The StarGate Discussion List Archives

stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Testing 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/1)

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

This list is an updates notification/discussion list for users of the Star Gate
Declassified Documents Website at http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Testing 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/2)
21:03:46

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi All,

This is just a quick e-mail to (a) test the software is working properly
and (b) to let everyone know the list is here.

I'm sorry there has been no activity on this list so far, but it is because
I am waiting for more members to subscribe before I make any announcements,
or allowing/making discussion take place. (There's no point making
statements to a few people, and have to repeat it a week or so later when
everyone else who is going to join, joins :)

I will publically announce this new mailing list this Saturday (on my
website), by which time we should have enough subscribers to "do something"
with this list

Again, this mailing list is only supposed to be a news/updates list, so you
should not expect more than a few messages per week. However, chat about
FOIA/RV docs is welcome, so feel free to post or say hi!

Best regards,
Steve.




stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Upcoming New FOIA Request 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/3)
21:04:05

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

NEW FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST PLANNED
25th April, 1998: Star Gate Declassified Records Archive

Dear List:

I will soon be sending yet another FOIA request to the CIA. I will be
enquiring on various tidbits, mostly questions that have arisen as the
result of previous requests.

Among these, I will be addressing the controversial summary of the
"American Institute for Research" report on remote viewing, which will as
you remember, concluded that "continued use of remote-viewing in
intelligence gathering operations is not warranted" (*)

Naturally, this report has generated a great deal of criticism and
skepticism from the remote viewing community. It has it's doubters as well
as defenders, as is the case in virtually any subject.

The Star Gate Declassified Documents Website makes no effort to interpret
these documents, and this is intentional. We advise the reader to exercise
caution when reading or studying any subject, and to exercise all due care
before forming any conclusions. This is just common sense.

But other than that, we leave it up to the reader to draw any conclusions
from the material up on our website. We would encourage you to seek a wide
variety of views before making up your mind.

We will not force our own opinion upon you. Our job here is to act in the
public's interest, and to obtain documents of interest to remote-viewing
researchers (and the public at large.)

As a result, we'd welcome any comments or recommendations you may have for
our next Freedom of Information Request.

If, for example, you have a question you would like posed to the CIA's
Freedom of Information staff, please feel free to e-mail me at
steve@..., or post it publically by simply replying to this
message.

All (non-provocative) questions received will be catalogued, and it is very
possible I will attach all of these questions on a separate piece of A4,
and ask the CIA for a reply to these questions.

Whether you trust the CIA or not is up to you, but it cannot hurt to hear
what they have to say, and it can only contribute to our knowledgebase to
have them reply.

Comments or questions are welcome. Feedback is encouraged.

Feel free to reply to this message on this list, or send a private mail.

I will keep everyone on this list informed of any progress.

Best wishes to you all!

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 New FOIA Request / UFO Documents Effort 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/4)
21:04:25

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hello all,

The Star Gate Declassified Docs website will not be receiving as much
attention as usual for the coming weeks.

There is are two main reasons for this:

- I am focusing on the preparation of a new FOIA request to the CIA for
additional RV material (comments/suggestions/feedback is encouraged!)

- I am focusing on a UFO documents effort to obtain/release many new UFO
documents - much of which has NEVER BEFORE BEEN SEEN by the general public.

The second item is what will be taking most of my time, but the first is
taking the rest (and is what I am working on ATM).

Once the request is written/sent, and the new UFO documents available, I
will go into more detail. In the meantime, I am having to be deliberate
vague. Sorry!

All questions sent re: the CIA FOIA request, I intend to INCLUDE as part of
the FOIA request on a separate piece of A4.

So, if you'd like to pitch a question to the CIA (remember: make it a
request for information, such as an answer to a specific question), then
post the question here (post/send e-mail to stargate@...!), or
e-mail me privately at steve@.... It's free, and there's
no need for you to worry about sending your own FOIA request to get the
answer - I'll do all the work necessary!

I will post here once the request has been written or the new UFO documents
are available.

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 LAST CHANCE to field the CIA a question of your own! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/5)
21:04:42

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi All,

In 3-4 days time, I will be posting a brand new FOIA request to the CIA.
Already in the letter:

- A request for very specific information on "Project Phoenix" and "Stunt
Pilot"

- A request to declassify the "CRV Training Manual".

(Archivist's note: this was posted on July 4, 1998 by me at firedocs.com.
It was never classified. - PJ Gaenir 6/2006)

- A request to declassify the full "AIR Report" (only the 6-page "summary
and conclusions" appears to be circulating)

(Archivist's note: This was html'd by me in 1998 and posted on Dr. Jessica Utts's website.
It was never classified. - PJ Gaenir  6/2006)

Any questions you'd like to ask?

Be SPECIFIC .. if possible, name a document, or some specific event you'd
like more information on. I will keep a catalogue of any questions asked,
and will either include them in my current request, or future ones.

But hurry! I am sending this request off in 3-4 days.. I don't like to hang
around..

If you'd like to be informed of any FOIA progress, visit the Star Gate
Declassified Docs Website (at http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/) or send
a blank e-mail (no subject or message necessary) to
stargate-subscribe@....

Thanks!

Regards,
Steve.

P.S. Yes, I *will* pay any costs that come of this.. and you don't need to
write a letter of your own.. I will happily do all the work necessary..


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 New FOIA Request Filed 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/6)
21:04:53

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear All,

A new Freedom of Information Request has been filed with the CIA.

I took a last-minute decision to remove the request for the "AIR Report",
so that focus will be put more on the search for the CRV Training Manual
and for some kind of description of Phoenix and Stunt Pilot's purposes.

I will file a request for the AIR Report perhaps at a later date, depending
on the CIA's response to this request. I intend to file an appeal with the
CIA should this current request be rejected in any way. After receiving
the information I've requested, I may ask for the AIR Report. However, I
think I'll have my hands full with the CRV Manual if the request is
successful, anyway :)

Suggestions for future FOIA requests are still welcome, so please e-mail
this list at stargate@... or me personally at
steve@... if you have any ideas!

The text of my latest FOIA request can be browsed by visiting the Star Gate
Declassified Documents Website at the following URL:

http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/

Enjoy!

Regards,
Steve.




stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Minor updates 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/7)
21:05:06

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

There have also been some minor updates to the website. The most notable
of these is the addition of FOIA Request #2, which was missing up until now.
I found the original Word file and re-printed/re-scanned it.

The CIA's refusal to send information on Phoenix and Stunt Pilot originally
may have to do with the fact I requested "any and all" documents relating
to these projects in my second request. I have narrowed my search criteria
this time to "the first document of Phoenix and Stunt Pilot". This document
should contain all we need, should the CIA decide to declassify/send it.

The text of FOIA requests #2 and #4 are now available at the Star Gate
Declassified Documents Website at http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/.

Your comments, as always, are welcome and appreciated.

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Agency FOIA Addresses Needed 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/8)
21:05:41

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear List:

A few people have written to me recently, mostly about the plans to release
the CRV Training Manual in the near future. Others have written with
suggestions for future FOIA requests.

However, mostly it has been from people who aren't so much interested in
specific information from the CIA (as my original request for new questions
was about), but rather to point me in the direction of other agencies which
they believe contain remote-viewing material.

I need the addresses for the agencies below. If anyone has the address of
the Freedom of Information Office for the agencies listed, please e-mail me
with the details at steve@.... Thank you!

Agency FOIA Addresses Needed for:

* Defense Intelligence Agency (*I have now found this address*)
* US Army / US Army INSCOM
* US Navy
* US Air Force

Any other FOIA addresses, while not needed, would be greatfully welcomed
and appreciated. Multi-agency FOIA requests may be made in the future, and
every agency address we receive helps us in those efforts.

Thanks again!

Big thanks must go to all those who have written me with suggestions and
comments for future FOIA requests. Rest assured, all your comments are
listened to and I will be sure to bear them in mind in future FOIA work.

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Declaration of Independence 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/9)
21:06:05

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear List:

In an attempt to distance the Star Gate Documents website from the ongoing
political mayhem that exists within the remote-viewing community, the Star
Gate Declassified Docs Website has published a "Declaration of
Independence."

Our Declaration of Independence expresses our dismay at the political
nature of remote-viewing discussions and debates, and attempts to separate
us completely from this process, by focusing us solely on requesting,
obtaining and publishing remote-viewing documents. No amount of political
pressure from any remote-viewing group or faction will be able to influence
the direction of the Star Gate Documents website, and any implied threats
or "statements of dissatisfaction" made by any of these groups will not
deter us in any way, shape or form from our efforts.

However, we will work with anyone who wishes to co-operate with us in a
productive way, to obtain new documents. Requests of all kinds from all
members of the public for new information are welcome.

Below is our formal Declaration of Independence for the Star Gate
Declassified Documents Website.

STAR GATE DOCUMENTS WEBSITE: DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

The Star Gate Declassified Documents Website is an independent,
not-for-profit website created by Steve Crietzman. Unlike many other sites
on the Internet, we do not "take sides" in any of the political debates
that have sprung up around this subject.

We do not try to dictate what uses people put remote-viewing to, what they
choose to believe about the subject, what they do
with it, who learns it, or why. And we do not side with, or against, any
group or individual whose name is well-known within the RV community.

This site sides with the Freedom of Information Act - only. We file Freedom
of Information requests to various agencies and we
place the results of those requests
online. What you see online are public documents that you have a legal and
constitutional *right to see*. You may download
them, copy them, do as you wish with them. No one
owns the copyright to them - they are public documents.

Whatever you decide to read into these documents is up to you.

I may occassionally (rarely) make commentaries on these documents, if I
feel there is a need for me to comment on them, but for the most part, I
leave it up to each individual to choose for themselves; to choose what
they read, how they read, what they read into it, and what they do with it
after they read it.

I see my role as a liaison between the CIA's Freedom of Information Staff,
and the public. I will make requests depending on what I feel the public
are interested in knowing. I will occassionally write requests on behalf of
people who e-mail me and wish to remain anonymous and/or not file it
themselves.

In short, I am here to make the Freedom of Information Act just a little
bit more accessible to people on the web. And I feel the best way I can
remain neutral and objective, is if I stay out of the making of any
analysis, and not pay any attention to political backlash that may result
from my work. All I'm doing is publishing public documents, and if anyone
has a problem with that, you should ask them what is wrong in publishing
uncopyrighted, unclassified public documents.

I welcome feedback from anyone and everyone, and hope that everyone finds
some use for this website, whatever their political affiliation or personal
beliefs.

We will work with anyone who wishes to work productively with us, to obtain
new documents and further the knowledge and understanding of the science of
remote-viewing. However, we will not be influenced by those who wish to
restrict, hinder, or defame our website in any way.

The Star Gate Declassified Documents Website is an independent,
not-for-profit, non-partisan website dedicated to furthering the knowledge
and understanding of remote-viewing and the US government's involvement in
the same.

ends.

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 List Archive Now Public 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/10)
21:06:22

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear List:

The Star Gate List archive can now be viewed by going to the following Web
URL:

http://www.findmail.com/listsaver/stargate/

Before today, you would need to enter your e-mail address and be required
to sign up as a member of this website (nothing to do with me BTW), and
then it would check if you were subscribed to this list before it would let
you access it.

I've now made the archive public, so you can flow on in, and browse through
past posts.

