Missing Malaysia flight a mystery

AlexDiC

New Member
Very sorry to hear about your wife.

Well.. All my work has been directed at producing tangible results.. So far so good.

Pyramid don't interest in. Missing planes.. I'm good for a 10-12 session.. *Now if Mr. Brown could reproduce the method of moving those rocks around form information gathered from his RV. well I would impressed.

In the Spring I will have an opportunity to complete my career in RV with ... hopefully... the retrieval of a very valuable item(s) once lost to history. (not the Holy Grail as Ed's book suggested that I RVed)

Should I be successful.. I will likely move on my way... content. Alex
 

Don

New Member
Alex,


Very sorry to hear about your wife.

Thank you. It was the toughest thing I've ever gone through.

Pyramid don't interest in. Missing planes.. I'm good for a 10-12 session.

To each his own. I'm interested in both.

The missing Malaysian plane is a difficult situation to remote view and stay within the scientific protocol. But it can be done. Here's how I remote view recent or current events and stay within protocol:

For years, my wife kept a practice pool of around 50 to 200 targets. She was constantly creating new targets for me. They were usually photos sealed in envelopes and tossed into a large box. Every time I would do a session, she would mix the envelopes up, pull one out at random, assign a random number to it and write that number on the outside of the envelope. Then she would just tell me the number. I didn't even touch the envelope until after the session. That way, no one knew what target I was working at any given time - a perfect double blind (even what some call a "triple blind") situation.

The problem was when someone wanted me to do an operational session or a session on some current, on-going, or recent event. With 200 targets in the practice pool, it could conceivably be over a month before it came up randomly. So here is what we did:

Every week, my wife would randomly select around 21-32 envelopes from the pool and set them aside. That was my practice pool for the week. Then the operational target (or the target about a current event) that needed to be remote viewed quickly could be sealed in an envelope and mixed into the smaller "weekly practice pool". Since I was doing 3-4 practice targets daily, I was certain to get to the operational or current event target within one week. With this method, even if I knew what the operational target was about, I was able to remote view it double-blind because I - nor anyone else - never knew when it was the target I was working that day.

This is a great method for maintaining the double-blind when it is just the remote viewer and the tasker working together. But to get to a target immediately would require a third person to make the target number hand-off between the tasker and the remote viewer. As long as the tasker doesn't come in contact with the viewer before or during the session, the double-blind is maintained. This method isn't as "blind" as the first method I described because there IS someone who knows what target you are working - the tasker knows - but it does satisfy the protocol requirements.

By the way, I did a session on the Malaysian flight early this morning. Since I knew exactly what the target was, it wasn't a remote viewing session though. I just refer to it - and all sessions where I know what the target is - as an "intuitive session".

Since I was working totally frontloaded (something I'm not used to), after a night of insomnia with zero sleep, and after hearing Ed Dames on "Coast to Coast" talk about his results remote viewing the plane (which really messed with me, I couldn't get his claims about what he perceived out of my mind); I don't expect to achieve any accuracy on this at all. But I was up, couldn't sleep, and I was bored - so I thought what the hell, give it a try.

What I perceived involved a terrorist act involving the Captain of the plane and one other person. The co-pilot was not in on it at all. I couldn't get anything about the terrorists' affiliations or motives. I perceived a crash in an area that is "going into the Gobi Desert" (my sense was that the crash site is at the southern-most edge of this desert, right on the edge of it). I had no idea where the Gobi Desert is, although I've heard of it before. It seemed that the plane crashed into a very pointed mountain and that the plane was moving very fast and flying very low (3000-4000 ft.).

After the Intuitive Session, I pendulum dowsed a free-hand sketched map of that part of the world, basing my sketch on a map of the general search area that I found on a news website. I usually suck at dowsing, so I don't expect much accuracy there, either. The location I dowsed was in the northwest area of China.

Afterwards, I decided to see where the Gobi Desert is. So I googled it. I was surprised to find that it is exactly where I placed my "X" on the map when I was dowsing. That gave me a little confidence, especially as it does lie within the general search area. So it is within reason that the plane could have ended up there.

One thing that kept nagging at me, though, is that I was also getting a strong sense that the plane has gone into the water at a location between Australia and Africa, exactly straight west of Madagascar, closer to Australia than Africa, about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way across.

But - as I said - I don't expect much success with this. To me, out-of-protocol Intuitive Sessions like this one are fun but I don't like to do them very often. My fear is that it tends to lead a person toward relying on frontloading. Also, it seems like when a person works under the scientific protocols, where there is absolutely no way to perceive the target except through psychic means, that's when PSI works. So, we'll see. Don
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Don: That was a long explanation..

