retire and they had to use whatever they had, because
they suddenly were faced with having nobody to do the job, and
management would be held accountable for that fact.  So without the
kind of testing for skill those in the unit in the first years had to
go through, they were just "in" -- ASAP.

> If it weren't for (Ingo etc etc etc etc? )the
> old unit, Atwater, none of us
> would working any RV, we would not know the
> name, skill, protocol.

I don't agree with this.  Hal Puthoff published two very popular
books about it, with Keith Harary and Russell Targ, and the IEEE
published their stuff which was known around the world, this in the
1970's and 1980's, Joe published his first book in 1993, two years
before the program was made public, and several popular books by
other researchers were published from the late 70's to the early
90's, as well as a good deal of published research, too.

Contrary to popular opinion, remote viewing was not a secret by any
means. The only thing secret was that we had soldiers doing it,
government inquiry.  And even that wasn't a very GOOD secret, given
WA Post columnist Jack Anderson kept talking about in print, lol.
What made RV famous was the disclosure of the government usage of it -
true. But it was not a secret by any means.

It simply did not have massive, massive press coverage thanks to the
CIA, and then big 'anomalies field' coverage thanks to Art Bell.
However, I maintain that the media development of this field since
the program declassified is not by accident, unfortunately it looks
like the bad guys planned ahead. ;-? )

There *would* have been public media about remote viewing, probably
even Art Bell. It's simply that from several years prior to
declassification, Ed Dames was working hard to establish himself as
the expert and public representative for RV. Because much of this was
done with members of the media prior to 1995, others involved could
not say anything to represent RV, because it was classified. (Why he
is not in leavenworth for that and other reasons is anybody's
guess.? )  Once it was made suddenly public and discredited by the CIA,
many of the individuals involved were still working either in the
program or in some private affiliation with it, still very few could
say anything in that regard either.

I try to imagine what would have happened if Joe, Bill Ray, Mel
Riley, and a few others had been public to talk to the media BEFORE
Ed Dames could make his sole bid for the throne of "being the sole
repository of all military remote viewing knowledge" (a direct quote
from him on Art Bell - I know, I typed the transcript? ).  It would be
a different world perception of RV.

Now. The remote viewing "protocol" is usually ignored by the methods
world anyway so you must be referring to the CRV protocols
(methods? ).  It is a given that since Ingo compiled CRV, and the Unit
produced the CRV manual, that we would not know of CRV if it weren't
for Ingo and the unit.  This is sort of... obvious, but I don't see
that it makes a big difference to RV "as a field" (at least as far as
remote viewing happening? ) though obviously it makes ALL the
difference for CRV as a sellable method.

Remote viewing was working extremely successfully in the lab AND in
the intelligence unit for many years before CRV even tentatively and
part-time began.  People are always telling me they never would have
heard of RV if it weren't for Ed Dames.  Sure they would have, then
or later.  They just wouldn't have heard of it the way they did.

> CRV training or ERV monitored, somewhat fine
> tuned or focused the PSI
> process, added some dependability and accuracy,
> more than just by natural chance.

The only research ever done on this actually demonstrated it did
nothing of the sort.  Several methods including CRV were tested, both
on 'naturals' and on 'people off the street' so to speak, and a good
deal of practice/time provided for development -- the government was
SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN a way to 'train' anybody to be a really good
psychic.  The research will be published probably late next year or
early ?004, but the part that can be addressed without its detail is
that on the conclusion of this research, Swann's training was
canceled. That is why Smith and others finished their training in the
unit and those who followed had to be trained fully in the unit.

> Joe is just (mighty? )Joe- highly gifted
> rarity, but it's always been
> acknowledged Joe works Joe RV.

And I work PJRV.  Given every human mind is unique, everybody
eventually works their own way, unless they have some obsession with
external structure.  But, I have never seen anybody with an obsession
for external structure be particularly impressive at RV, and those I
know who are, are all people who, whether trained or not, developed
their own way of going about RV, which might or might not encompass a
variety of tidbits from one or more psychic methods, or were actually
psychics to begin with, and just adapted a few tools they liked best
from their 'rv' method.