If you've not already done so, I'd check out the Star Gate website today -
there have been several changes lately. The URL again is:
http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/.

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Notice for our UK Subscribers! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/11)
21:06:32

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear UK Subscribers,

If you have not yet seen "The Real X-Files: Remote Viewers", you have an
opportunity tonight!

The time and place: Saturday 30th May, Channel 4, 9pm. It's a one-hour
documentary reportedly by Jim Schnabel that discusses the US intelligence
community's recruitment and training of remote-viewers, and you'll have the
chance to see the faces behind those names you've probably heard referred
to in the newsgroups, BBSs and discussion lists!

WEBSITE NEWS:
No, I've not forgotten the website. A radical redesign has been made of
the website, and these changes will be uploaded either today or sometime
later this week, along with a move to a completely new address (don't
worry, the old address will continue to function properly!)

UK SCENE NEWS:
It looks like the remote-viewers are finally looking to Britain! Joe
McMoneagle will be introducing and describing (but not training, it should
be noted) remote-viewing to a UK audience this November, 1997 in a venue
with Paul McKenna and Michael Breen. More information will be added to the
website about this soon. The event is expected to cost a little over
?1,000, but I should stress that Joe McMoneagle will be there in the
capacity of explaining, perhaps demonstrating (unconfirmed) remote-viewing,
but certainly training does not appear to be on the agenda. He will be
sharing the stage with Michael Breen and Seka Nikolic, who is described as
being a bio-energy healer.

There is also rumour of training in the UK, but since there has not yet
been an official confirmation or guarentee (the event is still in the
planning stages), I would rather not give names.

But it certainly seems like the UK might be getting some professional
remote-viewers' attention this year!

Best Regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Notice for our UK Subscribers! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/12)
21:06:47

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] Notice for our UK Subscribers!

Hi All,

Just a few corrections to the last post -

>UK SCENE NEWS:
>It looks like the remote-viewers are finally looking to Britain! Joe
>McMoneagle will be introducing and describing (but not training, it should
>be noted) remote-viewing to a UK audience this November, 1997 in a venue

This of course should read "November, 1998". Although I guess those versed
in remote-viewing could have visited the event even if it was last year ;-)

>website about this soon. The event is expected to cost a little over
>?1,000,

This should have read "a little over 1,000 UK pounds."

Best regards,
Steve.

P.S. I will be announcing the new address of the Star Gate Website on this
list (as well as on the old address).. both addresses will continue to
function (the old one won't be "closed" as both will point to the same
site.)

Also, I'll have probably a few surprises for folks this coming Saturday..
until then, you'll just have to wait :)



stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Website Updated 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/13)
21:06:57

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi All,

The topic line pretty much says it all, doesn't it? :)

The address to the new website is:
http://www.liberalism.org/stargate/.

Please bookmark this new URL and be sure to check back often!

What's new:

* Complete new look (redesigned from the roots.)
* New 'Policy' section (to be uploaded soon.)
* Text versions of all documents to be uploaded soon
(Progress Report No. 3 already available this way.)
* Discussion BBS is back again!
* More to come..

Your comments, criticisms etc. are welcome on the new BBS, too!

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 No Data Error 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/14)
21:07:07

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear All:

You might have got a "No Data Error" when trying to access the new new-look
Star Gate website. I've had this error, and have heard from another that
she'd also got this error when attempting to access the site.

This is not a problem that can be fixed easily on the server end, but from
your end it is simple. Just click "Reload". Quite why it will send you
nothing the first time you try, and send you the page the second time, is a
bit of a mystery, but I believe the server is stopping half-way from
sending you the page.

We should have this problem fixed soon. In the meantime, be "Reload"
trigger-happy :)

I hope this problem hasn't caused too much trouble for you all.

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 CIA Ask $450 to Perform Star Gate FOIA Search 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/15)
21:07:25

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear All:

This is outrageous. The CIA want $450 to be able to perform a search for
the documents I asked for, but say it is better to wait because it might
soon be available anyway. Here is their reply.

09 JUN 1998

Mr. Steve Crietzman
49 St. Gilberts Road
Bourne
Lincolnshire
PE10 9XD
UNITED KINGDOM

Reference: (deleted)

Dear Mr. Crietzman:

This is in my response to your 11 May 1998 Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request for records related to remote
viewing, as follows:


1. "The document which officially established 'Project Phoenix.'"
2. "The document which officially established 'Project Stunt Pilot.'"
3. The entire 'CRV Training Manual'..."
[4. [Other documents as described in your letter relating to Phoenix
and Stunt Pilot.]

This request has been assigned the reference number above for
identification purposes.

...

In accordance with Section (a) of the schedule, search fees are accessable
even if no records are found or, if found, we
determine that they are not releasable. This means you will be charged even
if our search results are negative or if it is
determiend that no information is releasable under the FOIA. The search
fees for a requester in the "all other" fee
category for each item in a request are usually about $150. Your three-item
request could cost about US$450.

...

Pursuant to 32 CFR $1900.13(f), we must request your good-faith deposit in
the amount of $200. One reason we are
requesting this deposit in this particular instance is because we believe
it highly likely that, if we have copies of the
documents you have requested, they will be released as part of the Star
Gate Collection sooner than we could locate,
review and or coordinate them under the FOIA.

...

We will hold your request in abeyance for 45 days until we receive your
commitment to pay all fees incurred and under
the conditions above along with your good-faith deposit of $200.

Yours sincerely,

[signed]
Lee S. Strickland
Information and Privacy Coordinator

Enclosure

...

The full letter, plus the fees list, will be added online within a few
days. The URL, again, is http://www.liberalism.org/stargate/.

Please read the last mail to the list about the No Data Error if you have
problems connecting.

Best regards,
Steve.



stargate : Message: [stargate]
 The CIA's FOIA Response 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/16)
21:07:43

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear All:

Below is the CIA's reply to my latest FOIA request. As noted in
this letter, I urged the CIA, in writing and on the telephone, to
break with their standard "we're reviewing them now, please wait"
policy, and to perform a search under the FOIA as laid down and
required by law, for the unclassified CRV Training Manual, and
for the documents which establish Projects Phoenix and Stunt Pilot.

This is their response. They want me to pay $450 to cover various
costs. Needless to say, I still have a few legal tricks up my sleeve,
and might be able to circumvent this rather hefty charge, by appealing
for a fee waiver, citing public interest and my intention to distribute
and publish the results, and also by quoting a few FOIA regulations. I
can play at the regulations game too, CIA.

However, in light of the fact that PJ Gaenir is already busily
processing the CRV Manual, and that the additional time spent on the
CRV Manual might slow my own efforts in other areas, I am hereby dropping
the request to the CIA for the CRV Manual, to focus on the Phoenix and
Stunt Pilot materials, among some other things which I am reluctant to
discuss at present. There is no point in my attempting to obtain the
CRV Manual, since by the time I get anywhere with the manual, PJ will
probably have her version online.

I want to reiterate that when I filed the original request for the
CRV Training Manual (something I had been considering for about six months
on-and-off), I was not aware that PJ Gaenir was intending to put this
document online, available for all. Around the same time I posted my own
intentions to obtain and publish this manual, PJ Gaenir announced to her
list that the CRV manual would be available online in about two months
(paraphrased.)

I was not sure at the time if this was in reference to my own efforts (since
the CIA's replies can take six weeks, and it would take a week or two to
scan the pages in), or something I did not know about, but by then I had
already made preparations for a FOIA request for the CRV Manual, and I'd
sent it on it's way. What mattered to me, is that this manual was
available online, so that the science of remote-viewing could be better
understood, and the technology put in a position where it can more easily
be held to scientific scrutiny. Scientific data means nothing if it cannot
be questioned, scrutinised and the experiments repeated by others. At this
present time, there is insufficient information in the public domain to allow
the claimed SRI results to be duplicated in a public environment.

I am deeply grateful for PJ's pledge to publish the manual, as not only
would this be a tremendous service to the remote-viewing research
community, it also frees me to focus on other documents in the CIA's
possession, and opens up the possibility of moving on with some other planned
FOIA requests.

I will, of course, continue my FOIA efforts. When one line of investigation
has dried up, I will go down another. My intention is to collect and publish
as much information as is possible. The FOIA does work - just not, perhaps,
as well as we'd like it to.

Careful wording, and a good understanding of FOIA law, are helpful bonuses
however, as has been demonstrated by the CIA budging from it's no-reply
policy, which I pointed out was flatly illegal, to a "we'll do it if you
pay" policy, which isn't much better from a practical point of view, but
at least it's a more liberal response.

Hopefully, this can be budged further, onto a "we'll do it for free"
policy, by pointing out a few more legal regulations, and using
"fee waivers" and the FOIA Appeals procedure.

Best regards,
Steve.

==========

09 JUN 1998

Mr. Steve Crietzman
49 St. Gilberts Road
Bourne
Lincolnshire
PE10 9XD
UNITED KINGDOM

Reference: (deleted)

Dear Mr. Crietzman:

This is in response to your 11 May 1998 Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request for records related to remote
viewing, as follows:

1. "The document which officially established
'Project Phoenix.'
2. The document which officially established 'Project
Stunt Pilot.'
3. The entire 'CRV Training Manual'..."

[4. [Other documents as described in your letter
relating to Phoenix and Stunt Pilot.]

This request has been assigned the reference number above for
identification purposes.

As you know from the various communications between you
and this agency, we have considered all remote viewing
docuiments in our possession as inaccessible until the Star
Gate Collection release. During your two recent phone calls
to this office you urged our staff to break with our recent
precedent of not searching against the collected Star Gate
records during its declassification process.

As we have explained to you, the Star Gate records
declassification project that is being conducted at CIA was
undertaken as the result of a special Congressional mandate.
This effort is dramatically different from the processing of
FOIA requests. One principal difference is that CIA has been
given permission to release other agencies' records; another
is that CIA is using more liberal guidelines that may result
in more releasable documents that may be less heavily
redacted than they would have been under FOIA guidelines.

What this means to you in this particular instance is
that if we were to conduct a FOIA search against the Star
Gate Collection and if the documents you want were located as
the result of this FOIA search, we would have to review them
pursuant to normal FOIA procedures. This means that our
reviewing officers would make any necessary deletions on the
basis of standard FOIA exemptions. After our review, we
would then have to send the documents to their originating
agency for its formal FOIA review. The originating agency
would make the decision as to whether it is able to release
the documents. The CIA is not allowed to release another
agency's documents under the FOIA.

As you know, the FOIA authorizes federal agencies to
collect fees for records services. You will note on the
enclosed fee schedule that we charge search fees, including
computer time where indices are computerized, and copying
costs for releasable documents. In accordance with Section
(a) of the schedule, search fees are assessable even if no
records are found or, if found, we determine that they are
not releasable. This means you will be charged even if our
search results are negative or if it is determined that no
information is releasable under the FOIA. The search fees
for a requester in the "all other" fee category for each item
in a request are usually about $150. Your three-item request
could cost about US$450.

Pursuant to 32 CFR ?1900.13(f), we must request your
good-faith deposit in the amount of US$200. One reason we
are requesting this deposit in this particular instance is
because we believe it highly likely that, if we have copies
of the documents you have requested, they will be released as
part of the Star Gate Collection sooner than we could locate,
review, and refer and or coordinate them under the FOIA.