With all due respect, I am a decade or more past having any of those concerns. I made thousands of envelope practice targets when I was "practicing" RV.. I don't do that any more. Practice is over.

Either I accurately the target and the data is useful or it isn't. Front loaded targets aren't an issue..

A few weeks ago. Russell Targ presented his book at a lecture I attended in my town of Sausalito CA. He took the group through a: "what's in my backpack RV session" .. I just did a quick 5 minute session and sketched the scissors he had in his bag.. I had a was simple symmetrical winged looking thing.. I had no idea what I had sketched until he showed the target. That is a front loaded target done under poor conditions .. Targ talking over my shoulder the whole time guiding the group to quiet their minds, relax, sketch the first thing that comes in your head... etc. harder to do than blind targets... but infinitely doable.

A decade or more ago, working in the field with Dames, he would rush us back to our hotel rooms, he would give us a TRN and we would complete a full session for the next cue to the missing child.. tough, stressful conditions to produce good work.. and if you didn't acquire the target, Ed would send you home. I recall one time, one at a time, 6-8 viewer marched into his room and he asked each viewer separately while the others waited outside his room, to mark the center of the paper with The some name of a School (which none of us knew anything about) and quickly draw a line from that "school" in the direction of the murder's house. After you did your work you could quietly sit and watch... all 6-8 viewers drew the EXACT same direction from the school. we still couldn't find anything.

Like.... I tried to say, I spent 10-12 minutes with the cue: [Malaysia missing plane/ current location]

I acquired the target in a hangar.

I would NOT spend any more time on it because it's simply not fruitful. Like chasing murders and missing children. No one is going to listen to me, nor should they, I could be wrong and therefore it's not really useful.

Even if I accurately acquired the target... much like Bin Laden, where I clearly acquired his location (I posted the work earlier in this thread) my data isn't helpful enough to be that useful. Simply there are a million different hangars that plane could be in.. I'll never find it.

I only work on "practical" targets that have distinct tangible returns.

Be good. Alex
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Here is one US General's opinion of where the plane is.. It's a match for my work completed last week March 12th. Before anyone was talking about the plane landing intact.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/03/19/could-missing-plane-be-held-pakistan
 

suspect_0

New Member
AlexDiC said:
Here is one US General's opinion of where the plane is.. It's a match for my work completed last week March 12th. Before anyone was talking about the plane landing intact.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/03/19/could-missing-plane-be-held-pakistan

Fox News? Might as well be the National Enquirer - Firstly there was not enough fuel onboard to make it that far, secondly why would Pakistan allow a hijacked passenger jet fly into its airspace? but more importantly it is still not evidence of remote viewing whatsoever. You were completely frontloaded when you did the task. At best we can say (assuming your theory turns out to be correct) you made a lucky guess. It happens we all get lucky but quit calling it RV.

If the plane was hijacked (looking that way) and they turned off transponders (which someone did) and they did not respond to any request for identification over foreign airspace ... it will be shot down.
No one in their right mind is going to let a hijacked plane not responding, approaching secure air space at low altitutudes anywhere near a legitimate target. It will be shot down and most likely all traces covered up
with a news black out.

If the plane did land somewhere the country which allowed it to land would have alot to answer for.
 

Chakra

New Member
suspect_0 said:
AlexDiC said:
Here is one US General's opinion of where the plane is.. It's a match for my work completed last week March 12th. Before anyone was talking about the plane landing intact.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/03/19/could-missing-plane-be-held-pakistan

Fox News? Might as well be the National Enquirer - Firstly there was not enough fuel onboard to make it that far, secondly why would Pakistan allow a hijacked passenger jet fly into its airspace? -------------------------------

If the plane did land somewhere the country which allowed it to land would have alot to answer for.

I am getting the feeling that that is the point which means that this is possibly another attempt at a 'false flag' event.

One that would make the warmongers of the world really happy to exploit - in the creation of another world war that is. What better way to piss off Pakistan than to accuse it of hijacking a plane full of Chinese. The Chinese of course would then want to invade and rescue a plane that is technically to far to travel and thus not even there.

The new map showing the distance it could reach is way farther than the first map that came out.
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
Chakra,

The plane crashed into the ocean, been saying this from the very beginning,
How or why it crashed is still a mystery but there is no way in hell it would have
landed on a remote airstrip, parked into a hanger as some psychics are
Claiming. This is why RV should be done blind never frontloaded. Any potential
news story real or imagined will be included in your data.