> Then again if we were all afforded the
> opportunity to work with Atwater and Monroe

Skip Atwater is now doing an RV course at TMI that I hear is a really
excellent experience.  Wish I had time to take off, I'd like to go
play, mostly because the idea of having someone else feed and take
care of me and having no other responsibilities and just getting to
view w/hemi-sync for a week sounds great. :-? )

> Joe didn't get to where
> he is today all totally by himself,
> he had the pleasure of much of the best
> in field for a number of years.

Absolutely true.  Then again you notice not everybody got what he
got. It was his ability -- and his determination to improve himself --
that led him into the opportunities that arose.  I feel sometimes a
focus on something creates its own opportunities.  With a war coming
especially, who knows.  The future may surprise us.

PJ

	
#1469
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Fri Nov ??, ?00? 1?:38 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	greenmn900...

  	  	

Terri,

That's not the way I understand it to have happened.

But I do agree with you to some extent.  I think training can be good.  Then
again, it might be bad too.  I suppose it depends on the person. But
regardless, a trainer can only work with the degree of talent that the
student posesses.

Don

	
#1474
 	From: "Sharon Webb" 
Date: Fri Nov ??, ?00? 10:04 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	sharwebb_3051?

  	  	

Hi,

I have to ask this question.  If we are talking about RVers getting psychic
impressions about the target, then doesn't it follow that they would get psychic
impressions from other people concerning the target as well?  Or clairvoyant
impressions?  What I'm saying is, how can you be sure you really are operating
double blind when you might be picking up ESP about the target from everyone
connected whether or not you were frontloaded with verbal or written info?

Sharon
sharwebb...t
www.fractalus.com/sharon

--------------------------
Moderator's note: The RV science protocol relates to information transfer
happening when there are "no known means" of that transfer (meaning, nothing
physiological/technological measurable? ).  Chances are, our psi info comes from
our present, past, future selves, others involved with the target past, present
and future, the target itself past present future, etc. etc.  We are lucky to
separate psi from physical transfer at this point; I doubt we'll ever be able to
separate telepathy from clairvoyance.  Technically, you could always be viewing
yourself after feedback for the answer.  It really doesn't matter as long as it
is accurate, lol. -- PJ

	
#1480
 	From: "Glyn" 
Date: Sat Nov ?3, ?00? 5:4? am
Subject: RE: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	gebega

  	  	

Hi PJ,

> The RV science protocol relates to information
> transfer happening when there are "no known means"
> of that transfer (meaning, nothing physiological/
> technological measurable? ).  Chances are, our psi
> info comes from our present, past, future selves,
> others involved with the target past, present and
> future, the target itself past present future, etc.
> etc.  We are lucky to separate psi from physical
> transfer at this point; I doubt we'll ever be able
> to separate telepathy from clairvoyance.  Technically,
> you could always be viewing yourself after feedback
> for the answer.  It really doesn't matter as long
> as it is accurate, lol.

       Yes!  It's a long time since I've heard anything  that cuts straight
to the root of the matter and  IMO is so absolutely right!

   Kind regards,
   Glyn

	
#148?
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Sat Nov ?3, ?00? 7:?6 am
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	greenmn900...

  	  	

> You wrote:
> "You have just told me about one experiment...."

> And you wrote:
> "However, I would be interested to know if you had
> another example of research...."

> And you wrote:
> "And even beyond that, the research really needs
> to be replicated in various scenarios".

E., I didn't give you an example of one experiment.  Dean Radin's book that I
suggested you read for evidence against frontloading is about meta-analysis
of practically all the psi research that's been done in modern times.  The
replication is there, the different types of experiments are there, the
working with people who weren't originally trained to work blind is there.
The evidence you would like to see is there. Check it out.

Best regards,
Don

	
#1504
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Sun Nov ?4, ?00? ?:5? am
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	k9caninek9

  	  	

> --- In pjrv...enmn900...ed:
> > E wrote:
> > "You have just told me about one experiment...."

No, what I said was that you had told me about one experiment that
did not address my concerns and did not tell me about any experiments
that did address my concerns.  You are a smart guy and I am sure you
know how irritating it can be when someone over snips another
person's statement to the point of changing it's meaning.