In conclusion, we have determined that we can search for
the records you requested - specifically, for (1) the CRV
Training Manual, (2) records relating to Project Phoenix, and
(3) records relating to Project Stunt Pilot. Such a search
would be conducted specifically under FOIA ground rules, some
of which have been highlighted in the paragraphs above.

We will hold your request in abeyance for 45 days until
we receive your commitment to pay all fees incurred and under
the conditions stated above along with your good-faith
deposit of $200.

Sincerely,

[signed]

for Lee S. Strickland
Information and Privacy Coordinator

Enclosure



stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Documents Added to Website 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/17)
21:07:54

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear List:

I have just made some major updates to the website.

I now have available the CIA's official reply to my latest FOIA
request, plus the CIA FOIA fees and regulations list which came
enclosed with their letter.

But probably the most significant change is the addition of the
American Institute for Research's controversial report on
remote-viewing.

I now have online a copy of the 183-page version of this
report, as well as the 6-page summary that was included in
response to my first FOIA request of last year.

My thanks must go to Paul Smith, who made me aware of
the existence of the full AIR report as a PDF file, which I have now
added to the Star Gate Documents Website.

The URL to the website, as always, is: http://www.liberalism.org/stargate/.

The old address of http://www.acornusers.org/stargate/ is also still working;
you can choose which address you prefer :)

If/when I decide to appeal against the CIA's decision, or to file a fee waiver,
I'll announce it here to this list, and add the letter to my website.

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 The Closure of the Viewer List 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/18)
21:08:24

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hello All,

PJ Gaenir will soon be leaving the remote-viewing community, and her 250-strong
Viewer List will be closing for good. I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say
that we wish her well for the future.

However, this does mean that the Star Gate List is in no longer in danger of
"duplicating" the Viewer List (since it will not be around much longer), and
so I'm lifting the rules a little on this list. (The rules designed to protect
Star Gate
List from becoming like the Viewer List no longer seem necessary.)

Starting today, posts from anyone will be automatically accepted onto this list,
and discussion can be about anything, so long as it relates in some way to what
the
Star Gate Website is about - remote-viewing and science (and the science of
remote-viewing.)

I am putting my trust in those who are subscribed to be reasonably sensible
about
how they use this list (if they decide to!) I won't place any ground rules down
now,
I'll just open the ground to almost anything (friendly, non-RV chatter included
for now!), and see how things go. I'll only introduce rules if I feel they're
necessary.

For now, "be good to each other" is the only common-sense rule that's being laid
down.

This BBS encourages critical thinking, and those who have difficult questions
to ask about RV are encouraged to speak their mind. My intention is that these
people can raise their questions without feeling uncomfortable or guilty about
their views (there is nothing wrong in asking difficult questions!)

But views of all types are welcome here. If anything is banned or unappropriate
on other mailing lists or BBSs, you should consider the Star Gate List a safe
place to discuss those topics. I would like this list to be a list "for the
other
people."

Anyway, I declare this BBS open to the public!

Anyone want to start off..? Anything goes!! :)

Best always,
Steve.



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 The Closure of the Viewer List 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/19)
21:08:42

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] The Closure of the Viewer List

Steve:

FAIR ENOUGH!!!!

...but get that CGI thingamajig fixed :-).

electrix



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 The Closure of the Viewer List 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/20)
21:08:58

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] The Closure of the Viewer List

Hiya,

>Steve:
>
>FAIR ENOUGH!!!!
>
>...but get that CGI thingamajig fixed :-).

Okay, I get the message.. ;-)

If anyone reading hasn't seen the Star Gate BBS, goto:
http://www.progressiveweb.net/local-cgi-bin/config.pl

Oh, and the Star Gate website is now also at
http://www.progressiveweb.net/stargate/

but the two older addresses still work too ;-)

(I promote this will be the *last* change in the address :)

Say Electrix, want to post your essay to the list? Might get some
chatter going..

Best,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Posts welcome! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/21)
21:09:09

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hello everyone,

This is just to remind you that this mailing list is OPEN FOR CHAT
now..

There's only 17 people here.. but if just half of you made the effort
to make a few posts, we could have an active mailing list in no time!

This is a request for people to consider making one or two posts each,
and to try to make an effort to reply to any posts that are made to the
list.

I'm interested to see where we can take this list f we all try!

Any takers..? Come on, just make a reply to this message! At the
moment, let's just see who's here, we'll worry about the topic
later! Let's just all say "hi" for now..

I realise I could just post a list of names of everyone who's here,
and some of you probably would like me to do that but I can't.
Subscriptions are private - you name will only become public if
you decide to post..

So please, consider making a post! (YES, YOU! :)

Cheers,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Posts welcome! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/22)
21:09:20

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] Posts welcome!

Hi Steve... I just read for the first time some of the material sent to you
from the CIA, dated 1972. I was so interested to read this stuff! Can't
thank you enough for guiding me to this site... truly so wonderful. You
have done an outstanding job getting all of this information released...
knowing all the steps to take, etc. I'm very impressed.

It seems to me that remove viewing is just what I thought it was all
along... those who are proficient in ESP are the best viewers. That's not
to say we can't all learn to use it to a certain extent... but there will
always be those who are just plain better at it. IMO
Love,
Paula


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 dream 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/23)
21:09:29

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi everybody!
I have very active dreams, lucid dreams, and pretty good dream recall.
I consider it a blessing. Anyway, something unusual occured the other day
and I would appreciate feedback.
My friend Terri and I were discussing our nightly dreams. I told her
that I dreamed of round headed whales (beluah?) or dolphins, 4 or 5
together in line, swimming up to the shore. The water was dark, it was at
night. She told me that the night before she had dreamed the exact same
thing! Very unusual stuff. Did anyone else have a similiar dream? Is this
a thought dimension out there that we picked up on?
And Steve, good idea to have a list. Good luck.

Regards,
Jane


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Thoughts on RV 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/24)
21:09:43

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi Paula,

First, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us on this list! I for
one really appreciate it :)

I have always had a problem with the idea that we can all be
trained to become experts at remote-viewing, given enough
time and practice. When we look at our other five known
senses, it's worth remembering that with sight, for example -
some people are born with excellent vision, others are
short-sighted, others are long-sighted, and some - in the
rare cases - are born blind.

Some people are born deaf, others are born with bad
hearing, most of us have good hearing - but some of us
have better hearing than others.

Some of us are colour-blind to certain colours and can
"see" certain things better than others. Some of us are
sensitive to certain frequencies of sounds that others
of us aren't. Some of us cannot see *or* hear. Some of
us might have bad sight and bad hearing, or bad hearing
and good sight.. or any combination of the above..

So I think if we're going to call ESP a "sixth sense"
and take that literally, I think it's fair that we'd have
the "psychic duds" - who are psychically blind/deaf -
those who are about average - and those with excellent,
fine-tuned senses, so called "natural psychics" and
"world-class remote-viewers" for example.

I do not believe that training will allow us to continue
to improve, any more than by doing "reading exercises"
and reading books and watching TV day after day, will
give us better eyesight. We may become more
accustomed to them, but I don't think we'll get
to improve our natural ability beyond it's natural levels.

All this said, I'm not sure how I feel about remote-viewing
anyway. As the kind of person who demands a high
level of scientific evidence, I'm the type of person
who wants to see everything the labs have. We've got
very little to go on, really.

But until we know more about ESP - and the sad truth
is, I believe anyway - that we can't make any conclusions
about remote-viewing at all - then we're not in a very good
position to say much. We can speculate, based on our
own experiences in life, and our own feelings based on
what we know about remote-viewing and what others
have said, but apart from that - we really do not know
the *cause* of the higher-than-chance results, even if
we off-the-bat say that there's more than just unknown
mistakes in the experiments happening, and that "something"
else is happening - something, forlack of a better word,
"paranormal". Saying the cause is something paranormal
still doesn't tell us the cause, and more than saying that
hearing is a "physical sense." We know that ears receive
the sound and our brains process that. Where is ESP
signals (assuming they're there) being received, how
are they being processed, and what could interfere
between the source of the transmission (and - how is
it transmitted BTW?), and the receiver.

Until we find the cause, we don't know why we're getting
higher-than-chance "scores". Once we do find the
cause, and let's say it's paranormal for a moment (my
'gut feeling' is this is the answer), then we'll be able
to find ways to "increase" the signal-to-noise ratio,
improve the signal, and get much better results. (Perhaps
the "sidereal time" is a step in that direction.)

I don't think we have answers yet, but I hope - that the
answers are just around the corner. Once we start to get
those answers, we'll know a great deal more about what's
causing these higher-than-chance scores, and we'll
finally be able to say "mundane" (bad experiments,
subliminal messages or whatever) or "paranormal" (ESP,
remote-viewing, distant signals being sent to our mind,
etc.) I guess in this sense, it's not "paranormal" at all..
only in that we don't have the answers now, and it can
*seem* to be beyond our understanding of the world and
universe.

Anyway, that's my tuppence worth :)

Thanks for contributing, Paula. I think I agree with you -
if ESP is "real" (which I think it is), then there will be
pros, those with "average" psi abilities, and a couple
out there with no real ability, just their imaginations
to work with (thus, bad results/chance results.)

Studying 'psychic duds' might even tell us a little
about what thoughts/impressions we should be
ignoring, and help us detect what experts have that
the duds don't.. (was a passing thought, was going
to ignore this but figured I'd post it anyway to get
some people thinking :)

That's some of my thoughts on the subject, anyway.

Paula, want to respond?

Anyone else want to chip in..?

Best always,
Steve.



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 dreams 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/25)
21:09:57

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi Jane!

Welcome to the list, and thanks for posting.. :-)

I find dreams fascinating. Perhaps it has something to do with me being
a "psychic dud" ;) I really don't think I've got any RV talent to use, but I'd
love nothing more than to be proven wrong. (And I'm not saying I don't
think others have RV talent.. there's a good chance they do.. I'd just
like to see a little more light shed on all this.. because I don't think there's
quite enough info and evidence out there to prove it yet..)

I have a lot of lucid dreams and vivid dreams, but none lately. In my life
I have had only two dreams that *might* come under the "predictive"
category.. both about the same person/people, separated by a couple
of months. I never had any other dreams about these people (that I
remember), and I've never had any other "predictive" dreams about
anyone else. Two dreams aren't really enough for me to go on though..
so I hope more come along some time.. :) I noticed they seem to have
certain "characteristics" that other dreams did not..

Anyway, I guess I'm straying here. I don't really have anything to say
about your dreams - I'm not really that good at dream interpreting (except
my own dreams :), and lucid dreams are about the only thing I am good
at talking about.

I thought I'd chip in these comments as I thought you might find them
interesting, or others might..

If anyone can help Jane, *please* post a reply here! I'm not sure I can
be of much help on this one..

Take care,
Steve.



stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Answer To Steve's answer to Paula 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/26)
21:10:08

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

These messages are going to get extremely long and cumbersome if we just
keep hitting the Reply button, thus the above subject...

Steve... IMO, ESP or psi cannot be tested in the laboratory... it is
something that can never be harnessed and explained away in a scientific
manner. Now, having made this statement, I can just hear the flames
starting. But, and remember this is my opinion only, until we can prove
that God exists in the laboratory, we cannot prove that extrasensory
perception exists either... I don't care how many protocols, this thing
just isn't going to behave the way scientists want it to. How can one
prove something that belongs in another dimension??? And isn't that
where psi comes from?

