pjrv : Messages : 2548-2581 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/2548?)
2006/07/01 00:05:01

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

#2548
 	From: "pjgaenir" 
Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 1:40 pm
Subject: Gov't Surveillance of Viewers 	pjgaenir
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Continuing, points on Pru's essay.  By the way I want to mention that
I'm addressing this out of respect for her; it was her wish, in the
essay, that it provoke conversation.  Given she has a role in the RV
field, I think that's fair. -- PJ

{"...and whether the session enters a communications channel like a
fax machine, or a website or a copier. A channel wherein the session
can be captured..."}

I think this is one of the points that set a lot of people, including
me, off on the 'gov't paranoia' angle prior to picking up some of the
other points in the essay.

I've never heard of a copy machine somehow being duplicatable by
surveillance.  I know how copy machines work and this sounds
difficult short of installing some small additional wireless hardware
into the machine itself.

I certainly can't speak to whether or not TDS is being closely
monitored by someone able to capture every form of communication.
(This leads to the "black ops/gov't" assumption because those groups
are the only ones with that ability, of course.)

I remember that Farsight (when Pru was there at least) believed
something along these lines too.

Is it that "someone" (jaws theme) is secretly monitoring -- to such
an excessive degree it becomes intrusive -- the comchannels of
everyone in RV?  Well, some people think so, but then a lot of people
who ought to also be monitored if that were the case do not.

Or is it just that only the people monitored are "important," and
nobody else is important/cosmic/threatening enough to merit the
attention?  That kind of thinking is a little too close to the
paranoid/messianic schizophrenic borderline for me, so I assume that
is NOT it.

It's always been my understanding that if someone were aware they
were under surveillance, it was usually because the group doing it
*wanted* them to know they were under surveillance.  If the
information were the important part, they wouldn't know -- this kind
of tech and practice has so much history that it's a pro job by now.
If their reaction were the important part, then they would know;
alas, there's been more than a few guinea pigs in the gov't's
sociological studies, I imagine.

Then there's the third possibility: that if they know, it's only via
RV, not via the group 'letting on' somehow.  That the evidence and
conclusion that one is being monitored is due dominantly to remote
viewing results.

The question is then the problem: Is it that RV without feedback is
believed?  This has to be the case.  That doesn't mean that no
feedback means it can't be right, of course!  Any viewer with a
tendency to be accurate on other things is going to trust at least
the same general tendency to be right on things without feedback.

Some would suggest that enough tasking to enough people getting the
same response would certainly indicate an answer.

Yet this brings up both RV questions and the same kind of 'quantum
philosophical' questions we've covered earlier.

1.  If most the sessions (esp. those with most incriminating info)
are done by the same group, are we getting into intrapersonal
similarities in (a) belief systems and (b) tasker intent and (c)
group-mind that might be bringing about a general 'gestalt' of answer
so to speak (a certain mode/mood in common)?

Another way of putting the above three options is to say it this way:
The viewer psychically knows what the target is. If there are certain
individual or group beliefs, suspicions, interests, about that kind
of target, it is likely that the resulting sessions will echo that.
Not necessarily because they're objectively correct, but because that
is an end-result some call telepathic overlay and I would call
psychological overlay.

2.  If most the sessions, even those by external people, are tasked
by the same person or small group of people, are we then into (a) the
possibly quantum issue of the tasker themself (as much as the task)
affecting the session? and/or (b) the quite mundane issue of finding
what you're looking for in most any packages of info?

There is of course, one other option, probably the one some will
consider most insulting, but any objective review has to cover it:

3. Is everybody aware of what tends to happen when you target
something which DOES NOT EXIST?  You get a lot of weird and often
nonsensical stuff, and some psychological overlay if there's a viewer
opinion or suspicion.  Done only for a couple sessions, that's the
result.  But what if someone were to take those weird and nonsensical
sessions, and assume that the target DID exist, and that the sessions
had meaning just not yet understood, and then continued to task each
point in those sessions, or additional taskings on the first
questions (but this time, with suspicions in the head of the
tasker)?  If you just kept going down that same road "until it made
sense", what would be the result?

I don't have any answers.  This post is merely theoretical, armchair
conversation, based on Prudence's essay.  I don't know anything about
their situation so I can't guess the answer let alone think I know
it.  But as the only decent information I've been given is the essay
itself, these are the thoughts that arise.

PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#2559
 	From: "Eva" 
Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 3:23 pm
Subject: Re: Gov't Surveillance of Viewers 	k9caninek9
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Well I think first of all, if one is to task a mysterious thing, I
thing one has to be really careful about it.  One option is to first
task with a yes/no type question.  IF the answer is yes, then further
explore it.  If no, then you are barking up the wrong tree and you've
just saved yourself a lot of useless barking.  ANother option is to
be sure tasking is always tied to a known phenomenon.  If you have a
supposed UFO photo that has mysterious light in it, you could task
for the origin of the light.  Viewers could get anything from a lamp
post to a UFO.  But since you have a photo of it, you can probably
assume the light itself came from somewhere, even if it was from a
guy sitting at a computer working in his graphics program!

As for govt surveillance, IMO I think it's just a given.  I'm sure
they keep an eye on at least some of us.  THey'd be stupid not to
monitor any skilled viewers at least.  How far it goes is anyone's
guess, but I doubt there would be any practical way to stop it and I
doubt that it's worth getting upset about by itself.  IT seems easy
to imagine fax, net or phone being accessed.  Heck, that kind of
technology has already been discussed openly.  Copiers seem harder to
imagine.  I do remember seeing a thing on the history channel about
how our guys installed a little camera in the copy machine at the
soviet embassy.  It was rigged to take a picture of each thing that
was copied and we got a lot of good spy info from it.  Seeing as how
that was over 30 years ago, I woudln't be terribly surprised if govt
guys were able to monitor emmissions of light or electromagnetic
waves or whatever from a fax if they really wanted to.  Although I
don't know if they would really need to anyway.  Most things that are
copied either have already or will be shortly transmitted over a fax
or the net or talked about on the phone.  Covering the other
modalities would probably be sufficient.  They could probably create
a program to do key word search so that man hours of listening could
be saved and only the more interesting stuff attended to.
-E

--------------------------
Moderator's note: What if the "yes" answer to the "is this a real target" is
just wrong?  What if it is influenced by tasker opinion, tasker/group
psychological overlays, etc.?  Then even the trouble of 'asking if it's real'
initially would not necessarily be a safeguard.

I am not really in doubt or belief either one about gov't monitoring except that
it seems like IF some portion of the gov't believed in RV enough to worry about
it, it would be the logical thing to do.  I'm just not sure that I'd take it
personally or respond dramatically to it is all.  I mean even if it's true...
what can one do.  If nothing, then.... so what.   PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#2563
 	From: richard braswell 
Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 4:41 pm
Subject: RV Block 	rvrichrb
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi PJ and all,

    For all you paranoids who think you're being
RVed/RIed by evildoers, I found this on the web (and
it may have been posted at an RV site a while back),
but apparently there IS a way to stop those pesky
remote viewers from RVing you. It's called "Remote
View Block" (akin to Sun Block) and they even take
Visa and MasterCard.

Get yours here. LOL.

http://www.4spirit.com/webwarriors/main-pages/Right_SideBar/remote.htm

Rich

-----------------------
Moderator's note: It doesn't look like tinfoil, does it... ;-) -- PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#2581
 	From: Karl Boyken 
Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 8:46 am
Subject: Re: RV Block 	kboyken
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Thanks, Richard.  I wonder whether they have different SPF (spiritual
protection factor) RV blocks.

Has anyone checked out their "Remote-View Training" page?  They use only the
"spiritual" kind of remote viewing, not the "spy" kind, and not even the
"scary" kind.

http://www.4spirit.com/webwarriors/main-pages/Right_SideBar/training.htm

--
Karl Boyken
kboyken...
http://soli.inav.net/~kboyken/

We dance 'round in a ring and suppose,
while the Secret sits in the middle and knows.
    --Robert Frost

Reply | Forward
	
#2573
 	From: Timelord2029...
Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:43 am
Subject: Re: Gov't Surveillance of Viewers 	psitrooper24
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

> Sharon wrote:
> I think it is simply impossible for the govt.
> to monitor us, for two reasons.
> 1. We are all engaged in ESP---all the time---
> although most > of us don't recognize it.
> 2.  The govt is not that smart.

Hi sharon,

I agree the US Govt isnt smart :)
However...we have to be carefull what exactly
we think constitutes ..THE GOVERNMENT these days.
It is all to easy to say the govnt did this
the govnt did that but if iam honest to myself i
cant really define what it is that constitutes
a government in todays society. Its just to big
and too complex to bring under one basket

Just my thoughts :-;

Peace,
Tunde

pjrv : Messages : 2562-2588 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/2562?)
2006/07/01 00:05:43

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

#2562
 	From: "Sharon Webb" 
Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 4:40 pm
Subject: Re: Re: Gov't Surveillance of Viewers 	sharwebb_30512
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi,

I think it is simply impossible for the govt. to monitor us, for two reasons. 
1. We are all engaged in ESP---all the time---although most of us don't
recognize it.  2.  The govt. is not that smart.