Any RV teacher or guru teaching their students otherwise is a fraud.

"By thier fruits you shall know them"
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Mr. Suspect: You might be a bit naïve. I don't know.. Pakistan harbored Bin Laden for years.. Why would you believe they are now playing it straight?

As for where the plane is.. I did my work, and to accommodate your very strong feeling about the definition of RV, I'll call it "Monkey Business", I did my monkey business and acquired the target on land in a hangar, not a crash site. I have know idea where it is exactly other than on the ground. I certainly don't know if it's accurate... I need the feedback to determine that. Perhaps when and if they locate it we'll all find out just how accurate my "monkey business" was. Until then...

Mr. Tunde: You seem very confident the plane crashed, sound like you have done a set on the plane or is it just a guess? I assume you are a viewer, did you do a set and what did it show? But in keeping with Mr. Suspect standards.. Mr. Suspect will need to know all the details of just how the work was set up.

Like most weekdays, I did some "monkey business" on a winning sports team last night. I use a compound cue with 3 embed picks in the directive cue. I use a cue that directs me to acquire the Max Money Line Pay Out Winner. So in last night's Card we had: Team A @ +110, B @ -115 and C @ -120. I acquired team B @ -115 as the Max ML Pay Out Winner on the Card. That mean team A @ +110 (which if it should win, should have been acquired since it would return more than team B, so it must be a loser) Logically, I reversed the pick on team A and played team B in a two game parlay and it paid out 3.5 to 1 more good "just lucky" results from my monkey business work. Taught by a "fraud". Wow, like Marv says... shame on you, no need for inflammatory comments, we're all friends here.
 

Don

New Member
Alex,

Don: That was a long explanation..


With all due respect, I am a decade or more past having any of those concerns.

Which concerns are you referring to? My last post was about describing a targeting methodology for operational targets - a methodology that maintains the double blind and, at the same time, enables the target to be worked relatively quickly when your entire remote viewing effort is made up of only 2 people, the tasker and the RVer.

Sorry my explanation was so long. But this is a legitimate concern for many remote viewers who are trying to work operational, current event targets and have no one - or only person - to task them, and most importantly, who need a way to maintain the double blind while doing so. What is your method for maintaining the double blind when working current event, operational targets? Do you have one? The reason I ask is because that's exactly what our original disagreement (and your disagreement with others here) was about - that you are working totally frontloaded and still insist on calling what you are doing "remote viewing".

With all due respect, I am a decade or more past having any of those concerns. I made thousands of envelope practice targets when I was "practicing" RV.. I don't do that any more. Practice is over.

You no longer practice/train? Hmm. That's interesting. I've been remote viewing since late 1997 (for around 16 years now). I've done around 8,000 training sessions to-date, yet I still try to train every day. Every one of the greatest remote viewers, the best ever documented in laboratory environments (I'm talking about Ingo Swann, Joe McMoneagle, and Gary Langford, etc.) train daily. Gary Langford said he does 6-12 sessions daily. In 2006, Joe said he still does 3-6 targets daily - and he's been remote viewing since the 1970s. Mcmoneagle, in his book "Remote Viewing Secrets", said that, as a remote viewer, your accuracy is something you can never relax with, that no matter how long you've been RVing, accuracy requires constant, daily practice. I agree. It's like a major league baseball pitcher. It doesn't matter that you've reached the major leagues, performance still relies on constant practice. In fact, remaining in the major leagues DEMANDS it. The better you get, the more your performance requires constant practice.



Either I accurately the target and the data is useful or it isn't. Front loaded targets aren't an issue..

Frontloaded targets are EXACTLY the issue. That's what our disagreements is all about. Remember?

You described working the missing Malaysian flight totally frontloaded (you even chose the target and that's about as frontloaded as a viewer can get). Then you said it seemed that there were no other remote viewers here because you were the only one who had done that. Several people (me included) replied that you were NOT remote viewing because your work on the missing plane was completely outside of protocol - and it is THE PROTOCOL that defines remote viewing. When you said we seem to have varying definitions of remote viewing, I explained that there is ONLY ONE definition that is scientifically-documented, published, peer-reviewed, and scientifically accepted. I explained how that definition is the ONLY ONE that is accepted by every scientist involved in the development of RV and every great RVer from Swann to McMoneagle to Langford. And THAT definition precludes frontloading.