Put this down to my naïveté... I am, after all, much older than the rest
of you (probably) and just have that good old "gut" feeling about all
this... ESP has to be experienced; psi has to be experienced... this is
a subject one has got to "know", not "believe". And that comes from
experiencing these things. Anybody have an opinion? Or am I all wet???

Love,
Paula


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Posts welcome! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/27)
21:10:19

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hello,
We are a small group located in Orange city Florida.We have been
working with RV for the last 6 or so months now and have had a few good hits
but not as consistant (spelling)? as we would like it to be.We have no guide
lines to follow by except what is posted on the web.If anyone feels like they
have had possitive and concise hits from this ,please e-mail me and let me
know how you have done it.
thank you Paul Roggio E-mail me at Neshamah1@...


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Posts welcome! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/28)
21:10:28

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hello Paul!
Are we neighbors? I live in Lakeland, Florida. Are you near Orlando?
Anyway, I'd like to hear more about your experiments. How many viewers do
you have? How are targets set up? Just general questions about how you
are running your test. Good luck with the project!

Regards,
Jane


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 To Paula 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/29)
21:10:38

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi Paula!
Yes, I agree with you that there is not sufficient technology to prove
the existence of PSI. It just is. Like God just is. I believe that it is
real and can be demonstrated, but not taken apart and disected.

Warmly,
Jane


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 dream 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/30)
21:10:47

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

[stargate] dream

Thanks Steve for your comments about dreams. I am particularly interested
in hearing about your "predictive dream"!

You wrote:I have a lot of lucid dreams and vivid dreams, but none lately.
In my life
I have had only two dreams that *might* come under the "predictive"
category.. both about the same person/people, separated by a couple
of months. I never had any other dreams about these people (that I
remember), and I've never had any other "predictive" dreams about
anyone else. Two dreams aren't really enough for me to go on though..
so I hope more come along some time.. :) I noticed they seem to have
certain "characteristics" that other dreams did not..

Please share with us some of your predictive dreams or lucid dreams.
I love dreamwork.

Regards,
Jane


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 The Closure of the Viewer List 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/31)
21:10:57

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] The Closure of the Viewer List

I hope I am on the list. I am assuming I am since I am getting a list
of people just raining into Hard Drive.

Hi everyone...

simply...I am electrix

the shocking one... :-)

About that Essay...I am not sure it is the appropriate place to put it,
being so long and all...and I do believe there is already a chatter
going....

Feel free to post it Steve. I will dropping notes interminently since I
have to focus on other matters.

electrix


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Posts welcome! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/32)
21:11:09

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Paula Hulslander wrote:

> It seems to me that remove viewing is just what I thought it was all
> along... those who are proficient in ESP are the best viewers. That's not
> to say we can't all learn to use it to a certain extent... but there will
> always be those who are just plain better at it. IMO

There is a possibility that the above stated belief may hinder ones own ability
to surpass those proficient in RV/ESP, no?
Perhaps, Paula, what you may be good at (or undiscovered skills) they can't
even fathom. No?

electrix


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Answer To Steve's answer to Paula 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/33)
21:11:20

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] Answer To Steve's answer to Paula

You are not alone on that thought Paula. I recently posted an Essay and a
Rebuttal on the same idea of Proof. The use of Science to investigate the
paranormal is lopsided. We can scientifically analyze its results, but
sooner or later we are left to infer othe presence of the Paranormal which
is a confounded and alternate reality.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Posts welcome! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/34)
21:11:31

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Glad to see that I wasnt't the only one that made an makeshift experiment before
taking an RV workshop. My advice is that one of you take an RV workshop and
share
the info with the others if all of you can't afford it.

The protocols are not written in all the books I have read on RV. It is
something
that must be pass to you by an instructor. The closest you are going to get to
protocol is buying the Ed Dames video Tapes. Of course, absorb the information
given with critical and open mind since the man IS part of Intel and who knows
what's his agenda. IMO.

Before my RV workshop, I tried out the experiments by gleaning information from
several books and the Net and tried it on two people. The results were very
interesting. The target "hit" were very close.

electrix


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 dream 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/35)
21:11:43

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] dream

What I am interesting in finding out is your opinion of what makes the mind
"light up" these images in the head called dreams.

What do you think dreams are?

How can there be no light entering your eyes but yet you can visualize images
in your mind. Doesn't it defy physics. For something to be visual light
must be shed on it. Can someone (pun intended) enlighten me on this?

electrix


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Answer to Steve's answer to Paula 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/36)
21:11:53

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi All,

I woke up this morning to a flood of messages and 3 new requests to
join the list. Looks like things are really starting to pick up here.. :-)

Thanks to everyone who's posted! Keep it up! :-)


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Answer To Steve's answer to Paula 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/37)
21:12:02

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] Answer To Steve's answer to Paula

Electrix:

I just finished reading your essay on the BBS and, needless to say, agree
wholeheartedly with everything you contend there. Thank you for your
thoughtful and quite brilliant insights, Electrix... have always enjoyed your
posts on Farsight.

Love,
Paula


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/38)
21:12:14

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Electrix wrote:
>You are not alone on that thought Paula. I recently posted an Essay and a
>Rebuttal on the same idea of Proof. The use of Science to investigate the
>paranormal is lopsided. We can scientifically analyze its results, but
>sooner or later we are left to infer othe presence of the Paranormal which
>is a confounded and alternate reality.

Hi,

Well, all opinions are welcome on this list, but I have to disagree with you
here Electrix (life would be boring if we all agreed all the time, wouldn't it?
;)

It may well be that we'll continued to be dumb-founded by remote-viewing,
but science has provided us with so many answers to so many questions,
it's methods could very well provide us with answers on psi. Maybe not now,
maybe not in a few decades, maybe not in 100 years.. but someday. It
might happen slowly, or quickly.

We have no surefire way of
predicting the future (let's leave RV out of this for the moment ;) so it's
hard to say where science will or will not take our understanding of subjects
like RV.

Science is an objective system. It provides us with "hard evidence" and solid
answers (as much as that is possible.) It deals with data, experiments, results,
etc. Things that can be examined, tested, and measured.

Anything else I put under the catagory of religion, belief or faith. It is hard
for me as the scientific type to comment on faith and belief, because it is
difficult to scientificly test a faith. Does God exist? Provide me with a
scientific
way to test for God, and we could perform a test. But we cannot perform
a test because we don't know what to test for, or even if we can test for it.
So
there is no way to prove it a positive.

This, unfortunately, means we cannot prove a faith. Does that make it wrong?
How do I know? I can't measure it!

I prefer to stick with things we can scientifically measure, and leave
belief/faith
to those who use/need it.

I'm not a person who has much faith in anything but the objective/scientific.

Some may call this a failing, others a blessing, others something inbetween.
But
it is the system I've chosen. We all choose our systems to rely on. That's the
one I've chosen.

I prefer to put my trust in things I can test, measure, examine. IF it can be
tested, measured or examined.. it can be subjected to a scientific experiment,
and it can be scientifically analysed. Otherwises, it is not of much scientific
value. If something cannot be tested, cannot be measured, cannot be
experienced or examined.. we can't be sure it exists objectively, ever. Which
means it does not affect physical reality.

Clearly, psi affects physical reality. So we can test that much of it. If it
crosses
over at some point into non-physical reality, perhaps then and there the
scientific
experiments will no longer be of use. But that still gives us a lot to examine.

And it's still possible that RV is purely physical, with no paranormal
explanation
being necessary. (Note: That does not mean RV does "not exist"; it just means
there may be a physical explanation rooted in our physical universe, for how
we pick up these "signals".)

That's my feeling. I respect your views Electrix and Paula, but I prefer not to
comment on things beyond that which can be scientifically analysed. Psi
CAN be scientifically analysed. How far and how much remains to be seen.

Best regards,
Steve.



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/39)
21:12:31

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> We have no surefire way of
> predicting the future (let's leave RV out of this for the moment ;) so it's
> hard to say where science will or will not take our understanding of subjects
> like RV.

Science has actually made considerable inroads into explaining RV. Unlike many
public
forums for RV focusing on Psi as if it was another weird superstition, the
foundation
research is in electromagnetic wave resonance. The protocols in Rv are designed
to focus
the viewers intent and attention, until they resonate with the targets
electromagnetic
signature, The degree to which you match this resonance will be demonstrated in
the level
of clarity in your view.

RV is a communication skill, which takes allot of discipline to master. Many
EEG and
bio-feed back experiments have been conducted to measure the state achieved when
good RV
data is collected, the wild card is that each individual, even well trained
professionals
have good and bad days and to top this off availability of data, is often
compromised by
the individuals ability to retrieve it, or the viewers disciplined ability to
refrain from
interpretation or contamination of the data items collected. The difference in
good and
bad days can be justified by everything from, stress and distractions, to over
confidence
and sloppy protocols. The human factor is yet to be totally quantified, except
that when
certain brain wave states are achieved very accurate data can be retrieved.

> Science is an objective system. It provides us with "hard evidence" and solid
> answers (as much as that is possible.) It deals with data, experiments,
results,
> etc. Things that can be examined, tested, and measured.

Absolutly, even though biological functions can be measured human free will and
complexity
can vary results in a heart beat by shifting the focus of their attention.

> I prefer to put my trust in things I can test, measure, examine. IF it can be
> tested, measured or examined.. it can be subjected to a scientific experiment,
> and it can be scientifically analysed. Otherwises, it is not of much
scientific
> value. If something cannot be tested, cannot be measured, cannot be
> experienced or examined.. we can't be sure it exists objectively, ever. Which
> means it does not affect physical reality.

One of the most humbeling experiences I know is to sit at a desk with only a
pen, stack of
fanfold paper, and randomly generated Target ID that has been cued to.......any
of
billions of possible targets. At the end of an hours work, you lay out your
session
along side the target photo and you get to see.... what is congruant target
data, want is
contaminated (data with simular gestault but turned into something else) and
what is pure
imagination. When you see the target you find out what all those puzzle pieces
you saw
but did not yet understand really meant. I have been traing to RV for just
under a year.
Data I collected, that was way beyond odds of guessing, a year ago is nolonger
acceptable
to me, as far as clarity or quality, the more you do, the more you know is
possible, the
more you push yourself to improve, until nothing less than full clarity and
accuracy is
acceptable. Not everyone thinks that this way of being is fun :) so not
everyone puts in
the work to get the results.

> Clearly, psi affects physical reality. So we can test that much of it. If it
crosses
> over at some point into non-physical reality, perhaps then and there the
scientific
> experiments will no longer be of use. But that still gives us a lot to
examine.
>
> And it's still possible that RV is purely physical, with no paranormal
explanation
> being necessary. (Note: That does not mean RV does "not exist"; it just means
> there may be a physical explanation rooted in our physical universe, for how
> we pick up these "signals" .)
>

The trick and discipline in RV is to keep the primary consciousness occupied and
out of
the way so that the subconscious can communicate clearly. The sub communicates
in
visuals, sounds, feelings and perceptions. Our Ego finds this furtile ground
for showing
how smart it is, and will usually contaminate the data, until it is trained and
disciplined to its part in the process. This becomes a life changing experience
because
our egos are busy doing this every waking moment, not just in RV.