> > E wrote:
> > "However, I would be interested to know if you had
> > another example of research...."
>
> > And E wrote:
> > "And even beyond that, the research really needs
> > to be replicated in various scenarios".
>
> Don wrote:
> E., I didn't give you an example of one
> experiment.  Dean Radin's book that I
> suggested you read for evidence against
> frontloading is about meta-analysis
> of practically all the psi research that's
> been done in modern times.  The
> replication is there, the different types
> of experiments are there, the
> working with people who weren't originally
> trained to work blind is there.
> The evidence you would like to see is there.
> Check it out.

If you are going to raise a point here on this list and claim it is
supported by evidence, IMO, it also behooves you to be able to state
at least some tiny bit of said evidence that supports your point.
IMO, "Go read XYZ book," is kind of a weak answer to that and is not
stating evidence but just shifting the hassle of finding evidence to
me.  And even if I were to find the time to read the book right away,
the rest of the members of the list still would not know if I found
said evidence or what it might be.

You know, I hear some people say that available evidence is weak and
inconclusive and I hear other people say that the evidence clearly
points to their own theory, whatever that theory may be.  Obviously,
someone is wrong and I'm really not sure who that might be.  I figure
that there are probably exagerations on numerous fronts which tends
to compound the confusion in further.  But it seems to me that if
somone claims that evidence supports their personal theory, they
should be able to at least state to me clearly a few examples of
specifically how the evidence supports their theory.  Otherwise, I
have to figure they are not telling me for some reason.

Another thing to consider is that metaanalysis can only be as good as
the individual experiments that it attempts to sumarize and is
usually only used when there are many many experiments that address
the exact same issue and have very similar protocols and methods.
Metanalysis is usually not used to develop sweeping theories but just
to feret out the most likely truthful result of one type of very
specific experiment.
-E

-------------------------
Moderator's novel: I see your point. If you'd read Dean's book, you'd know why
trying to pull a quote out of it is difficult: it is an intensely
information-packed book, which tends to give examples in a wordy explanation
form (though a very well written one? ), and makes much of its points not by a
specific which can be quoted, but by the weight of his numerous examples.

One would almost need to scan half the bleepin' book in to adequately explain
why HIS explanation 'explains it so well'. Some of the research which can be
used to address issues like frontloading is an 'indirect' relation, which
further complicates the matter.

Here's a ref, but indirect: the library at www.jsasoc.com has a paper on
managing the target pool bandwidth, which is itself a 'hands-on application' of
what was learned in regards to the nature of targets and how much the viewer
knew about that nature. They explain in that paper that the primary sources of
'noise' nailed down experimentally are from memory (which forced choice and
overly limited-choice bandwidth pools bring, frontloading is probably closer to
the latter? ) and from imagination (which the no-limit bandwidth pools have? ).

In english, the more limited your choices are with you knowing that, the more
your analytical estimates and your memory (what came before, what's unlikely or
likely to come next, etc.? ) are both in play, and they tend to be a bit stronger
than the often intangible data in RV, which tends to create more inaccurate data
(aol problems of varying sorts? ).

And, the more unlimited your choices are, the more imagination tends to roam
free - if the target can be a planet, a molecule, a painting, or a graphic
composite of never-existed-but-on-screen pictures, then the imagination DOES
tend to roam free -- the mind essentially has no parameters at all within which
to work, especially given that scale can be so arbitrary for RV perception.

So they experimented and found that a pool of targets which were known to be,
basically, within a certain 'range' of target types, large ENOUGH to still have
a really good span of possibilities that couldn't be guessed, but small enough
that things were mostly the same size, everything was going to be a real thing
somewhere on earth, this seemed to result in the right mix of downplaying memory
at one extreme and downplaying imagination at the other extreme, for the
happiest medium, the highest effect-size measurable at least.

I believe some frontloading can sometimes be beneficial, but I have to caveat
that to say, that it is a very fine line, that it takes a great deal of
knowledge with the subject to appropriately choose, and that it probably goes
without saying that most of us who haven't got decades of experimental and
operational experience with it probably aren't informed enough to make the best
decisions about it -- not that we can't experiment ourselves, of course.

I don't see frontloading as empirically evil, but conversations often get
derailed just because people aren't talking about the same thing.  If we are
talking about methods training, frontloading is not only uncalled for, but
basically redundant since you have a guy who knows the target sitting right
across from you anyway and giving intermediate feedback.

