Missing Malaysia flight a mystery

Chakra

New Member
AlexDiC said:
No wreckage found in the water.

With all these "viewers".. that visit this site....why am I the only one that posted their work. Only takes 10 minutes.

I heard last night on coast to coast both host and expert guest... both thought it landed.

This morning I heard there is evidence the plane flew for 5 hours after transponders where turned off. Plane is worth $230 million. Add anothe $239 million, 1 million per passenger ransom. . Could be someone's idea of a get rich quick scheme. .

Makse me think that there really aren't any viewers here.
Yup :) so let the conspiracy theories continue! lol I haven't tried yet - but if I do I'll post it too.

Apparently the pictures of debris were completely false.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/metro/Malaysian+aviation+chief+sign+missing+MH370+plane+spot+shown/9611214/story.html

Pictures released of the 2 people that used the stolen passports.
http://www.vancouversun.com/videos/recommended/video.html?embedCode=MwNGw0bDqJCJlxYlUIbaco-OeTW9jz_V
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
Makse me think that there really aren't any viewers here.
Did you task yourself, Alex?

Did you know what the target was before you 'remote viewed' it?

The reason I ask is that most remote viewers work under correct protocol - eg blind to the target, ideally double blind - and that it may simply be a case that the viewers here have yet to be tasked this target. Perhaps they've added it to their target pools. Perhaps their taskers are waiting a while before tasking it to them.

It's a huge (and slightly inflammatory) assumption to state that there aren't any viewers on a forum simply because it isn't instantly crawling with instant-a-sessions on a recent high profile mystery.

Marv
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Marv: I posted the cue I used. Indeed a Front Loaded cue.. I was trained to do front loaded cues.. Harder to do, but since I have no idea what the answer is.. it's not a problem I routinely do it this way with success.

"instantly crawling with instant-a- sessions" okay... That's fair. But I would expect at least a few viewers would post their work. It does not take that much time to complete a session, so I'm trying not to be critical.. Just trying to encourage viewers to post some work. Step up. Stand up for your work.. have some fun. learn and be amazed..
 

suspect_0

New Member
AlexDiC said:
Marv: I posted the cue I used. Indeed a Front Loaded cue.. I was trained to do front loaded cues.. Harder to do, but since I have no idea what the answer is.. it's not a problem I routinely do it this way with success.

If what you are saying is true then you have pretty much wasted 2 years or posting NON rv related
stuff on this forum. Your trainer has a lot to answer for lol You now admit to performing psychic feats knowing upfront what the target was and consider this not to be a problem?

When you say "with success" does that include the recent failed frontloaded Oscar session where you drew a space shuttle ?

The problem with RV today is bigger than I realized.
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
Marv: I posted the cue I used. Indeed a Front Loaded cue.. I was trained to do front loaded cues.. Harder to do, but since I have no idea what the answer is.. it's not a problem I routinely do it this way with success.
Cheers for clarifying. We're speaking a different language I'm afraid, Alex - for me 'remote viewing' is all about scientific protocol, use of blind/double blind. What you're doing is like running a placebo test when you know from the start that you're the one taking the placebo - non-scientific, non-valid.

Marv :)
 

AlexDiC

New Member
It is being reported that flight 370 continued to fly as much as 5 hours after it was missing. A range of 2500 miles. Reports are that it appears to be a deliberate act versus a catastrophic failure.
Perhaps my set which suggests that it landed.... might seem more possible now? Or maybe just a placebo... non valid? Whatever...

Seems to me either a viewer is acquiring useful data or they don't. I drive the RVmobile earned from useful data. Or maybe that porsche is just a placebo...
 

Solaris

New Member
This is getting more and more mysterious every time they throw another confusing piece of information.
I had the "impression" ( 3 days ago) that there was a light/fire around the plane and that they crashed/landed in remote location/jungle -wet, humid, lush vegetation/gorge? and that the plane can still be seen as a plane ( not just in pieces) and there was a landmark -a waterfall of significant height but with thin stream of water and some lifeforms alive but I can't tell whether they were from this plane or just were attracted to this place....
 