Aloha Yaana



Tue Jun 23, 1998 4:23 pm

Hide Message Option
View Source
Use Fixed Width Font
Unwrap Lines
Yaana Allen 
yaana@...
Send Email Send Email




stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Posts welcome! 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/40)
21:12:39

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Dear Steve and List,
Hope this makes it..my first attempt.
I was wondering, perhaps for a start, if anyone here has worked with
any Remote Viewing techniques in experiments..'blind', etc. I am
completely untrained by any teacher but have enjoyed testing myself...
with some moderate success..and some plain failures as well. I am
hoping to practice more and learn.
At any rate, this is my first hello to all, Best wishes, Laura


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/41)
21:12:48

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Aloha Miss Yaana,
Your technical writting is very good. Great post.
Aloha Glenn


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/42)
21:13:00

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] RV Science

I wouldn't have it any other way Steve! My words are no written on concrete to
be
followed as Ten Commandments, although sometimes I write in such a manner :-)

I welcome dissidence. It is a healthy to analyze and acknowledge different
views. Insults,
of course, are another matter. I don't engage in such. I am not offended by
your response
since I don't feel you are being disrespectful.

I do want to clarify a few things which I interpreted from your comment. I
don't mean to
imply that science is NOT instrumental in researching the Psi phenomenon.
Instead, I am
attempting to communicate that we must keep the distinction of CATEGORIES to
avoid falling
along the same mistake scientist have made in the past and some who continue to
do so. It
is not unusual for scientist to cling to pet theories at the neglect of more
promising
hypothesis or theories.

The other concern I have is to blindly or dogmatically accept scientific
resolves. It is
easy to accept evidence in a tunnel vision manner, and when confronted with new,
other
alternatives and possibilities, be ignored.

If you can envision the analogy of an hypnotist providing you with "stable
data" for your
mind to operate with, this is what I am getting across. It is nice that we can
prove most
every physical phenomenon, but with can also be "hypnotize" into thinking in a
certain
way. But more aberrated is taking something that works in one medium, such as
scientific
method, and applying it to an evading subject that does not fall in the area of
the
PHYSICAL (i.e liquid, solid, et al).

With all respect to Yaana's effort to scientifically explain electromagnetic
wave "state",
let's take something like biofeedback. It is easy to make a judgement leap for
Brain
activity to Mind activity before defining the difference of both. Especially
defining the
nature of the mind. The nature of the brain, though, is progressively being
understood
since that is PHYSICAL. Biofeedback is a complex weave of frequency overlapping
each
other. Dissecting the frequency into classification serves good for examination
purposes.
But in the end the WHOLE must be taken into consideration. And although
biofeedback can
extract brainwave level and can entrain brain activity, it doesn't say much
about the
Mind. So, it is no wonder that each individual react differently to brainwave
stimulation
as I have noticed in my test on others and myself. Physical functionality may
or may not
compliment Mental behavior. Expected results of certain wave frequency react
differently
in some other individual. However, I can't disagree that the data discovered so
far is
helpful. I think it is. But the proper perspective must be applied to the nature
of the
paranormal. The findings and results of this science shouldn't necessarily
dictate and
define Psychic or Paranormal Laws in as much as it might need define or dictate
religious
theory of creation and so forth; but instead ONLY survey, observe the results,
and perhaps
explain these sporadic results and idea in a "wordly" way.

It is also of no surprise that Eastern philosophy on spiritual and cognitive
behavior is
finally being mirrored in science. The hard facts and scientific doctrine has
kept it
from examining Eastern philosophy sooner. It is this blind commitment to the
physical that
keeps us from improving the spiritual progress of Humankind. Sometimes it is
necessary to
step outside of the CATEGORIES to obtain a new angle on things, and accept the
condition
(subject) for what it IS, in its PROPER COMPARTMENT until such time that there
is a
Unified Theory.

So yes, Psi RESULTS can be scientifically analyzed and quantified, but Psi
nature cannot
not be defined within that CATEGORY. It is diametrically opposed that PHYSICAL
cannot be
treated in the same way as the META-PHYSICAL, just as the rule of CLASSICAL
SCIENCE cannot
be treated in the same way in the field of QUANTUM THEORY.

electrix


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Answer To Steve's answer to Paula 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/43)
21:13:11

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] Answer To Steve's answer to Paula

Ha,ha,ha....thanks again Paula...we are ALL in this together!

Love also...
electrix



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/44)
21:13:25

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> But in the end the WHOLE must be taken into consideration. ...snip

Yes first we must define what we are dealing with:
The BRAIN: is a objective, physical mechanism which can be studied and monitored
The MIND: is a subjective, psychological mechanism where we store our stimulus
response
reactions to physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual stimulus, this is
individual to each
person based on events, choices and beliefs.
The CONSCIOUSNESS: is an infinite, spiritual mechanism which must be present for
life to exist
within form, this has even been scientifically demonstrated in plants, so the
consciousness
principle exists separate from both Brain or Mind. Consciousness is the medium
of the unified
field, our most untapped resource and the area represented by the more than 90%
of unused
space in our brain. .

The Skill which is Remote Viewing is two fold, to sync these three on a single
focus, and to
direct that focus with the intent to acquire and experience the target and
retrieve data. This
takes discipline and practice much like a Japanese Tea Ceremony, which when
understood every
tiny movement has a deep significance.

Ultimately those who have not experienced a thing, can not conceive of any proof
which would
satisfy them, and those who have need no further proof. A brief review of
ancient spiritual
practices will show in almost every culture, simple disciplined, repetitive
activities or
ceremonies, accompanied with chanting or drumming which are actually theta
tones, these
practices put the participants into trances for "vision quests" a place they go
to answer
questions and have deeply moving mystical experiences.

Recently we met with a doctor who specializes in using bio-feed back equipment
to facilitate
treatment of addictive and anti-social behaviors. Our intent was to have our
advanced
students experience a monitored theta state, so it would be easier for them to
duplicate. The
doctor was hesitant to take patients to theta without a counseling session
because, as she
said "when people approach theta, what ever they have suppressed or repressed
tends to bubble
up".

As a minister who has done spiritual counseling for 20 years Ihave seen this
occur. The wild
card and weak link in this equation is not the brain, nor consciousness, but the
psychology,
the individual development of each mind. The significance we add to and then
invested in over
time to give meaning or justification to events and our behaviors is what we
use to define
our selves, develop our identities, anything which threatens to show us we may
have erred in
our assessment, no matter how ultimately true or effective becomes the enemy of
the mind.

Remote Viewing is a practical application of many ancient principals packaged in
modern
science, regardless of the proofs given mysteries will always remain mysteries
to those who
look from the outside.

Aloha Yaana


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/45)
21:13:49

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] RV Science

Hi Electrix,

>I wouldn't have it any other way Steve! My words are no written on concrete to
be
>followed as Ten Commandments, although sometimes I write in such a manner :-)
>
>I welcome dissidence. It is a healthy to analyze and acknowledge different
views. Insults,
>of course, are another matter. I don't engage in such. I am not offended by
your response
>since I don't feel you are being disrespectful.

I'd like to think we're having a good-spirited debate here.. I haven't felt that
you were
being disrespectful either, and I've actually really enjoyed reading your posts
and
your essay. I hope you feel the same way.

While I might have a different perspective on things, that's what makes us
strong
as a race. It would be pretty dull if we always agreed, wouldn't it? :)

>I do want to clarify a few things which I interpreted from your comment. I
don't mean to
>imply that science is NOT instrumental in researching the Psi phenomenon.
Instead, I am
>attempting to communicate that we must keep the distinction of CATEGORIES to
avoid falling
>along the same mistake scientist have made in the past and some who continue to
do so. It
>is not unusual for scientist to cling to pet theories at the neglect of more
promising
>hypothesis or theories.

Here, I agree with you completely. I've always had a problem when people
clinging to theories,
and refusing to consider the alternatives. My definition of science would be an
open system -
where everything is published openly, and the scientists themselves have open
(but still
critical-thinking) minds. My idea of a good scientist would be one who is open
to everyone
and closed to nothing, is prepared to stand up for what he believes is correct
(i.e. not
being discouraged by the current scientific paradigm, etc.)

My approach is to be open to everything, and to just "go with the data." I don't
like to
wander past that point, unless it's absolutely necessary. I'd prefer to see
more experiments
organised, or see more data put on the table, before I'd wonder into speculation
to obtain
answers. (Even "common sense" speculation can lead us down false paths, just as
the
"common sense" scientists of times gone by believed the Earth was flat and the
center
of the universe.)

(I realise we're probably not in disagreement here, but I just felt I ought to
elaborate on
my own feelings on the subject here.)

>The other concern I have is to blindly or dogmatically accept scientific
resolves. It is
>easy to accept evidence in a tunnel vision manner, and when confronted with
new, other
>alternatives and possibilities, be ignored.

I think this is an example of scientists going by assumptions - they "know"
their current
theories are correct, so they reject new data because it would tumble their
house of cards.
I think the true scientific approach would be to examine the subject thoroughly,
and to see
if the exception to the rule is actually capable of tumbling the house of cards,
and thus.. the
rule itself. Then the exception (anomaly) helds to build up a new rule.

I've never felt ignoring a subject is scientific. That's why I have such a
problem with
groups like CSICOP, who claim to be scientific, but then proceed to condemn and
all
attempts to scientifically examine "the paranormal."

(Which reminds me, have you seen CSICOP's latest gripe? With the new X-Files
movie,
of all things.. :)

>If you can envision the analogy of an hypnotist providing you with "stable
data" for your
>mind to operate with, this is what I am getting across. It is nice that we can
prove most
>every physical phenomenon, but with can also be "hypnotize" into thinking in a
certain
>way.

Scientism, as I understand it, is a belief in scientist's answers to all
questions, is a religion in
itself. It believes that scientific theories and explanations are the
foundation of reality,
and anything that goes against their paradigm must be false, because their
theories/laws/
rules are unbreakable. It is the belief that what science does not know about
will
eventually be fitted in with existing laws, and old laws and theories will not
be shaken,
except in very minor ways.

Scientism.. is (IMO) unscientific. It's assumptions based on facts. I happen
to feel that
science will experience a few minor and major paradigm shifts while us humans
survive
on this planet. If a rule cannot explain anomalies, and the anomalies
definately exist,
then the rule is wrong or incomplete. Scientism would probably dictate that the
anomalies
must be non-existant and not worth studying because they cannot exist. True
science
dictates we perform experiments to see if those anomalies really do exist, and
go into
those experiments unconvinced either way (that it anomalies do, or do not,
exist.)

>With all respect to Yaana's effort to scientifically explain electromagnetic
wave "state",
>let's take something like biofeedback. It is easy to make a judgement leap for
Brain
>activity to Mind activity before defining the difference of both. Especially
defining the
>nature of the mind. The nature of the brain, though, is progressively being
understood
>since that is PHYSICAL.

I don't think scientists have yet been able to say with any certainiy where or
what "mind"
is - there's debate as to whether consciousness itself is real or only an
illussion. Scientists
who are worth their weight cannot afford to make assumptions either way.

However, this does not prevent us from comparing brainwave patterns to
performance in psi
experiments. If a pattern IS found, we can tell there is some kind of
relationship between
the two. If none is found, we know there isn't a relationship.

We can perform these experiments without commenting on the nature of mind or
spirit.

Science has many methods of testing and experimentating, and the answers science
provides us with allow us to better understand what we're studying. There's no
telling
if science will ever be able to provide us with answers to everything. Some
things will
always remain subjective.