Russell Targ presented his book at a lecture I attended in my town of Sausalito CA. He took the group through a: "what's in my backpack RV session" .. I just did a quick 5 minute session and sketched the scissors he had in his bag.. I had a was simple symmetrical winged looking thing.. I had no idea what I had sketched until he showed the target. That is a front loaded target done under poor conditions

No, that's not really a "frontloaded target" because you, as the remote viewer, were not given any information about the target. That's a "monitor-frontloaded target" - and totally outside of protocol, by the way - because Targ acted as the monitor for the group and he knew what was in his backpack.



I recall one time, one at a time, 6-8 viewer marched into his room and he asked each viewer separately while the others waited outside his room, to mark the center of the paper with The some name of a School (which none of us knew anything about) and quickly draw a line from that "school" in the direction of the murder's house. After you did your work you could quietly sit and watch... all 6-8 viewers drew the EXACT same direction from the school. we still couldn't find anything.

Do you realize how out-of-protocol that exercise was? It violates protocol on so many levels... First, your tasker/monitor (Dames) was present and knew what the target was (that's "monitor-frontloaded" and that violates protocol). Second, each remote viewer knew what the target was (that is remote viewer-frontloaded and that violates protocol). Third, after you were done, you sat and watched the others do their work (that is other people present knowing what the target is - no blinding WHATSOEVER (much less double blind) and that violates protocol.

The fact that you all drew the exact same direction is no surprise at all. In fact, it is completely expected in that kind of situation. That exercise is a PERFECT example of why the protocols are so important. Not only were you all target-informed, you were likely unconsciously reading the body language of every one else in the room - especially Dames' body language, since he was acting as your tasker and leader. That's why you all came up with the same direction. And that's likely why you couldn't find anything.

The situation/exercise you described is classic. In fact, I don't think I could come up with a better example of what happens when protocol is not enforced. In contrast, working alone and in-protocol, McMoneagle has found upwards of 20 or more missing people. I should note that Joe also still practices daily, by the way.

I acquired the target in a hangar.

I would NOT spend any more time on it because it's simply not fruitful. Like chasing murders and missing children. No one is going to listen to me, nor should they, I could be wrong and therefore it's not really useful.

For me, that's what was really nice about working with private investigation firms. For once, someone was actually applying my RV data and I got a chance to see how RV works on-the-ground, in the real world. Sometimes though, it was a little deflating. I wish I could have done a lot more. But I really learned a lot - especially regarding RVs' limitations and the important things to think about regarding how best to apply RV to different situations.

Like.... I tried to say, I spent 10-12 minutes with the cue: [Malaysia missing plane/ current location]

I wish I could do such short sessions (although my work on the missing plane wasn't even remote viewing. That's why I called it an 'Intuitive Session'). Since I do primarily ERV, I have to spend time (usually anywhere from 5-30 minutes) getting into an altered state, just going down into my "zone", all before I even begin to open to the target. But Fred "Skip" Atwater said that's why he named what I do "Extended Remote Viewing"; because it takes more time than CRV. It does take longer, but I love the experiential nature of ERV, the sense of "being there".

1 more good "just lucky" results from my monkey business work. Taught by a "fraud". Wow, like Marv says... shame on you, no need for inflammatory comments, we're all friends here.

Did someone say you are "just lucky"? If so, who? Guess I missed that.

When Tunde said:

This is why RV should be done blind never frontloaded. Any potential
news story real or imagined will be included in your data.

Any RV teacher or guru teaching their students otherwise is a fraud.

He is absolutely correct. If you pay someone to teach you to remote view and that person teaches you that psychically perceiving while frontloaded and in the absence of a double blind is indeed Remote Viewing, you have been defrauded. You have been lied to or misled. As I described in an earlier post, this is NOT merely Suspect's definition of remote viewing. And those feelings are not necessarily "very strong". They are simply correct. And every one who is truly, legitimately involved in remote viewing and understands what separates RV from all other activities that are referred to as "psychic" feel the same way. It is those very rules that make RV what it is. It is those very rules that have given RV the respectability it has garnered.

All this does not mean you cannot remote view. It does not mean you are not a good, or even excellent, remote viewer. It simply means that the term "remote viewing" does indeed have a definition. It does indeed mean something. And that definition precludes frontloading and the working of non-blind.


Don
 

tbone

Active Member
Semantics means something some people and nothing to others. It makes it more difficult for people to communicate if we don't use the same language.
 

AlexDiC

New Member
okay ... interesting.

Look ... I have one interest only.. applying my "Monkey Business" to producing useful tangible results.

All the other stuff is of no interest to me..

