pjrv : Messages : 3774-3814 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3774?)

 16:13:13

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

#3774
 	From: Timelord2029...
Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:25 am
Subject: Re: The Perfect Session: was (Detail on McMoneagle in Japan) 	psitrooper24
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

> PJ wrote:
> how come I can't RV like that?!

A question we all ask ourselves in this field ;-)

Seriously though, i think its down to RAW talent just like anything else.
I also suspect astrology could highlight those most likely to
succeed in a field such as this although substantial research on viewers
date's
of birth would be required to reach any sort of conclusion on that.

The only other main reasons for not producing near photo matching
sessions could be lack of practice or training, and ahem....maybe...
just maybe ...the RV method employed?.

Just my thoughts,,,

Peace,
Tunde

----------------------
Well, when any of us has twenty-five years -- much of that full time, all of it
consistent -- viewing under our belts for a fair comparison, then I guess we can
consider the other details, like talent, method, etc.!  PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#3785
 	From: Timelord2029...
Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 2:34 am
Subject: Re: The Perfect Session: was (Detail on McMoneagle in Japan) 	psitrooper24
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

> Well, when any of us has twenty-five years -- much of that full time, all
> of it consistent -- viewing under our belts for a fair comparison, then I
> guess we can consider the other details, like talent, method, etc.!  PJ

Hi PJ,

So are we saying to be able to produce near photo perfect sessions
consistently we have to invest that amout of time (25yrs +) and dedication
to achieve such high standards of RV?
I dont think naturals such as Pat Price fall into that category but i dont
know his whole background and dont want to go down the whole
natural Vs trained psychic debate.

But If time and effort is a major factor here maybe RV Trainers need to make
this crystal clear prior to and during training with new Rv recruits. We see
adverts proclaiming 100% success or that they alone are the best soon you will
be
doing it just like the pro's in the millitary etc....Nowhere do they say it
could
take you 10 - 30 years of full time viewing before you can call yourself a
world class Viewer.

I think its a combination of all the factors previously mentioned to varying
degrees, Training and practice as i mentioned earliear is linked to the amount
of time spent in these specific areas as you pointed out in joes case, but i
still think to be as good as the best (Pat Price, Ingo, Lyn etc..) requires
that bit extra..what that "extra" bit is i do not know but sure would like to
find out.

Peace,
Tunde

-------------------------
Good heavens no, I didn't say someone HAD to have 25+ years in before they could
view really well.  He viewed 'really well' long prior to that.  I'm just saying
he DOES have that, so when I'm comparing myself to him (the comment that
prompted your response), I try to keep in mind that I can't fairly measure
issues like talent or training between us, because his experience compared to
mine is such an overwhelming factor.  PJ

Reply | Forward
	
#3791
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: The Perfect Session: 	docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi Tunde and All,

What makes a really clear session or a foggy unclear
session is yet another mystery unresolved as far as I
know. Even as a raw beginner I had one session that
was crystal clear.. and if I could painting skills to
matchI could have drawn it photographically. But that
was only one session out of 50 or so in that group.
But why? If one can do it once , why not all the time?
Is a complete mystery to me. I'm sure other viewers
have similiar stories. I think more pertinent is how
to get very consisten near perfect work..G

Best Regards,

Bill

Reply | Forward
	
#3801
 	From: mike reid 
Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: The Perfect Session: 	mikr46
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi Bill!

I am having a senior moment again!  When you speak of
clear and foggy in this context, does it include
accuracy or not?  I inferred from your beginner
exercise that it was an accurate one.  However, I
inferred from your last comment that clarity and
accuracy might be different.

I am reminded of a comment made by Joe McMoneagle in
one of his writing that went something like this- My
best work[accuracy] comes when I am most surprised- At
first that seemed contradictory to me, however, over
time I am finding that my discriptions are more
accurate than my summations-  I am still working on
improving my skill in classifying my discriptions into
more accurate summations.  I am having trouble
explaining this-Sorry I will quit while I'm ahead!!
LOL

Best Regards

Mike

Reply | Forward
	
#3805
 	From: Bill Pendragon 
Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 7:23 pm
Subject: Re: The Perfect Session: 	docsavagebill
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi Mike,

In my experience..usually but not always.. sort of
foggy peripheral fleeting visual information is really
closely related to the target..although it's foggy and
incomplete and hard to sketch before it disappears...
it's pretty accurate. When it morphs into some clear
object..it's usually a fat AOL..that may only faintly
resemble the target.

Best Wishes,

bill

Reply | Forward
	
#3814
 	From: "rgoodwinau" 
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:53 am
Subject: Re: The Perfect Session: 	rgoodwinau
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Invite to Yahoo! 360° Invite to Yahoo! 360°
  	  	

Hi Bill

> What makes a really clear session or a foggy unclear
> session is yet another mystery unresolved as far as I
> know.

This seems a common experience.
I have experienced it (am only a novice) as
like seeing a sepia coloured picture on a TV with
lots of speckled "snow-like" interference.
I have heard other RVers also describe it.

I recall hearing an audio transcipt of Joe McMoneagle
RVing a target distant in space and past time
struggle to make good contact with the target through static.
If I recall correctly, he interpreted the difficulty with making
good target contact as representing distance in time or space
(I cannot remember which).

Has anyone identified any conditions that make targets more foggy
than others?

Regards
Ralph