>But in the end the WHOLE must be taken into consideration. And although
biofeedback can
>extract brainwave level and can entrain brain activity, it doesn't say much
about the
>Mind.

I agree; see above. In studying brainwave patterns and psi performance,
scientists
are examining the possible relationship between them in order to learn more.
Experiments
can only test for one thing at a time. In this case, for a relationship between
brainwave
patterns and psi performance.

The results we obtain may only give us half the answers we're looking for, but
that
it better than nothing. Scientists can eventually make experiments to analyse
the things
they want to test.

But there's an infinite number of possible questions we can ask about an
infinite number
of subjects. Each experiment is designed to give us just one answer to one
question (or,
a few answers to a few questions), but there will always be unanswered questions
out
there.

>It is also of no surprise that Eastern philosophy on spiritual and cognitive
behavior is
>finally being mirrored in science. The hard facts and scientific doctrine

I'd like to think that science (hard facts) and scientism (dogma and doctrine)
are two
separate thngs. Scientists should not believe in anything until they've been
able to
perform experments for themselves, and got the answers for themselves.
Scientism
asks us to accept the prevailing scientific views and ignore alternatives. True
science
would never, I hope, be so blind.

>from examining Eastern philosophy sooner. It is this blind commitment to the
physical that
>keeps us from improving the spiritual progress of Humankind. Sometimes it is
necessary to
>step outside of the CATEGORIES to obtain a new angle on things, and accept the
condition

If there is something outside of the physical, is it possible to test for it? If
the answer is yes,
science can provide answers - so long as we have the technology and knowledge
necessary to create an experiment to perform the tests and get the answers.

If the answer is no, then there is no way of proving that xyz exists. No test
or experiment
can be created to test for it. Which seems to suggest it cannot be experienced.
If
something can be experienced, it can in theory be tested.

>So yes, Psi RESULTS can be scientifically analyzed and quantified, but Psi
nature cannot
>not be defined within that CATEGORY. It is diametrically opposed that PHYSICAL
cannot be
>treated in the same way as the META-PHYSICAL, just as the rule of CLASSICAL
SCIENCE cannot
>be treated in the same way in the field of QUANTUM THEORY.

But it is important to realise that both classical scienec and quantum theory
use experiments
to perform tests and gain answers. But it does seem many things in quantum
theory will
be hard, if not impossible, to prove. This does not prevent us from testing
what we can.

What we cannot test, we can never be sure about. That doesn't mean I feel
people do not
have the right to believe in what cannot be tested, it just means we can never
be *certain*.
We have no clear answers, there are no tests or experiments we can perform.

In which case.. these questions cannot can answered, because it is impossible to
devise a
scientific experiment for them.

I'm pretty sure that's what you're trying to say. The problem is, we cannot
prove these
types of claims (although I guess you could counter that they cannot be
disproven as
well.)

In these cases, I feel we can only rely on what we *can* test for. Anything
else is
speculation. Although I remain open to the possibility that some things cannot
be
tested for, with no solid answers, such as seems to exist in the field of
quantum
theory. However, in these cases no solid answers would be possible. Therefore
we have a choice: to either speculate and reach an answer which may be in
error, or to not take that step.

However.. referring to what I said earlier - re: clinging to theories, and going
with
the data - scientists are taught not to speculate, and to keep with what the
hard facts show us. The data should carry us, not our own feelings,
speculations,
or assumptions.

So my choice is to avoid speculating, and to just go where the data takes me.
You
are welcome to choose another route. We simply must choose the system that we
feel is the most helpful to us, and the most useful.

In my opinion, I feel that speculating too much - and that includes clinging to
old scientific paradigms as much as accepting new ones - is a route we must be
careful about taking. I'd rather not speculate, period - apart from what is
absolutely
necessary in order to be able to analyse data. Without a minimal amount of
speculation and imagination, humans would probably not possess the vast
intelligence that we have today. When we look at a car, we'd be incapable of
knowing it was a car unless it was identical in every way, shape and form.
Imagination - i.e. speculation - is necessary in our species cognitive
functions. But
I feel that in science, we have to keep this to the lowest possible level.

I welcome people who choose to disagree, but my choice is to take the route
that requires the most reliable on hard data, and the least reliance on
speculation
as possible. People must decide for themselves how they want to interpret the
world around them.

Thanks for this fascinating debate, Electrix.. :-)

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Other RV techniques 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/46)
21:14:00

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hello,

this is my very first post to this list, so I'll keep it short. After having
read
the complete site of Ingo Swann, most part of PJ's site, ... and all the
books I could get about RV, I still don't know which research has been
done in countries outside the U.S. I think it would be nice to compare
this research with CRV. Methodologies are good to enable things,
but at the same time they also limit some possibilities. Different
viewpoints
on the subject could give us more insight into the mechanisms of RV. So
does anyone know of the research that has been done in countries like
Russia, China, Israel, Great Brittain, ...? (may also be PK related)
Second question I have is, has anyone experience with the RV course of
Paraliminal Management Systems (Tim Rifat). It could be interesting because
it seems totaly different from the military RV methods.

Well that's all for now, and Steve I hope your list will become as important
or even more so than PJ's.

All the best

Frank V


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Hi Laura 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/47)
21:14:09

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi Laura!
Welcome to the list. It is always good to hear from people who are
actually trying the remote viewing. Please post some of your sessions.
Jane


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Other RV techniques 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/48)
21:14:26

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Re: [stargate] Other RV techniques


>this is my very first post to this list, so I'll keep it short. After having
>read the complete site of Ingo Swann, most part of PJ's site, ... and all
>the books I could get about RV, I still don't know which research has been
>done in countries outside the U.S. I think it would be nice to compare
>this research with CRV. Methodologies are good to enable things,
>but at the same time they also limit some possibilities. Different
>viewpoints on the subject could give us more insight into the mechanisms of
>RV. So does anyone know of the research that has been done in countries
>like Russia, China, Israel, Great Brittain, ...? (may also be PK related)

Hi Frank,

First, hello and and welcome to this list! I hope you enjoy yourself here,
and hopefully learn a little in the process.

On RV labs outside America - I expect experiments in other Western
countries are geared in much the same way as experiments in the US:
performing double-blind trials, gathering statistics, and analysing the
results, and attempting to replicate what the US labs have found.

There is a psi lab here in Britain, in Edinburgh. I've been meaning to
contact them and obtain more information on their research, but I
became so occupied with other topics, and in studying US research,
that I'd completely forgotten about the Edinburgh (Koestler?) laboratory
researchers.

Since you've brought foreign research, it gives me a nice timely
reminder to get in touch with them. I *really* ought to know what
psi research is being done in my own country.. :-)

I'll post more information once I have it (I'll start by making a
phonecall tommorrow - this is something I've been meaning to
do for some time, and now seems as good a time as any.)

(According to the documents up on my website, Russian
parapsychology in the 70s was geared towards understanding
and utilising psi abilities, rather than proving the phenomenon,
which was assumed as being a reality.)

You want to view the Electronic Reading Room up on my website
and examine the report called "Final Report (NBIT)". It is a summary
of Western research into 1970s Eastern (Russian) research into
psi, and highlights the differences of approach between our 70s
labs and their Eastern counterparts. It's quite an interesting read.

My website is up at:
http://www.progressiveweb.net/stargate/

>Second question I have is, has anyone experience with the RV course of
>Paraliminal Management Systems (Tim Rifat). It could be interesting because
>it seems totaly different from the military RV methods.

The stories I have heard about Paranormal Management Systems are not
exactly supportive. Beyond that I really can't comment. I wouldn't buy any
of their courses until I'd done some checking, though.

>Well that's all for now, and Steve I hope your list will become as important
>or even more so than PJ's.

I hope this list is successful too, but it really depends on it's members.
If people want this list to succeed, then it will. It is a great shame that PJ
has decided to close her lists, but it remains her decision and her right to
close them if she wants to. She'll be missed. I just hope I'm able to build
a list that's half as busy and half as popular as PJ's. That depends as much
as anything else on the support of people like you - the posters. If you
want this list to succeed, then it will!

Thanks for your post, and I hope you find this list useful!

I'll post more about UK psi research once I've contacted the Koestler lab
in Edinburgh.

If you like, you can visit the Koestler Parapsychology Unit,
part of the University of Edinburgh, at the address below:

http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/

Enjoy!

Best always,
Steve.


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Getting the Balance Right 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/49)
21:14:38

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hello Everyone,

I'm glad to see that everyone is finding this list useful, and I hope
that everyone is enjoying themselves and learning a little in the
process! :)

The reason I am making this post is because I would like everyone's
opinions on what they'd like to see this list become.

PJ's Viewer List was designed so that the general public could ask
questions relating to military CRV, and those questions would be
answered by the professional viewers and RV pros who frequented
the list. This list was moderated in order to keep posts on-topic.

PJ's Psi List allowed discussion of related subjects, such as psychic
phenomena in general, ghosts, out-of-body-experiences, astral
projection, etc. This list wasn't moderated.

I am wondering what people want of THIS list. It can be a "serious"
list, with emphasis on CRV. Or it could be about "similar" subjects.
It could be a general chat list. Or a mixture of all of these.

I would like to see this list be 50% light discussion and light
research (recounting experiences, sharing ideas, etc.) and
50% serious research, CRV-based.

I worry that if the list is too serious, it will put off the more casual
readers from contributing, and only a small percentage of
people will be interested in contributing. But I also worry that
if this chat is too "chatty", it will put off the more serious
debators who might decide to leave the list.

Because of this, it is important the balance is got right. I'd
like people's comments on what kind of list they'd like.

Please send your comments by private e-mail to me
at steve@... - please do NOT post it to
this list! Thank you.

I hope you all enjoy this list and will find it useful.

Best always,
Steve.



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 jane in lakeland Florida 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/50)
21:14:48

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

There are 5 of us who have been working very heavily on this program.
We stem from all different backgrounds but have one major thing in common,
We all beleive in areselves .I teach small classes in my back yard twice a
month
on everything involving metaphysics such as astral projection,alternate states
of consciousness,deep meditation.and hemispheric syncronization.When we came
across remore veiwing we embrased it as a welcoming challenge.
Thank you for responding Paul


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/51)

 09:23:29

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> The CONSCIOUSNESS: is an infinite, spiritual mechanism which must be present
for life to exist
> within form, this has even been scientifically demonstrated in plants, so the
consciousness
> principle exists separate from both Brain or Mind. Consciousness is the
medium of the unified
> field, our most untapped resource and the area represented by the more than
90% of unused
> space in our brain. .

Interesting view Yaana. I am not sure if I agree with all aspects of your
definitions. I
personally, find it to be a challenge just to decide if consciousness IS the
Mind as it is. Take
for example, Unconsciousness plays a key role in the living. In fact,
Unconsciousnes sometimes
SERVES the Consciousness with cognitive or/and subliminal data. Thus,
Consciousness AND
Unconsciousness form a pair, if not the same in regards to state dominance at a
particular time. I
could delve deeper into this, but I am afraid I could write a volumes on my
findings of
Consciousness and quoting MIT lab studies. And as far as "separate,"
consciousness, I visualize
it otherwise. I "see" a synergy of independent faculties.

