Missing Malaysia flight a mystery

Chakra

New Member
catsavior said:
I tried looking through one of the victims eyes and saw the plane do a nose dive into the water I don't know how accurate it is though
Lyn Buchanan says you know how accurate you are with learning CRV, practice, getting feed back and then databaseing all your work that way you can see where your accuracy lays - other than that its all 'esoteric' or just guessing your right. lol
 

Chakra

New Member
Marv said:
Just wondering - whats your trick eh?
No trick - I've been able to RV since I was born. I just close my eyes and the target appears before me.

Mad, hey? Guess I'm just blessed.

Marv :)

PS Massive asteroid set to hit the planet next week btw. I seen it.
hmm psychic Marv :)

Thought the asteroid was not coming until September or is that another one? http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/2004bx159.html

boy has this thread deviated lol

So what's new with our missing plane?

Been working out of town the last couple days, with out internet access.
 

Don

New Member
Hi Sloaris,

you wrote:


I have learnt a lot from this thread about importance of the protocol and that remote viewers fight for it like terriers.
Lol. I guess some of us do "fight for it like terriers".

If you watch, you'll find that the remote viewers who stress the importance of the protocols are usually the people who have been remote viewing for a long time. There's a couple reasons for that: (1) We've seen many other people, groups, supposed psychics, etc. try to steal the term "remote viewing" and use it to refer to what they do because it was the "new thing" in the public's mind for awhile, the government used it for two decades (giving RV an air of respectability), and because it was backed up by years of scientific research (making it one of the very few areas of PSI that can lay claim to any scientific proof whatsoever); (2) The only thing that ever gave remote viewing any real legitimacy and respectability at all was the scientific protocols; (3) The only way to know for sure, without any doubt, that what you are doing is truly "psychic" is to remove all other means of getting the information, leaving only Psychic means - the protocols do that; and (4) The protocols were almost lost there for awhile.

There is a lot of confusion. One cause of confusion is that many CRV teachers use the term "protocols" to refer to the specific, step-by-step method they use to remote view, when they should be using the term "method" or "methodology". To add to that cause of confusion is this: Any method can be used to remote view; any method can be changed; the specific method used doesn't really matter (whatever works for an individual is the best method for that individual). But the protocols, the rules that insure something psychic is truly taking place, can never be changed - at least not without lots of scientific research, publishing, and peer-review.

Another source of confusion is that CRV is usually taught using a method that is not really a "remote viewing method". It is a "remote viewing TEACHING method". The reason it is not a legitimate "remote viewing method" is that the monitor knows what the target is (so it isn't double blind). This is how Ingo Swann trained the original Stargate CRVers. He would sit across the table form the remote viewers and, with every single perception the remote viewer got, Ingo would tell them if it was accurate or not. The idea was that, through this training method, the neophyte remote viewer would gradually learn what real PSI impressions feel like (versus what imagination and various types of overlay feel like). The problem is that when people are taught remote viewing outside of protocol, they sometimes don't ever learn the importance of protocol (and sometimes they learn to read body language instead of learning to remote view). So, while this teaching method has trained some good Rvers, it also tended to blur the lines between real remote viewing versus a remote viewing teaching method.

See, the scientists who first researched RV suffered lots of criticism from skeptics and other scientists. They kept pointing out non-psychic ways that the RVer could have got the information. That's what the publishing of research is all about. It puts your research out there for other scientists to review (that's called "peer-review") and to criticize. The PSI researchers take their criticisms into account and tighten up their rules (their protocols) accordingly. This happens again and again. Eventually, the PSI researchers have such error-proof, information leakage-proof protocols that they MUST be accepted by other scientists. This is how the protocols for remote viewing came about.

Most people don't realize that, for the entire 20-some-odd years the government remote viewing program was in operation, there was intense scientific oversight. The oversight committee kept a watchful eye on the RV program. The result is two decades of high-quality remote viewing research and, finally, a psychic practice called remote viewing that has some scientific acceptance.

If we allow those high standards to start slipping, then remote viewing will be thought of as being no different than palm reading, fortune telling, and 1-900 psychic hotlines.

I'm glad that some people have realized how important the protocols are. Plus, if you do a lot of reading about RV, you'll see that most all experienced Rvers feel the same way. Don
 

Chakra

New Member
Don said:
Another source of confusion is that CRV is usually taught using a method that is not really a "remote viewing method". It is a "remote viewing TEACHING method". The reason it is not a legitimate "remote viewing method" is that the monitor knows what the target is (so it isn't double blind).
This has not been my experience - I have trained (in CRV) with 4 different people - names you'd recognize and the targets were in envelopes picked randomly (pick a number 1-10) or pick an envelope in a stack of envelopes of targets. No one knew the target ie double blind - occasionally, as the option is given - some people wanted to be 'front loaded'. But this is with nothing more than 'The target is a location describe the location'. 'The target is an event describe the event.' Something like that. Still very vague but more focused - from my understanding this is done so the new student can get a better understanding of how protocols work. Experiencing both blind and double blind. Experiencing the difference is apart of the students learning process and doesn't invalidate it.