BTW, FWIW, I scanned and questioned George W.  Now, I'll admit that this may be
just fantasy on my part, but some of the answers I got about the world situation
were, at best, disturbing.

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

---------------------
Moderator's note: Well maybe they only monitor a few, lol. -- PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#2580
 	From: "Elizabeth Hambrook" 
Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:01 am
Subject: Re: Re: Gov't Surveillance of Viewers 	ozblueriver
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

> Sharon wrote:
>>>>I think it is simply impossible for the govt. to monitor us, for
> two reasons.  1. We are all engaged in ESP---all the time---although
> most of us don't recognize it.  2.  The govt. is not that smart.>>>>.

Well there is just one thing that the Gov. is good at and that is being bad.
When it comes to being bad they are really very good. 

Liz

Reply | Forward
	
#2588
 	From: "Linda & John Garvey" 
Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 9:45 am
Subject: Re: Re: Gov't Surveillance of Viewers 	linda_g7us
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

In general, I don't think it's wise to underestimate the abilities --
creative OR destructive, and all points between -- of people who don't
appear to be real smart... be they involved in government, politics,
business situations, our personal lives, or anything else.  These kinds of
people can turn out to be full of "surprises" as to what they can sometimes
accomplish.

Linda G

"The distinction between past, present and future
is only an illusion, even if a stubborn one."
-- Albert Einstein --

---------------------------
Moderators note: Probably wise.  Who was it that said something about the
amazing power of stupid people in large groups. LOL.  PJ

pjrv : Messages : 2568-2592 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/2568?)
2006/07/01 00:06:36

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

#2568
 	From: Richard Krankoski 
Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 10:08 pm
Subject: Re: Gov't Surveillance of Viewers 	Rich_crv
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

> PJ wrote:
> 3. Is everybody aware of what tends to happen when you target
> something which DOES NOT EXIST?  You get a lot of weird and often
> nonsensical stuff, and some psychological overlay if there's a viewer
> opinion or suspicion.  Done only for a couple sessions, that's the
> result.  But what if someone were to take those weird and nonsensical
> sessions, and assume that the target DID exist, and that the sessions
> had meaning just not yet understood, and then continued to task each
> point in those sessions, or additional taskings on the first
> questions (but this time, with suspicions in the head of the
> tasker)?  If you just kept going down that same road "until it made
> sense", what would be the result?

An appearance on CoastToCoast.

Rich

-----------------------
Moderator's note: LOL!  Now that was funny.  Don't get me started again to
compete with you.  I'm still weak from the chicken thing. ;-)  PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#2585
 	From: Karl Boyken 
Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 8:58 am
Subject: Re: Gov't Surveillance of Viewers 	kboyken
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

This sounds like a plot for a Philip K. Dick-type of novel!

Karl

>>PJ wrote:
>>But what if someone were to take those weird and nonsensical
>>sessions, and assume that the target DID exist, and that the sessions
>>had meaning just not yet understood, and then continued to task each
>>point in those sessions, or additional taskings on the first
>>questions (but this time, with suspicions in the head of the
>>tasker)?  If you just kept going down that same road "until it made
>>sense", what would be the result?

Reply | Forward
	
#2589
 	From: mike reid 
Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 9:55 am
Subject: Re: Gov't Surveillance of Viewers 	mikr46
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

I agree Karl - It could be a novel for some. Or a
diety for others Or a scarey monster for others- Or a
perception that was the Truth!

Mike
--- Karl Boyken  wrote:
> This sounds like a plot for a Philip K. Dick-type of
> novel!
>
> Karl

--------------------
Moderator's note: Truth..... now there's a concept.  I almost miss the
simplicity of my childhood Baptist days.  They believed in truth. YAY-AH! There
is one way, it's their way, and everything else was not-truth, was EVIL.  That
at least made assigning motives, agendas and explanations to the cast of
characters around you a lot easier.

Figuring out truth in the RV field is hard enough -- let alone coming to such
conclusions about non-feedbackable RV sessions. :-)  PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#2592
 	From: "Viv" 
Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 12:23 pm
Subject: Re: Gov't Surveillance of Viewers 	eclecticviv
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

I think, Karl's idea, of a Philip K. Dick plot for a novel, is
the way to go.  

Viv*

On 10 Mar 2003 at 7:55, mike reid wrote:
Karl Boyken  wrote:

This sounds like a plot for a Philip K. Dick-type of
  novel!

Karl