Theta brain level, by the way, appeals to the unconscious more so than the
conscious, all things
being equal. A study on major "legitimate" psychics (Jane Roberts, Edgar Cayce)
will find a
common denominator that they would retreat into Deep Theta or/and Delta. I have
trouble accepting
many books written on biofeedback since they don't acknowledge essential facts
such as: 1. Human
biofeedback goes through a cycle in 90 minutes. It goes through Beta, Alpha,
Theta, and Delta and
a combination thereof. It is like onion skin. One predominates over the other
accordingly. At
any one point of that cycle we are dipping into Delta quickly or hovering longer
(in the case of
sleep). So, the state are contiguous and overlapping, not discrete. So, many
readers of this
technology are ill informed. 2. Entraining oneself into a particular state
takes as much effort
as practicing RV. I have lied down with the Monroe Hemy-Sync tapes having to
RECALL the states
induced by his binaural audio, it takes some doing and repetition before being
able to "lock-in"
to that state. I have used the aid of "brain machine" only to realize that it
is more
"artificially" induced than practicing the real thing. Now don't get me wrong,
each method serves
its purpose and I have gotten some interesting results from both. But there is
something missing
from this technology, it is not reproduced across the board in the same way to
all individuals.
Thus, again the illusive Mind at play.


> The Skill which is Remote Viewing is two fold, to sync these three on a single
focus, and to
> direct that focus with the intent to acquire and experience the target and
retrieve data. This
> takes discipline and practice much like a Japanese Tea Ceremony, which when
understood every
> tiny movement has a deep significance.

Yes. At first it requires practice. But that's the way of Mother Nature, isn't
it. Humanity is so
entrenched in the fast-food, quick-fix, 2 hour Hollywood scenario, we expect
everything to come at
once. An observation on Mother Nature could tell us a lot about the operational
laws of the
physical self. I am of the impression that there are receptive microcellular
organisms that need
to be awaken to "perceive" psychic-ness. In the same way that we have cells
that specialize in
being receptive to light and only light, is the same way I visualize
psi-cellular activity. By
the way, there is the thought that the Mind is not merely a synergistic Brain
activity but is also
within cellular level. Discoveries have been made of amputated people who
generate this "mental"
energy even though there is no arms or legs. "Fields" have been scientifically
detected through
instrumentation.

Perhaps the future of RV is not having to sit behind a table and generate tons
of paperwork.!
Mechanism doe not surpass Intention in my books. Once the psi-cellular levels
are once more
receptive, we would have evolved one step further.


> Ultimately those who have not experienced a thing, can not conceive of any
proof which would
> satisfy them, and those who have need no further proof. A brief review of
ancient spiritual
> practices will show in almost every culture, simple disciplined, repetitive
activities or
> ceremonies, accompanied with chanting or drumming which are actually theta
tones, these
> practices put the participants into trances for "vision quests" a place they
go to answer
> questions and have deeply moving mystical experiences.

Certainly...the way through is DOING IT!.

> Recently we met with a doctor who specializes in using bio-feed back equipment
to facilitate
> treatment of addictive and anti-social behaviors. Our intent was to have our
advanced
> students experience a monitored theta state, so it would be easier for them to
duplicate. The
> doctor was hesitant to take patients to theta without a counseling session
because, as she
> said "when people approach theta, what ever they have suppressed or repressed
tends to bubble
> up".

Well, yes. That is true to certain extent. Since it is difficult to identify
that specific area of
Theta, I can see why she was hesitant. Doctors freak when they are not IN
CONTROL of the
pathogens. Scientologist delve heavily in this area through the use of
Dianetics. They call it
engrams (not the scientifically defined engrams). What many of even well
informed Scientologist
don't know is that each time they delve into this area they re-inforce the power
of that
"engram." The antidote to this pathogen must be treated as quickly as possible
to diffuse them.
They lie sporadically all across our mental lifetime past-life tracks.

> As a minister who has done spiritual counseling for 20 years Ihave seen this
occur. The wild
> card and weak link in this equation is not the brain, nor consciousness, but
the psychology,
> the individual development of each mind. The significance we add to and then
invested in over
> time to give meaning or justification to events and our behaviors is what we
use to define
> our selves, develop our identities, anything which threatens to show us we may
have erred in
> our assessment, no matter how ultimately true or effective becomes the enemy
of the mind.

Let's not forget that the unconscious element sometimes DIRECT the conscious
behavior without
consciousness volition. That is why subliminal messages are so effective if not
detrimental. So,
personality can be a mush of conscious and unconscious elements establishing
prominence. How far
can the unconscious take over? Go to the nearest mental asylum.

> Remote Viewing is a practical application of many ancient principals packaged
in modern
> science, regardless of the proofs given mysteries will always remain mysteries
to those who
> look from the outside.

Mysteries are only mysteries because of ignorance. The marketing of mysteries
is what keeps the
Powers that May Be fill with dough in their pockets and laughing their ass off.

However, I get where you are coming from. The "outside" is such a lonely place.
:-)

Respectfully submitted....
Aloha electrix



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/52)

 09:23:55

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> Interesting view Yaana. I am not sure if I agree with all aspects of your
definitions. I
> personally, find it to be a challenge just to decide if consciousness IS the
Mind as it is. Take
> for example, Unconsciousness plays a key role in the living. In fact,
Unconsciousnes sometimes
> SERVES the Consciousness with cognitive or/and subliminal data. Thus,
Consciousness AND
> Unconsciousness form a pair, if not the same in regards to state dominance at
a particular time. I
> could delve deeper into this, but I am afraid I could write a volumes on my
findings of
> Consciousness and quoting MIT lab studies. And as far as "separate,"
consciousness, I visualize
> it otherwise. I "see" a synergy of independent faculties.

Scientific and spiritual communities have developed arbitrary assignments such
as conscious,
unconscious and super conscious, or body, mind and spirit, to describe
seemingly separate functions
of a functional whole. In the esoteric teachings we have 3 vehicles, which go
from dense matter to
subtle energies; physical, emotional and mental, all of which are animated by
the living breath of
spirit (life) and come under the leadership of the soul (individualized
consciousness) . Each of
these aspects of our being have differing functions; physical (third dimensional
vehicle of expression
and experience) emotional (vehicle of communication... not intended for constant
drama) and mental
(like the software program which takes the available data and stores/ presents
it in a usable fashion)
and the soul the keeper of the purpose.

The more society evolves, the more our minds develop, the further we get away
from our natural selves,
and project arbitrary judgments of superstitious nonsense on natural experiences
until we learn not to
trust or recognize them. That does not mean that our souls stop communicating,
but it does mean that
the impressions, perceptions, and sensations sent into our daily mix will be
interpreted by the mind,
and either validated or invalidated. There is an old programmers saying
"garbage in, garbage out".
man has evolved into amazing problem solvers, we demonstrate everyday things
tantamount to miracles.
Yet some problems allude us. I suggest that in society as with individuals
problems that will not
solve, or get bigger no matter what you do are false problems. False not in
that they are not genuine
problems, but false in that we have incomplete or inaccurate perception of what
the real issue is.
Trust of our innate selves has been trained out of most of us, the modern
resurgence of spirituality
is an attempt to reclaim our birth right.

> Theta brain level, by the way, appeals to the unconscious more so than the
conscious, all things
> being equal....snip

High Theta is the threshold to sleep. There is a handshake between low Alpha and
high theta where
there is an exchange of control between the conscious mind and the
sub-conscious, or autonomic
system. In altered state RV we train to maintain the ability to communicate in
that slim window,
where the primary consciousness has fallen asleep, because it is in that window
that target can be
experienced and congruent data retrieved with out the filter of the minds
interpretation. If the
viewer falls asleep the session is over and the data is useless.

Psychologist study man as a stimulus response animal, in so doing they have
created many false
problems. Stimulus response is the medium of the mind, but not the totality of
the being or the limit
of it's potential. Ironic because the direct translation of the word Psychology
means, study of the
soul. Our science and many religions train us to discredit our essential selves
and replace it with
memorized facts figures and dogmas, but as you can see from the world we have
created it is time to go
back inside and trust both who we are and what we know as essential beings and
question or leave
behind many of the social facades which cripple us.

It delights me to know end the the military has developed a structured system
that, if followed , will
lead you exactly there, into a direct experience of your full potential, but no
one ever said it was
going to be easy, not because the system does not work, but precisely because it
does. In using it
you will be faced with dismantling false beliefs or discrediting the system
which put your nose in it,
so far we have a more than 50% drop out rate. Humans are such creatures of
comfort, most would rather
keep the illusions they are comfortable with, than face a truth that would
change their lives.

Aloha Yaana


stargate : Message: [stargate]
 Differences Between UK and US Research 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/53)

 09:24:17

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Hi All,

I've just been browsing the website of the Koestler Parapsychology Unit,
which
is part of the University of Edinburgh.

In reviewing the information up on their website, it seems that UK
researchers
are taking a difference approach to psi than their US counterparts. There
are
two working hypothesises in UK labs - the pseudopsi hypothesis, and the psi
hypothesis. It appears that the UK is working about equally on the theory
of
pseudopsi as it is to pro-psi theories, and so is pursueing both
possibilities.

The below text is taken from Koestler's Mission Statement. Someone asked
about UK research, so I hope this answers his question. It's worth noting
that the UK is home to some of the biggest skeptics of remote-viewing -
Richard Wiseman and Susan Blackmore, for example. Susan Blackmore
had an out-of-body experience when she was younger, which shook
her beliefs somewhat and made her feel we could OBE, but when she
later took an aerial look of the area she supposedly was OBEing over,
found that it was completely different. For her, this sowed the first
seeds
of doubt, and she now feels that our brains are incredibly complex devices
that are capable of mimicking real-life imagery in incredible detail, but
she's
not convinced that psi exists (yet.)

Nonetheless, "pro"-psi and "anti"-psi theories seem to have both been
tested
in UK labs.

Below is the Koestler Lab's Mission Statement.

PARAPSYCHOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
EDINBURGH

Introduction

The noted writer and critic Arthur Koestler and his wife Cynthia provided
in their wills for the establishment of an endowed Chair of Parapsychology
at a British university. The declared intention was to further objective
scientific research into "the capacity attributed to some individuals to
interact with their environment by means other than the recognised sensory
and motor channels". Following the Koestlers' deaths in 1982, their
trustees advertised the post and in 1984 awarded the Chair to the
University of Edinburgh. In 1985 I was fortunate enough to be invited to
serve as the first occupant of the Chair, taking up the post in December of
the same year. My remit was to develop a systematic and
responsible research programme that would integrate this controversial area
into the ongoing research and teaching activities of the university
community. As our tenth anniversary approaches, I have been invited to
describe how we have gone about our task during these years.

We have fairly limited resources. Our basic funding, from the Koestler
Endowment earnings and from the Literary Estate, provides for a full-time
secretary ( Mrs Helen Sims ) and two postdoctoral fellows, one fulltime (
Dr. Deborah Delanoy) and one part-time (Dr. Caroline Watt). We are located
within the Department of Psychology, where I do some teaching and supervise
research students at both Honours and postgraduate levels. Six students
have now completed Ph.D's under my supervision, on theses related to
parapsychology. We receive some additional research funding from outside
institutions, for student support and for necessary equipment.

Integrative Parapsychology

In setting up a research plan, one of our main problems was to clarify just
what serious parapsychology involves. Anyone can call themselves a
parapsychologist, and media representations tend to put entertainment first
with accuracy at best an afterthought. Thus we have developed what we call
an Integrative Parapsychology, with six features:

1. We regard parapsychology as the study of apparent new means of
communication, or interaction, between organisms and their environment
(commonly referred to as psi, or psychic ability), beyond those presently
understood by the scientific community.