I do "live" targets most ever weekday. That is..... "live" not "practice" sessions with specific tangible result in mind.

I have no interest in Pyramids, or Aliens, Kill Shots and most recently endless debates on definitions. Please be my guest, call what you do what ever you would like.

My "Monkey Business" IS producing useful data for me and that's all I care about..

Marty Rosenblatt was the man that encouraged me to "share" what I was doing.. In as much as Marty often talk and he would said we were the "only" two groups actually doing anything with our Monkey Business, and that my group was well ahead of his work.. Now Marty may have a different opinion, since I'm pretty sure he doesn't want o deal with me anymore because I keep telling him that ARV is flawed, he has made it overly complicated with wild cards, etc. I understand, that's his "baby" and he has lots of time invested in it to agree with me. Yet from time to time I get these emails from him excited about a particular session, only to find out that it still didn't produce an accurate winning pick. In defense, he says, something like.. "you can expect ever session to be accurate" Seems like everyone need to keep their ego intact. Me too I guess..
 

AlexDiC

New Member
I realize I have gone far a field .. sorry

From 10-12 minutes of work that I did, I acquired the Missing Plane intact on the ground. Anyone do any sets on it?
 

Chakra

New Member
Tunde said:
Chakra,

The plane crashed into the ocean, been saying this from the very beginning,
How or why it crashed is still a mystery but there is no way in hell it would have
landed on a remote airstrip, parked into a hanger as some psychics are
Claiming. This is why RV should be done blind never frontloaded. Any potential
news story real or imagined will be included in your data.

Any RV teacher or guru teaching their students otherwise is a fraud.

"By thier fruits you shall know them"

Tunde,

Not sure why your still being so confrontational with your comments to me - no where have I said or ever did say it landed anywhere - I am only responding to the information given in the fox news link. You seem very sure that the plane crashed - well fine - but until feedback comes out on that - it is still no different than people saying it didn't. Just your opinion over theirs.

Basically I am just commenting on the fact that fingers are started to be pointed by the General et al on Fox regarding Pakistan.

"SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: This is a FOX News alert. My next guest, Lieutenant General Tom McInerney was among the very first to say that the Malaysian airliners jetliner could have been hijacked and it could have landed in Pakistan. "

Frankly - I don't care about what any psychics are saying and haven't linked to any of them and I am very aware that CRV or RV is done blind. Though Lyn has also said - they didn't always get that luxury and one had to also just suck it up and put it aside.

And unless I am tasked blindly during a practice session by someone like Teresa, Daz or Paul on Focal Point - I have no intention of doing this target. Those that come here I assume are not also or have done so and want to discuss it. I have noticed many are not coming on this thread so I assume they are working on it and don't want to talk about it.

You might want to address someone else regarding being taught by anyone fraudulent, as the people that I have taken classes from are all professionals in the industry and would not fit in that catagory at all. I was trained to do CRV, I follow the protocols, military style, and from the very first class I would not take any form of front loading at all.

So technically your trying to preach to the choir.

Cheers
 

Don

New Member
Alex,

I have no interest in Pyramids, or Aliens, Kill Shots and most recently endless debates on definitions. Please be my guest, call what you do what ever you would like.

That's the thing. There is and can be no debate on the definition of remote viewing - in other words, the scientific protocols. That's because it is the protocols that have lifted remote viewing out of the morass of ridicule, lack of acceptance, and skepticism that every other psychic activity suffers from, bringing the practice to a level that cannot be intelligently ridiculed by any one knowledgable about the subject. And when you take into consideration the fact that many of us here have devoted a fair proportion of our lives to remote viewing, anyone attempting to lessen or confuse the protocols and their importance can expect a lot of disagreement here. We don't like to see damage inflicted on something that means so much to us, and ignoring or confusing the protocols damages the very heart of remote viewing. There is endless room for debate on thousands of tangential RV-related subjects; all those issues that surround RV and its' application. We do that here all the time. But NOT the protocols.

I've tried very hard to explain what those protocols are, why and how they were created and developed, and why they are so vitally important to remote viewing and the future of remote viewing. But the fact that you wrote "call what you do what ever you would like" tells me I have failed. You still don't understand the importance of the scientific controls that define RV. So, I give up. I'm done.

Good luck in what ever you choose to do. I just hope you stick with your new name for your practices and continue to refrain from calling it "remote viewing". Don
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
Chakra said:
Tunde said:
Chakra,

The plane crashed into the ocean, been saying this from the very beginning,
How or why it crashed is still a mystery but there is no way in hell it would have
landed on a remote airstrip, parked into a hanger as some psychics are
Claiming. This is why RV should be done blind never frontloaded. Any potential
news story real or imagined will be included in your data.