AlexDiC

New Member
suspect ... :

Suspect writes: "If what you are saying is true then you have pretty much wasted 2 years or posting NON rv related
stuff on this forum. Your trainer has a lot to answer for lol You now admit to performing psychic feats knowing upfront what the target was and consider this not to be a problem?"

Something Ingo Swan wrote: If a psychic (viewer) is working alone and does not know the target, we call this "solo blind". This is not the same as "single-blind," which implies someone with the viewer did know the target (that would be out of protocol). Solo blind just means the 'double' is "not applicable," because the viewer was alone in the room from start to finish.
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Marv writes:

Did you task yourself, Alex?

Did you know what the target was before you 'remote viewed' it?

The reason I ask is that most remote viewers work under correct protocol - eg blind to the target, ideally double blind - and that it may simply be a case that the viewers here have yet to be tasked this target. Perhaps they've added it to their target pools. Perhaps their taskers are waiting a while before tasking it to them.


Ingo writes: If a psychic (viewer) is working alone and does not know the target, we call this "solo blind". This is not the same as "single-blind," which implies someone with the viewer did know the target (that would be out of protocol). Solo blind just means the 'double' is "not applicable," because the viewer was alone in the room from start to finish.

Of course I didn't know what the target was! That's a whole point.. to acquire the target. Swan suggests that it's in protocol and correct as double blind "just means the "double" is not applicable". So Ingo calls it "solo blind", I call it front loaded. Same thing.
 

Gene_Smith

Administrator
Staff member
AlexDiC said:
So Ingo calls it "solo blind", I call it front loaded. Same thing.
Absolutely 100% wrong, they are not and Ingo never said they were the same thing, never.

Gene
 

Mycroft

Active Member
CNN is a sock puppet for the CIA put into place during the Iranian Hostage Crisis so on as scale of 1-10 in believability, I give them a 7, just enough truth to suck you in to believe the disinformation they are constantly spewing.

ref.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/13/world/asia/malaysia-airlines-questions/

But I believe the Wall Street Journal more than any other mainstream publication and I do buy their story. Sure it could all be disinformation but for what purpose?

ref.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304914904579434653903086282

Here's the thing, the US government isn't just going to come out and tell you they know where every speck of lint is in our atmosphere and beyond is. Or that they sat by and watched a plane go off a flight plan and disintegrate when it flew on automatic pilot until it ran out of gas. Or what is more likely it was shot down because attempts to contact the crew after four hours of flight failed, probably so it wouldn't crash into a city or something. They can't just tell you that.

Why did China offer bogus satellite photos?

It is a big story and it didn't 'just happen'.

ref.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2579955/US-officials-convinced-two-separate-communications-systems-Malaysian-jet-DELIBERATELY-shut-14-minutes-apart-emerges-aircraft-pinging-FIVE-hours-vanished-flying.html


Mycroft
 

Don

New Member
Makse me think that there really aren't any viewers here.
With all these "viewers".. that visit this site....why am I the only one that posted their work. Only takes 10 minutes.
BTW Front Loaded session .. the viewer doesn't know the answer.
One thing is certain: we now know there is one person here who is NOT remote viewing after all.

There are people who frequent this site who have dedicated a fair portion of their lives to remote viewing. Some - like me - have been not only remote viewing but striving to learn everything we can about it for over 15 years. Some people enjoy sharing their work online. Some don't. Some people like being targeted anonomously by online target pools. Some don't. Some like ARV. Some don't. There are now many different approaches to methodology. Because we each have our own lives, our own interests and our own reasons for approaching RV and the RV community the way we do, ALMOST everyone is polite, empathetic, and non-challenging. In fact, the best viewers seem to represent those qualities the most. Remote view long enough and you reach a point where you have nothing to prove.

As diverse as we all are, the one thing that brings us together, the one thing that we all come together on is the protocols - the protocols that are the very definition of remote viewing. You, Alex, challenge others, implying that you are the only remote viewer here, when in fact, you are not remote viewing at all.

The sad part is that there ARE ways to employ frontloading in applications. But those occasions are very few and very touchy and are usually employed only after at least one double blind session. And only the most experienced should approach it because it seldom does anything but damage your RVing abiliity in the long run. I've been remote viewing for 15 years. I've done over 8000 practice sessions during that time. And yet I don't feel that I have enough experience in tasking viewers to know how to properly implement frontloading.