2. Parapsychology is an interdisciplinary problem area, not a separate
discipline and not just a subset of psychology.

3. Parapsychology questions rather than presumes; our remit is to
investigate a capacity attributed to some individuals and we are under no
obligation to presume that capacity's existence.

4. Parapsychology incorporates the investigation of two sets of working
hypotheses: the 'pseudopsi hypothesis', which states that most if not all
of the evidence for psi is spurious, the result of our being misled or
misinterpreting observations; and the 'psi hypothesis', which states that
we do appear under certain conditions to have access to some genuinely new
means of communication.

5. Parapsychology involves the study of observers drawing inferences, and
can profit from the use of models of how we make observations about
ostensibly psychic events, including how we can be misled by ourselves and
others.

6. Parapsychology uses the tools of science, including detailed
descriptions of natural occurrences, surveys, hypothesis formulation and
testing, correlational studies, controlled experimental studies with
systematic variation of condition, and construction of theoretical models.

What's not psychic but looks like it...

Our research has largely proceeded along two main lines. One involves the
study of "what's not psychic but looks like it". Psychology has long been
involved in the study of self-deception and error in human perception,
memory, thinking and decision making. Within our group, Carl Williams is
looking at some of the factors that lead us to attribute meaning to
ambiguous information, with an eye toward eventual clinical application.
Tony Lawrence is developing and testing a model of the factors involved in
the formation of beliefs about psychic phenomena, as we are growing up and
as adults as well.

Additionally we have become quite involved in the psychology of conjuring
and deliberate deception, drawing both on an integration of the relatively
obscure writings of professional magicians and fraudsters and on
experimental studies. This research involves surveys of the techniques for
both physical and mental effects, as well as strategies for presenting
information to observers. Richard Wiseman has studied the effects of
observers' attitudes toward psi upon their ability to reconstruct the
details of fraudulent psychic demonstrations shown to them on videotape,
finding that those with positive attitudes were less likely to notice
details related to how the trick was done. It's important as well to
understand the psychological strategies of the confidence artist and the
techniques by which psychic claimants attempt to negotiate the rules by
which their claims will be accepted or rejected. Our work in these areas is
currently best represented in a little book recently co-authored by Dr
Wiseman and myself, Guidelines for Testing Psychic Claimants. It includes a
description of the strategies pseudopsychics can use to produce even
complex patterns of results in their data fraudulently. Of additional
interest are the strategies by which fake psychic researchers persuade
clients that they know all about the clients through psychic means. Chris
Roe has specialised in this area, particularly in the verbal strategies
often used. Together we are gradually working toward the development of a
general model of deception, including the social context of such deceptive
acts. We hope this line of research will be beneficial directly to
parapsychological research as well as cognitive and clinical psychology and
other disciplines where deception may be involved.

Assessing new means of communication

Our second main line of research involves assessment of the evidence for
genuine new means of communication, including the development of better
descriptive tools for exploring daily life experiences as well as
experimental tools for producing psychic effects with sufficient strength
and consistency that they can contribute to systematic research programmes
to develop and test models of how psychic functioning, if it exists,
actually works.

Some of this work involves a mix of questionnaire and interviews. Shari
Cohn has used both to explore 'second sight' experiences within family
units, analysing the material both quantitatively and qualitatively to look
for patterns in the nature of the experiences themselves, family
relationships and other salient factors. Carlos Alvarado is also using both
techniques to look for patterns in a specific kind of transpersonal
experience known as an out-of-body experience, closely related to
near-death experiences. Such research has been an under-represented
component of formal parapsychology and can contribute a great deal to
understanding the richness of the experiences involved, as well as in the
development and testing of models about their nature.

Naturalistic settings

Other research may involve bringing systematic investigation tools into
naturalistic settings, to overcome the problems of ecological validity
frequently associated with controlled, laboratory-based research with
living organisms. We have done very little in this area, other than to
explore ways of sealing off target materials that can then be turned over
to individuals for exploratory work in non-laboratory settings. One study
by Dr. Wiseman and Dr. John Beloff with an individual claimant produced
chance results; another by Drs. Delanoy, Watt, Wiseman and myself with
several individuals previously successful in the lab produced positive
results. We will be pursuing this area, always in consultation with
magicians, as part of our effort to conduct at least some of our research
in more natural settings.

Laboratory studies - extrasensory perception

Most of our effort in this area has gone towards experimental studies of
deliberate attempts to produce psychic effects in our own research
facilities within the Psychology Department, emphasising procedures that
have had a good track record with several other researchers. One line of
research follows a noise reduction model for ESP studies and uses amild
sensory reduction technique known as the ganzfeld procedure, plus
progressive relaxation, asking relaxed participants in a shielded room to
produce mental impressions about the content of short film clips being
displayed several rooms away.
The procedure is automated and includes security features to guard against
fraud by researchers as well as participants.

Our results with this procedure are very encouraging, with effect sizes
similar to those obtained elsewhere by researchers with less well
safeguarded facilities, and our research with this technique continues.
Several researchers have been involved with this work, including Kathy
Dalton, Deborah Delanoy, Caroline Watt and final year undergraduate
students in addition to myself.

Another line of research by Caroline Watt involves looking at individual
differences in perceptual defensiveness and vigilance, following up on
research done in several other countries indicating that people who score
as defensive on a defense mechanism test do more poorly on controlled ESP
tests. She has found similar results using a more objective procedure to
assess perceptual defensiveness and vigilance, with vigilant people scoring
better. This is consistent with the notion that for some people the
information may be more distorted in the course of processing, although the
finding may
have other interpretations as well.

A third line of research has explored techniques purported to train or
enhance psychic ability. This line of research, largely conducted by Dr.
Delanoy, Dr. Watt, Dr. Loftur Gissurarson and myself has presently produced
only mixed results at best, and has in part contributed to the
falsification of certain claims for psychic development techniques.

Psychokinesis

A fourth line of research involves attempts to influence through mental
activity, e.g. intentions, the behaviour of electronic equipment such as
random number generators based on a source of noise. Such research may seem
inherently extremely implausible, as surely we would know it by now if we
had any such ability. Nevertheless, low level but consistent effects have
been produced in a variety of other laboratories. Our own results have
produced at best extremely weak results, although there has been a tendency
for the results to be stronger with those having more positive attitudes
toward the
possibility and those who feel they have had spontaneous experiences
suggesting such effects. This research has been conducted largely by Dr
Konrad Morgan, Dr Gissurarson and Paul Stevens, in addition to final year
undergraduate students. We regard the work as contributing to the
falsification of some hypotheses regarding the linkage between operator
attitude and equipment failure.

Interaction with living systems

A fifth line of research involves attempts by an active agent to influence
the body physiology of a receiver several rooms away. One version of this
involves exploring the idea of remote staring effects, through the use of
closed circuit video. Although we are encouraged by some exploratory
studies, this line of research is still in its preliminary stages. It is
being conducted largely by Dr. Delanoy and Zachary McDermott.

History of parapsychology

A final area of research involves the history and social context of
criticism in parapsychology, conducted by Nancy Zingrone, and a set of
surveys of methodological problems and issues by Dr. Julie Milton.

Concluding remarks

In short, our research programme is still in early stages, with more
progress in some areas than others. We are clearly contributing to a better
understanding of how we can be misled, both by ourselves and others, and we
appear as well to be identifying certain areas where genuine psychic
effects may be more readily manifest under conditions that will allow us to
explore them more systematically. We are attempting to apply the tools of
science to an extremely complex set of human experiences and their
interpretation and we are acutely aware that we must avoid both the false
positive error of claiming something is there when in fact it is not, as
well as the false negative error of declaring something is not there when
in fact it is. Both errors are bad science.

Author: Robert L. Morris
Koestler Chair of Parapsychology, March 1995.
Last modified: 24th. January 1996

Best regards,
Steve.


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Differences Between UK and US Research 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/54)

 09:24:31

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> PARAPSYCHOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
> EDINBURGH

EXCELLENT post Steve, thank you !!!!
Aloha Yaana



stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 Differences Between UK and US Research 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/55)

 09:24:46

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

Steve--

Thanks for the post. I've been up on the Koestler webpage a number of
times, but never actually read their introductory material--spent all my
time reading posted papers and such. They've been up to more than the rest
of their webpage necessarily shows!

Enjoy!
Paul


stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
 RV Science 
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/56)

 09:25:08

~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000001-000100---------

> Scientific and spiritual communities have developed arbitrary assignments such
as conscious,
> unconscious and super conscious, or body, mind and spirit, to describe
seemingly separate functions
> of a functional whole. In the esoteric teachings we have 3 vehicles, which go
from dense matter to
> subtle energies; physical, emotional and mental, all of which are animated by
the living breath of
> spirit (life) and come under the leadership of the soul (individualized
consciousness) . Each of
> these aspects of our being have differing functions; physical (third
dimensional vehicle of expression
> and experience) emotional (vehicle of communication... not intended for
constant drama) and mental
> (like the software program which takes the available data and stores/ presents
it in a usable fashion)
> and the soul the keeper of the purpose.

This is indeed from the human perception and perspective of itself.

> The more society evolves, the more our minds develop, the further we get away
from our natural selves,
> and project arbitrary judgments of superstitious nonsense on natural
experiences until we learn not to
> trust or recognize them. That does not mean that our souls stop
communicating, but it does mean that
> the impressions, perceptions, and sensations sent into our daily mix will be
interpreted by the mind,
> and either validated or invalidated. There is an old programmers saying
"garbage in, garbage out".
> man has evolved into amazing problem solvers, we demonstrate everyday things
tantamount to miracles.
> Yet some problems allude us. I suggest that in society as with individuals
problems that will not
> solve, or get bigger no matter what you do are false problems. False not in
that they are not genuine
> problems, but false in that we have incomplete or inaccurate perception of
what the real issue is.
> Trust of our innate selves has been trained out of most of us, the modern
resurgence of spirituality
> is an attempt to reclaim our birth right.

Can't argue there. But just to be meticulous, I would like to point out a few
things. I believe it should
be that society (people's mental conglomeration and agreed upon rules of
behavior) dictates our mores and
the more we acknowledge societies' principles without question the more we
reduced our perceptions
[philosophical introspection]. Science, by default, is reductionism followed
blindly. It is expansionism
applied rationally with no prejudice [scientific introspection].
Also, "problems that will not solve" may be due to improperly applied solutions,
like the right CONTENT in
the WRONG CATEGORY. Like constantly using statistical data to prove an esoteric
point. Somehow, the
agenda switches to using science to validate one's conviction to others, which
up to now has been futile
to the progress of the nature of Psi. Statistician can't even agree on their
figure, muchless the
dumbfounded, unschooled bystanders that are struck with a tower of formulas to
INTERPRET. That's
reductionism at its worst. As far as false problems and solutions the answer is
using False Data Stripping
(a borrowed concept and terminology not of my own).


> In altered state RV we train to maintain the ability to communicate in that
slim window,
> where the primary consciousness has fallen asleep, because it is in that
window that target can be
> experienced and congruent data retrieved with out the filter of the minds
interpretation. If the
> viewer falls asleep the session is over and the data is useless.

Sounds like my period in time when I was learning to meditate. :-)


> Psychologist study man as a stimulus response animal, in so doing they have
cr