The more you dig into it, the more you slam up against questions about the nature of reality itself. Who is in charge? There are some that say that EVERYTHING that ever happens to you is entirely of your chosing at some level. So if you are walking through the park and lightening strikes you from a cloud 40 miles away and you have half your skin fried off, it's entirely your fault because on some level, you chose to walk there at that time and on some level, you program all your own life experiences. (Interestingly, the longer I live, the more I would not be surprised if this was in some ways at least true)
I remember when I was at TMI, I had some interesting experiences, the most surprising and pervasive of which were continuing dreams about all of us that were there all sitting in a room together and discussing our experiences and what had happened and will happen to each of our physical selves while at TMI. But we were having this discussion while we were sleeping! But even those who were running the program (the 2 councilers) and were awake were visible there (to me) and taking part in this etheric discussion as well. I would have been tempted to suspect it was imagination (and did at first) until I started hearing stuff in etheric discussion only to have the indentical statements made by the same person later in waking state discussions! And then I started quizzing the other people and verifying what was said to me in the etheric and it was all true! Oh if only I could have such a handle on perfectly accurate dreaming during the whole rest of my life! But instead the experience was only about super boring little details of the other TMIers lives and opinions.
But what it made me suspect was that although we are our own masters so to speak, we also make our otherworldly decisions based on a group effort and interaction. We are always connected and interacting in ways we don't understand well in waking state. (sorry if that got to weird for ya..)
I think the point I am trying to sneak up on is that even if we are our own masters and the viewer is always his/her own master, it may not prevent you from having serious problems, nefarious sneaky taskings, or life altering traumas. (Just as in real life, things happen to us that in waking state we swear we don't want to happen.) Maybe the part of 'you' that is in charge has very different attitudes about what is good for you than the 'you' that is awake right now. We don't know much about the part of us that is 'in charge' and doing the viewing when we are performing our sessions. Maybe that part of you gets a bit bored once in a while and feels a bit of drama might be good for you! ;-P
As for this masking/entrainment tasking thing. I seem to recall it was first mentioned up on HRVG very very shortly after our big discussions on Pru's retrotasking and there are quite a number of similarities, mostly the idea that without asking permission in advance, the tasker can embed one kind of desired data into a session that is apparently on another target, theoretically without particularly requiring the divulgence of the sneaked in data. Theoretically, the viewers need not be ever told about the embedded data, hence the obviousl potential for abuse by the tasker. Since the concept of thought forms and the concept of retrotasking and sneaky embedded tasking were already well hashed out by then, I did not personally find the concept of entrainment/masking super surprising nor super out of the realm of possibility at that point.
The real question is would a viewer have a potential guard against it or could a viewer block it if he/she wanted to do so. Say the viewer was not only not a student of the tasker, but also say the viewer was adamantly against allowing the embedded data and was a strong viewer and thoroughly did not believe in teh possibility of it being possible and in fact did not want it to be possible? Such that the viewer had no waking state reason to be amenable or complicit in the subterfuge. Would it still work? Would the viewing mind even care much about such a small thing as to block it or would such minor influence not even be blocked? Does the subconscious viewing mind even share the exact same moral structure as the waking mind?
Seems to me, so far the experiments were only done on those viewers that were potentially willing and interested to see if the experiment would work. That this could work does not surprise me if the viewers were essentially willing on some level. But what is the same were done on a viewer who (for the sake of argument) happened to hate Glenn, did not know Glenn was the tasker, and would be completely horrified about any attempted entrainment? Would it still work? Of course, then only way to find out would be a very unethical way..
One thing that the HRVG experiment does seem to show, and I think we have seen this before but I think it does bare noting, is that it's entirely posssible for many different viewers of many different methods, to get very very similar data on a target that DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST other than in the mind of the tasker. Just because data corresponds does not mean the target is real. It could be in the mind of the tasker only. It also implies that strong opinions and belief systems may also have the power to corrupt viewers, especially those viewers who have a desire to please and who are pleased when they see their data corresponds with the other viewers. Hence the traditional desire in CRV to keep things secret and prevent chitchat between viewers on important operational taskings where you want data to be as accurate and uncorrupted as possible.
By the way I agree about what someone else said, that in many ways, this does have a lot to do with remote viewing, even though in other ways, it doesn't. Ever notice lately that the most interesting threads are not about classical rv? Maybe it's cuz it's new stuff that is more interesting and hasn't already been talked to death with the same conversations over and over and over..
-Eva