One thing is certain. When you choose the target yourself, THAT level of frontloading is so beyond the pale that it doesn't come close to qualifying as remote viewing - not under any accepted protocol anywhere... ever. Call it "psychically derived information". Call it "intuition". Call it whatever you want. But don't call it remote viewing. By doing so, you only damage the RV field, the RV community... and your place within it. Don
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Don: You might be right.. As you "all" define RV. Sounds like everyone defines it slightly different. When you say "WE now know", who are you speaking for?


See... I was personally trained by Retired Major Ed Dames. (I was told by him that he was personally taught by Ingo Swan/ he calls himself Ingo's protégés) For weeks ... 8-9 hours a day, Ed and I sat across the desk from each other going through the protocols and doing sessions. I was asked to join his RV team 2003-4 and for several years I worked with him searching for missing children. Ed and the team cleaned up several times in Las Vegas together. In fact he wrote in his book that I, along with Brent and Dawn were the best viewers he every trained. (maybe he was just being kind)

So, I view exactly the way I was taught and the same way Dames does.

I thought it was great training. I have had great success with it. As far as I can tell, I have made more money using RV than any other viewer.

Over the years I have reviewed different RV sessions, produced from different RV techniques. Clearly I am more comfortable with my/Dames/ technique, but I never found any other type of RV work to be remotely as clear and accurate as what Dames taught me...

Who trained you and what tangible results have you achieved? Thanks Alex
 

Kiara

Member
AlexDiC said:
No wreckage found in the water.


Makse me think that there really aren't any viewers here.
Well... the way you talk. I hope to see your name on the viewers list for tonight's mission.

http://www.dojopsi.com/tkr/rv/studios/goview-mission.cfm

-----------------------

And about that ( and Daz is going to kill me now :'( ) Courtney Brown as just said on his facebook page that he won't do organize any viewing on the plane and I quote :

"Lots of people are asking about using remote viewing to find the missing plane that is in the news these days. It is a good example to use to say that our projects often take a year to complete. There is an extensive time to set up the targets and design the experiment. Then there is the viewing time. Then there is the analysis. This why we only do scientific projects."

About this I will only say: :p ::) ??? :eek: :p ::) :eek: :p ::) 8) :eek: :p ::) 8) :eek: :p ::) 8) :eek: ??? ::) :p :eek: 8) ??? ::) :p 8)
 

suspect_0

New Member
AlexDiC said:
Don: You might be right.. As you "all" define RV. Sounds like everyone defines it slightly different. When you say "WE now know", who are you speaking for?


See... I was personally trained by Retired Major Ed Dames. (I was told by him that he was personally taught by Ingo Swan/ he calls himself Ingo's protégés) For weeks ... 8-9 hours a day, Ed and I sat across the desk from each other going through the protocols and doing sessions. I was asked to join his RV team 2003-4 and for several years I worked with him searching for missing children. Ed and the team cleaned up several times in Las Vegas together. In fact he wrote in his book that I, along with Brent and Dawn were the best viewers he every trained. (maybe he was just being kind)

So, I view exactly the way I was taught and the same way Dames does.
Lets get this straight - you sat in front of the retired Major, he gave you fully frontloaded targets for hours on end, claimed it was ok to do fully frontloaded targets and he told you this was how Ingo trained him ???

 

Don

New Member
Hi Alex,

When you say "WE now know", who are you speaking for?
I'm speaking for myself and I suppose for those who, like me, ascribe to the peer-reviewed, laboratory-designed, scientifically accepted protocols as originally developed at Stanford Research Institute. These are people who have stated (often repeatedly and vehemently) in public that, for PSI perception to fit the definition of "remote viewing", those protocols must be followed. SOME of those people are Joseph McMoneagle, Edwin May, Dean Radin, Charles Tart, Fred "Skip" Atwater, Ingo Swann, Richard S. Broughton, Palyne Gaenir, Gary Langford, Charles Puthoff, Brian Josephson, and many people who frequent TKJR like Eric, LD, Tunde, Gene and many more. I don't presume to speak for them. But I do presume to know how the feel about the paramount importance of the protocols.

