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
