• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • The warm heart and beautiful soul of viewer Elizabeth Ruse, Australia, has left our lonelier world. We will miss her so very much. - PJ
  • TKR's dojo at dojopsi.com/tkr/ is open.

Hi I'm new and I need help

#1
Hello to all, I need some help when it comes to RV. I always have trouble seeing full images, only clues (bits, parts, pieces) but not enough so I can get an idea. I'm not frustrated or anything, I'm patient but I wish my images were clearer. I'll give you three examples so you can get an idea.

1. The other day I was practicing on TRK sessions, I meditated for about 15 min.on the target code and I wrote my details. The only thing that came to my mind was something/an object white or yellow/tan/beige in color that was bent at 45deg. angle. What do you know? After writing all my notes and clicking to see the target, it was a picture of the Dalai Lama sitting in a chair in a prayer position. I had then realized that I had seen his arm. lol.

2. The second example is a session that I did this morning. At first, all I saw were small white dots on a black background and that image kept popping up. After a while, I saw something white with a curvy bottom. After 15-20 minutes, I wrote my notes and checked the target, it turns out it was a white crystal with spikes and a somewhat curved bottom on a black background.

3.The third example is from a month ago. Right into the meditation, I saw a long white vertical stick/bar/object. I knew definitely it was white and vertical. Checking the target, it was a far away picture of a tall white christmas tree in snow with the sky above it; the length of the tree took the full size of the pic.

So there you have it. From what I "see", I couldn't possibly guess what the target is and I wish I were better at it. One thing I am sure of is that, looking at the pattern of my notes, I tend to see basic shapes and colors first but then that's it. I know I can do better though because there was one day, I practiced and the image was clearer than I'd ever seen images and I had 90% of the picture correct with a few details missing. So that's my dilemna. Does anyone know what I could do to see things clearer?

Ps. Someone please let me know if I should be posting this somewhere else. Thank you.
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
#2
Hi and welcome to TKR,

Are you using any structured approach or are you just cooling down and atempting to 'see' the target? The main thing you DON'T want to be doing is straining for visuals as this can lead to all sorts of AOL; using a structured approach like CRV will help you with this.

Marv :)
 
#3
Hi Marv, thanks for the welcome.

I think in a sense I am attempting to see the image. But I don't think I'm straining because I always take time, and I leave 'space' for the images/clues/feelings to come in. Once I see parts of an image or other images, I intuitively know which one(s) belongs in the picture (ie- the crystal in front of the black background, I knew there was a black background - the Christmas tree- I knew the object was white and vertical.

I don't really have a structured approach because I found out I could do this by accident. I was curious doing some research on metaphysical powers and the different types of psychic abilities. I kept trying a few to see if I had any of them and failed (lol). Then I came upon RV, and did a few practices on other websites before finding TRK. I used the websites' approach which is to cool down/meditate for 10m, 'open' yourself to view the objects and write down everything you see/feel. You can imagine my shock when I saw something for each of the pictures that came up the first times. I thought it was either pure coincidence or I was going nuts.

I decided to stop being afraid and thought, if I could actually do this then I was going to work on it. That's what I've been doing ever since, just practicing using the cooling down method.
 
#4
Well, that's a normal starting place - actually maybe a bit better than "normal". A gestalt, a general overal sensation of what the target is... but not being able to draw all the elements together and make a detailed plan of it, a breakdown in history, all the different elements.

In CRV terms, in my opinion, you are about stage 2-3. Stage 1 is basic gestalt, stage 2 gives some general feelings about the target, Stage 3, you start getting more visual and dimensional data. Stage 6 is when you have gathered enough data to be able to recreate the target as a 3D model, using clay or similar modelling material.

Now, if you want to read some of the free material on this site, be my guest. They should (especially the Paul Smith "Official CRV manua"l on the pane to the left of this page) give you some idea of where you are and where you can go. The Open Source is a slight reworking of that by Daz, stage 5 is different, but it's pretty much the same apart from that.

See, "Remote Viewing" is a misnomer. The visual sensations you get are usually not correct - generally speaking, if you get a fresh, clean image, it's not the target as such. Such a "Bi-location" is marked as a "Bilo break". You get back to neutral and try again.

ERV - Extended Remote Viewing - is based around going to a trance, an "altered state of consciousness" and again getting information. Different approach and training to CRV - Controlled Remote Viewing. Which is much more of a "sit at a desk with pen and paper" method. With ERV you are still supposed to make session data (a written record) but you have to wait until you are out of the trance state. With CRV - you write as as you view, as you are in a relaxed, but conscious and able, state of mind.

This part of the forum is for Daz Smith (of 8 Martinis) to set targets for CRV - making sure people get the recording of the data right, making sure they understand what parts of CRV information go on which part of a session sheet (a written record of an RV attempt, completed before feedback of what the target was is given to the viewer).

Have fun, there's a LOT of stuff to read here. There's even more at Daz' main RV information site, which PJ has gracefully admitted now contains more information than this site (but a LOT is shared between them);-

http://www.remoteviewed.com

and the magazine Daz Smith produces, downloadable or paid for printed copies at;-

http://www.eightmartinis.com

Incidentally, I came into this as a complete skeptic. "What? That's got to be complete nonsense. I'll soon prove them wrong..."

... er... I haven't proved any viewer wrong yet.
 
#5
:)

Hello Lovepurple

Welcome to the dojo. I have found that being able to get bits and pieces has lead to some excellent results. When I first started in RV about 6 years ago I thought I was suppose to name the target. Since that time I have personally learned that in attempting to name the object in the target I actually messed the session up. By continuing to practice, the faint visuals, bits and pieces that continued to repeat themselves in my practice started to be more recognizable to me. I learned that my mind perceives data in a similar way. Sort of like having your own ideograms and they become familiar after time.

Also, I have experienced loads of pure enjoyment in trying different methods/systems, combining them, and learning what works the best for me.
Sounds like you are off to a solid beginning. What was shared with me when I first started is that the world of viewing is a journey that takes time to develop, much like any other skill.

Lucky for us the dojo is a wealth of information with experienced, friendly admin, and viewers willing to share and lend support. Have fun!





Rev'sdrag
 
#6
Hello Rev'sdrag:

Very interesting comments you make there. Your sessions are often mind-bogglingly accurate and I'd like to ask you a question about how you process the data when you view.

There are two approaches to processing the data, it seems to me. In CRV and offshoots, you write down everything that comes into your mind. No exceptions. This leads to a lot of data, naturally enough. How much of it is accurate depends on a lot of factors.

On the other hand, Joe McMoneagle, one of if not the best viewer out there, has said that he sorts things through in his mind and only writes down some of the material. What makes it onto the page is the result of many hard years of learning to filter the data (and he never stops learning, he has said elsewhere).

How would you describe your method of processing the faint bits, etc. that you get?

Cheers,
Jon