Here's a quote from a post I made in a different thread. In that thread, the issue was someone in the room knowing what the target is and whether that invalidates the exercise as being remote viewing or not. That's a slightly different issue but the important points are the same:

We often forget that the term "remote viewing" originally was coined to put a label on a specific type of scientific experiment. Being a scientific experiment, the protocol is paramount. The ingredients necessary in that protocol are not only the double blind. Also included are things like (1) a specific target, the parameters of which are known and articulated beforehand (which excludes common fortune-telling staples like "past-life readings, "romantic outlooks", "life readings", "lucky numbers for the week", etc.), (2) no frontloading of any kind (which can exclude the remote viewing of the same "type" of target repeatedly. So the remote viewing, in succession, of the Pyramids, the Sphinx, the Sphinx temple, and King Tut's Tomb might constitue a kind of frontloading), (3) blind judging (meaning the judge cannot take part in any other aspect of the remote viewing effort in any way), and (4) verifiable feedback (which technically excludes, to one degree or another, targets such as UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster. At least, until feedback on those subjects is obtained).

As PJ alluded to, these - and other aspects of protocol - are the very things that define RV and separate it from all the other "iffy" practices that have been historically referred to as "psychic" (and, because of their lack of protocol, may or mat not be truly "psychic" in nature - there's no way to know with any certainty because of their lack of protocol).

What has happened over time is that the term "remote viewing" has come to be used to refer to the activity of PSI reception, as opposed to the conditions under which PSI reception occurs (the protocols)
Those same issues apply to our discussion here.



In fact he wrote in his book that I, along with Brent and Dawn were the best viewers he every trained. (maybe he was just being kind)
And I'm sure you are. I have no question about your remote viewing ability. Where we differ in is the definition of remote viewing.



See... I was personally trained by Retired Major Ed Dames. (I was told by him that he was personally taught by Ingo Swan/ he calls himself Ingo's protégés) For weeks ... 8-9 hours a day, Ed and I sat across the desk from each other going through the protocols and doing sessions.
Here you have mentioned one issue that probably lies at the heart of our differences. What Ed Dames (and some of the other CRV trainers) refer to as "protocols" are more accurately termed a "methodology". The "protocols" are the rules under which the psychic perception takes place or, as in the case of when RV was first being developed, the rules under which a scientific experiment takes place (and remote viewing, after all, was originally coined to refer to a scientific experiment. There were many methodologies that were tested and used throughout Project Stargate. But there was only ONE scientifically-accepted, peer-reviewed protocol. And the foundation of that protocol is the double blind and the complete absence of frontloading.


Over the years I have reviewed different RV sessions, produced from different RV techniques. Clearly I am more comfortable with my/Dames/ technique, but I never found any other type of RV work to be remotely as clear and accurate as what Dames taught me...
And I'm sure it works for you. It works very well for others as well. The methodology is not the issue. The issue is the protocols. Any methodology can be used. As long as it is done under the scientific controls (the protocols), then it is remote viewing. As McMoneagle used to say (paraphrasing), "I don't care if you stand on your head in a bucket of pea soup and whistle Dixie to produce your information, if you do it under the protocols, then it is remote viewing". See, I'm not questioning your training, your ability, your accuracy or your experience. I'm questioning the fact that you have stated you are producing PSI information outside of the protocols and are calling it "remote viewing".

As I stated in my previous post, there actually ARE some very limited ways of using frontloading that have been generally accepted (at least among the Ft Meade unit). But they always entailed a previous double blind session, and then in a second session, the RVer might be asked to expand upon something he has already perceived, under protocol, in the first session. And even THAT would likely not be accepted by science, especially since that approach was never published nor peer-reviewed.

This area has long been a bone of contention in the RV community. Ingo trained people to RV with a "training methodology". That's fine for training but not for remote viewing. Being frontloaded or having a frontloaded monitor is like having training wheels on a bicycle. Until you take off those training wheels, you aren't really riding that bike. The problem is that many in the Ft. Meade unit, once they started training private citizens, didn't tell people that. McMoneagle states that he has answered hundreds of emails and letters from people who learned to RV frontloaded or with a frontloaded monitor who then realized that they couldn't really remote view - once they tried to work double blind. So many people were taught a methodology that works great. But they were never inoculated with the knowledge of the protocols, the very rules that define remote viewing, that make remote viewing what it is.