Any RV teacher or guru teaching their students otherwise is a fraud.

"By thier fruits you shall know them"

Tunde,

Not sure why your still being so confrontational with your comments to me - no where have I said or ever did say it landed anywhere - I am only responding to the information given in the fox news link. You seem very sure that the plane crashed - well fine - but until feedback comes out on that - it is still no different than people saying it didn't. Just your opinion over theirs.

Basically I am just commenting on the fact that fingers are started to be pointed by the General et al on Fox regarding Pakistan.

"SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: This is a FOX News alert. My next guest, Lieutenant General Tom McInerney was among the very first to say that the Malaysian airliners jetliner could have been hijacked and it could have landed in Pakistan. "

Frankly - I don't care about what any psychics are saying and haven't linked to any of them and I am very aware that CRV or RV is done blind. Though Lyn has also said - they didn't always get that luxury and one had to also just suck it up and put it aside.

And unless I am tasked blindly during a practice session by someone like Teresa, Daz or Paul on Focal Point - I have no intention of doing this target. Those that come here I assume are not also or have done so and want to discuss it. I have noticed many are not coming on this thread so I assume they are working on it and don't want to talk about it.

You might want to address someone else regarding being taught by anyone fraudulent, as the people that I have taken classes from are all professionals in the industry and would not fit in that catagory at all. I was trained to do CRV, I follow the protocols, military style, and from the very first class I would not take any form of front loading at all.

So technically your trying to preach to the choir.

Cheers

Chakra,
Apologies I was actually refering to the posts above and the whole frontloading debate in general.
Its a sore topic for me I'm afraid. Sorry you got caught in the cross fire :)

T
 

Marv_Darley

New Member
Staff member
I think Don sums it up pretty well.

It's great that people have a variety of approaches to accessing non-local data through whatever method they choose (dowsing, channelling, etc etc)

The real beef here is essentially starting up a conversation with a bunch of remote viewers whilst insisting that protocol 'doesn't matter' or that we can reduce RV to some sort of generic 'monkey business.'

That's like going on to a golfing forum and expounding upon how great you are at tennis - and then stating when challenged about the relevance of this that 'it's all the same thing because you still hit a ball.'

Imagine the response you'd get from the serious golfers....my guess is it would probably be a lot less measured than the response analogous claimants get here.

Marv :)
 

Chakra

New Member
Tunde said:
Chakra,
Apologies I was actually referring to the posts above and the whole frontloading debate in general.
Its a sore topic for me I'm afraid. Sorry you got caught in the cross fire :)

T

No worries - thanks so much for clarifying that up for me. :)
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Don: You pretty much summed up the reason "RV is no longer real to the world" as Russell Targ said to me a few weeks ago.

You're still in the 1970s pouring over sketches of Soviet Missile Silos. God help me if I attend one more presentation where those sketches are pulled out and displays like crown jewels.. In 40 years of RV the stuff from the 70s is the best we have to display.. Oh I forgot Brown has a brilliant "breakthrough" with Aliens at the Pyramids..

Take off you 2 inch thick glasses and look around. RV ISN'T established, defined and proven as a documented Law of Nature.... it's an evolving process .. that is still developing... Continually being refined and explored.

Who made you the arbiter of what is RV and what isn't? What are correct protocols and what aren't. It about producing tangible results..

Like Russell said to me, .... I wish you success, go make a half a million dollars and tell the world about it. Perhaps that would make RV real again to the world.



STILL NOT ONE SINGLE VIEWER HAS TAKEN 10 minutes and viewed the Missing Plane.. amazing..
 

Chakra

New Member
AlexDiC said:
STILL NOT ONE SINGLE VIEWER HAS TAKEN 10 minutes and viewed the Missing Plane.. amazing..

Just because they haven't posted here or reported to you about it? Really? sigh...
 

tbone

Active Member
AlexDiC said:
Who made you the arbiter of what is RV and what isn't? What are correct protocols and what aren't. It about producing tangible results..

I would say the arbiters of what is RV and what isn't and what are the correct protocols are the people who created it. And they tend to agree with Don.

I wish you much success Alex, but the protocols ARE RV, not the methods. That was determined by the people who created it. If you wish to steal their name, nobody can stop you, but don't be surprised when people point out that despite your successful PSYCHIC methods you aren't actually following the RV protocols.
 
Top