If we are talking about practicing, well most should just for ease probably be
done without it, but including some of it in practice might accustom one more to
dealing with the aol it generates.  If we are talking about operations, it
really depends on whether the f/l is going to harm the analyst's job, more than
anything else, as aside from viewer performance that's the greatest damage it
tends to do, is interfere with calibration.

By the way, that paper I ref'd will bore you to sleep. LOL.  -- PJ

	
#1485
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Sat Nov ?3, ?00? 7:14 am
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	greenmn900...

  	  	

> E wrote:
> "It occurs to me that nonrv psychics regularly
> do answer very specific questions...."

What always blows me away is when they come up with someone's name.  The odds
against that must be astronomical.

Best regards,
Don

	
#1486
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Sat Nov ?3, ?00? 7:57 am
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	greenmn900...

  	  	

E.,
> You wrote:
> "Well you are saying again that you are
> going by all this evidence, but you
> haven't quoted me one single piece of it
> that speaks directly to my points.
> [snip]
> I figure if there is soooo much of this
> evidence, then maybe you could give me a sneak
> preview eh?  Time to put your evidence where
> your mouth is!  ;-? )"

No, I'm not going to do your research for you, I don't have time.  It's even
time-consuming to look through a book and find the one quote that will refute
an argument or bolster my own.  That's why I suggested you contact some of
the scientists I mentioned and why I suggested reading Dean Radin's book.
Imagine how long it would take me to contact these people, ask them some
questions (hoping they have the time to reply? ), and then quote their
responses for you in another post.  And then I run a good chance of you not
agreeing with the specific questions I asked or saying that they don't
specifically address your question properly.  I'm not playing that game.
You'll have to do your own research.  I can't hand you everthing on a silver
platter.  I DID tell you what the upshot of the research is and directed you
to where you can check it out for yourself.  But if you really want to see
the evidence, you'll have to do the rest yourself.

Please understand, if it seems like I'm quoting what Joe says, it's because
he's not the only one saying it.  He's quoting the conclusions that have been
drawn from the research.  If you don't believe me, and you don't believe him,
then you'll have to find the people you do believe yourself.  It's there and
easy to find.  When you do, let me know what you think.

Best Regards,
Don

	
#1505
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Sun Nov ?4, ?00? 3:?3 am
Subject: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	k9caninek9

  	  	

> > E. wrote:
> > I figure if there is soooo much of this
> > evidence, then maybe you could give me a sneak
> > preview eh?  Time to put your evidence where
> > your mouth is!  ;-? )"

> Don wrote:
> No, I'm not going to do your research for you,
> I don't have time.  It's even
> time-consuming to look through a book and find
> the one quote that will refute
> an argument or bolster my own.  That's why I
> suggested you contact some of
> the scientists I mentioned and why I suggested
> reading Dean Radin's book.
> Imagine how long it would take me to contact
> these people, ask them some
> questions (hoping they have the time to reply? ),
> and then quote their
> responses for you in another post.

When you said there was evidence, I assumed that you knew what the
evidence is and would be able to tell me.  Otherwise, how could you
know the evidence supported your theory?

> And then I run a good chance of you not
> agreeing with the specific questions I asked or
> saying that they don't
> specifically address your question properly.

I only say that if they don't address the issue and it seems to me
rather crazy to quote evidence that does not specifically address the
issue that we are speaking about unless you want to start a new and
basically unrelated thread.

> I DID tell you what the upshot of the
> research is and directed you
> to where you can check it out for
> yourself.  But if you really want to see
> the evidence, you'll have to do the rest yourself.

I didn't ask to see ALL the evidence, just one or two pieces that
addressed the point.  In discussions of theory in any scientific
circle, it is common and expected that people directly state and
explain exact studies that support their theories.  If they were to
say, "It's out there but find it for yourself," they would be laughed
out of the scientific community in no time flat."  Therefore, I do
not feel my request was out of line in any way.  Now if you don't
want to tell me or can't think of an example from memory, you could
have just told me earlier.  Please bare in mind that I have never
said I think you are wrong in your opinions.  It's not that I am
saying I think your opinions are wrong.  In fact, I think they have a
great deal of logical consistancy.  It's just that so do some other
opinions and I am not ready to commit to one particular opinion just
yet.  My only complaint is that you have claimed there is evidence
but have not been able to state what it is.