That does not mean that you can't remote view. Daz and others who use the CRV method (and that's what Dames' method is) work targets double blind and do a fantastic job all the time. It's just that it sounds like the primary, no-exceptions, paramount importance od the scientific controls - the protocols - were never taught to you. Many other people are in the same boat. Do the same thing you have been doing and having such great success with, only do it under the double blind, no frontloading protocols, and no one can argue with you about it.


Who trained you and what tangible results have you achieved?
I discovered remote viewing in late 1997. I guess I'm a "natural". I've experienced psychic events all my life. But I was always very skeptical and I knew how it easy it is to delude yourself into thinking something is psychic when it is not. So I was very excited about RV. It offered a way to both test and train myself under a scientifically-accepted protocol. At that time PSI-TECH (Ed Dames) were the only people I was aware of that were training people to remote view. The cost was out of the question for me. But then I quickly found Joe McMoneagle's first book "Mind Trek" and I devoured it. Even though Joe said in the book that it was not a handbook for training, that's what I used it for. After having some excellent, amazing early sessions, I began missing targets repeatedly (after many direct hits, I totally missed about 25 targets in a row). I wrote to Joe, explaining what I was doing, how I was setting up targets so they were double blind, etc. Early on, he had the same experience. He told me to stick with it, that I would pull out of it. And I did.

Over time, I developed my own meditative, altered state method - what Skip Atwater termed "ERV" for "Extended Remote Viewing". I communicated with Joe frequently (he wasn't as busy back then and was very, very gracious and helpful with the thousands of my questions and his many helpful suggestions). So, Joe didn't train me. But he did guide me.

(These days, I think the main differences between the structured methods - like yours - and the free-form, ERV methods - like mine - are these: (1) I also weed out the AOLS, but I do it in my head, not on paper, and (2) I don't restrict any type of information from coming in at any point in the session, so even though there are natural "stages" that I tend to experience, I'm always open to the sudden, spontaneous perception of any type at any time throughout the session).

I wanted to learn all I could about RV, so as part of that, I decided to buy a complete set of videotapes from PSI-TECH and I learned Dames' method. Later on, relying on open sources, I learned elements of Smith and Buchannan's approach to CRV. Then I studied Courtney Brown's SRV and a little of Prudence Calabrese's TDS method. What I ultimately learned was what Joe had been telling me all along: it's not the methodology that's important; it's your own innate talent, dedication, and willingness to practice, practice, practice until you're blue in the face.

Early in my RV experience, for about 3 years, I remote viewed 2-4 times daily (usually 3 times a day). And I mean EVERY day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. That's when I was at my best. Later, when I was doing a lot of operational work, I also trained/practiced daily. I was very good then, too. But no where near as good as I was during that period when I was RVing 3-4 hours every day. Practice really makes all the difference for me.

I've done somewhere around 8,000 training sessions and 300-400 operational sessions so far. Around 140 of those operational sessions were done for 2 different private security firms (both owned by the same family) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. This is something I rarely mention because of privacy agreements. Contractually, I can't speak much about them, so I don't. But I loved doing the work and I learned a lot from it. I had to quit in 2008 because my wife was diagnosed with brain cancer and I did nothing but care for her until she passed away (sold the cars, lost the house, credit went down the tubes, etc. but I did the right thing by my wife). During that time, my employers sold the company to a couple who believe remote viewing is "of the devil" - so that was the end of that job, lol. I've never made a lot of money in RV. But, for a time, it did make up about 40% of my income. I've never really been into RV to make money - although I'm not against it! Lol!

When I'm in-practice (I didn't RV at all for a couple years), my accuracy runs about 72-74% and my reliability usually ranges from about 51-88% (as best I can tell, calculating those things scientifically is not easy). The few times I've actually sat down and ran a group of trial sessions (4 times now) and tried to calculate the numbers, that's about where I was. I'm currently trying to get back into practice - and I'm getting there. But, since my sessions are done in an altered state, I can't RV a target in less than 20-30 minutes total. So finding time can be difficult sometimes. Is that what you wanted to know? Don
 
Top