> Please understand, if it seems like I'm
> quoting what Joe says, it's because
> he's not the only one saying it.  He's
> quoting the conclusions that have been
> drawn from the research.  If you don't
> believe me, and you don't believe him,

See, you are getting really sensitive about this even though I have
repeatedly stated that 'belief of you' is not the issue.  Don't make
this personal as it is not (at least in my mind and intentions? ).  I
think you and McMoneagle have made some logical sounding conclusions
and I had figured that since you knew of the evidence, then you would
be able at least tell me about it at least to a minor extent.  I like
to take the position of a true skeptic (which is not that of a
doubter? ) and ask for evidence and at that point I try to evaluate it
objectively.  In this case, I felt the one piece of evidence given
had failed to address the issue in question.  That doesn't mean your
opinion is wrong, only that it wasn't clearly validated in this one
particular case.

> then you'll have to find the people you do believe yourself.

Like I said, it's not a matter of believing you.  There are plenty of
intelligent respectable people in the world that disagree with other
intelligent respectable people.  It's not a matter of 'believing'
people, it's a matter of the potential for different people to look
at things in a different way and come to different conclusions.  And
there is nothing wrong with that at all.  In this case, I concluded
that the piece of evidence you gave did not give strong support to
your opinion, but other than that, I have not come to much in the way
of conclusions.
-E

	
#1514
 	From: greenmn900...
Date: Sun Nov ?4, ?00? 6:?5 am
Subject: Re: Re: Frontloading & retargeting 	greenmn900...

  	  	

E.,
> You wrote:
> "See, you are getting really sensitive about this even though I have
> repeatedly stated that 'belief of you' is not the issue.  Don't make
> this personal as it is not (at least in my mind and intentions? )."

No, I'm not.  I admire the way you want to see the evidence.  I admire the
arguments you make.  If this is personal at all, it's only so in the way I
like you for the way you think, E.  I'm not upset or getting mad or anything
like that at all.  I've just been too busy to look up and find the exact
pieces of evidence you want.  I've been involved in this other debate on this
other list that had taken up a lot of my computer time....

You said you were going to read "The Concious Universe" by Dean Radin - btw,
that's the only evidence I gave - information out of his book.  When you read
it, you'll see a lot of information about these subjects.

You wrote:
> " In discussions of theory in any scientific
> circle, it is common and expected that people directly state and
> explain exact studies that support their theories.  If they were to
> say, "It's out there but find it for yourself," they would be laughed
> out of the scientific community in no time flat."  Therefore, I do
> not feel my request was out of line in any way."

E., I'm not a scientist!  I'm just a lowly Rver trying to make his way in the
world! lol!  The kind of things we are discussing require exactly what you
want in the way of evidence.  I don't blame you for wanting it.  but I just
don't have the time to find it for you.  When you read Radin's book, there's
a lot of it there and he discusses alot of issues pretty fully.  Do you want
to start taking the time to find studies for me that demonstrate the flip
side of what I asserted?

You wrote:
> "When you said there was evidence, I assumed that you knew what the
> evidence is and would be able to tell me.  Otherwise, how could you
> know the evidence supported your theory?"

I've read so much in the last 4-5 years, I have no idea where to find it on
the net now or in what book I've read everything.  But I know what all the
evidence pointed me to.  I think it pretty well demonstrated that
frontloading makes it more difficult.  That's what I believe.  Comparing the
hit rates between forced-choice and free-response studies was one.  But you
didn't think frontloading consituted forced-choice.  I do.

Please understand that I didn't say you were 'out of line" to ask for the
evidence.  I would too if I were you.  I just don't have the time to find it
for you.  You said you were going to read Radin's book.  When you do, let me
know what you think.  i may be wrong and what I thought supported my opinions
actaully doesn't.

Listen, I'm not taking any of this personally.  I hope you're not either.  I
admire the way you think and I respect your judgements and opinions, and I've
always admired the way you conduct yourself on these email lists.

Best Regards,
Don