Russell Targ was the only one that I did any training with (in RV) that knew 'what was the surprising object hidden in the bag'. Russell Targ though doesn't do CRV only RV. He was also surprised at fact I did much better with using the CRV protocols - than RV 'methodologies' :)
 

Solaris

New Member
Thanks Don. It really does help to understand why the protocol is so important knowing how it had been gradually tightened and the reason for this. This is very logical explanation. I have not found it reading about RV so far, they stress everywhere importance of the structure but it wasn't explained this well ( I have plenty to read still). It just shows how important is not only reading books on the subject but also keep in touch with "real" RV people :)
 

stewart edwards

New Member
Don said:
This is how Ingo Swann trained the original Stargate CRVers. He would sit across the table form the remote viewers and, with every single perception the remote viewer got, Ingo would tell them if it was accurate or not. The idea was that, through this training method, the neophyte remote viewer would gradually learn what real PSI impressions feel like (versus what imagination and various types of overlay feel like).
Funnily enough this is precisely what I am trying to differentially feel when I review the feedback.

If I felt a powerful water flow from above and it was the energy of the Temple mound, I try to feel the difference, using past sessions when I can (but only having done a couple of dozen that has limitations). When I feel overhead light from small windows high up on a wall, and it turns out to be a camera light at that precise position, I try to learn that. When I feel a cone shaped spiral, and it turns out to be round, I focus on that. When I feel metal and there simply isn't any in the photo, I ask myself why (error, camera, etc).

Its the differentials that make it interesting. Like when you feel movement in a water with stone, and you AOL a christening font, when it is actually a stony seabed with fish moving!! Still early days,

Pretty rubbish at people so far [except for my initial few before I descended into aol hell], but not so bad on likely emotions, heat and colours.

Anyhow my point I am finding time spent reflecting on feeling differentials is not only fun but I think productive. At this early stage anyway.
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Stewart: I'm pretty sure what Swann did with "every single perception" was point out the "real" signal line data from AOLs.

Perceptions that a viewer can return to with clarity are always AOL. Signal Line data is fleeting, delicate and the viewer can never return to it with any clarity. See. RV is an attention management skill, that requires the viewer NOT to think or process the perceptions, but just record them on paper.

From your account, and you seem to be all too able to recall these "so called perceptions" very clearly, seem to me like it's a candidate for AOL.

See, the most reliable RV work is work that is relatively meaningless to the viewer, until the cue is revealed.

I recall a viewer that I was teaching did a spot on set of Madison Square Garden, had everything, including the city skyline. When I asked him what he thought it was ... he said "a bowl of popcorn". Another student had what he wrote down "moving water bubbles", in his sketch these bubbles had what looked like legs.. Viewer had no idea what they were. As his analyst it was clear to me he sketched life forms. In fact that IS what people are... walking "water bubbles".
 

stewart edwards

New Member
AlexDiC said:
Stewart: Perceptions that a viewer can return to with clarity are always AOL. Signal Line data is fleeting, delicate and the viewer can never return to it with any clarity.
AlexDiC, I can only explain things as I see them and obviously being a newbie I am scratching my way.

But I think that I can return to some energy streams, as I have, I think, been doing that. For example earlier today, as mentioned above, I felt a strong light source as if it was coming from high windows on a wall. The high windows on a wall, was an aol, but the photo was lit strongly precisely from that specific perspective. Even now, 12 hours later I can still feel that light energy. The rest of the session was pretty much rubbish, though with the right eye you could bend things to fit here and there (eg padded clothes for marine jellyfish things), but that light I can still visiualise it. Had no idea it was coming from a lamp of some sort mind you.

It might be worth mentioning that between 2000-2009 I did a lot of energy work, finding the energy interactions in our daily lives. Not RVing by any means but feeling energy, teaching it and even in 2010 writing a free book about it. So while RVIng is something that I could not do at all until a month ago, feeling energies in ourselves in our daily lives, in organisations and nations, is well something that I have perhaps 15,000+ hours experience of hard reflection, effort and persistence with. Not really done much with it for 5 years so I am a bit rusty.
 

stewart edwards

New Member
AlexDiC said:
Stewart: Perceptions that a viewer can return to with clarity are always AOL. Signal Line data is fleeting, delicate and the viewer can never return to it with any clarity.
Thinking more on this:-

1. Assuming (and this might be a big assumption), but assuming that signal line data in RV is the same as non protocol, intuitive connections then:-

2. Fleeting - agreed

3. Delicate - agreed

4. never return to with clarity - my combined experience of this is rather different, I have extensively played with and tested this over many years. Some "connecting energy" is totally accessible even years later. Offhand I can think of several examples of this (my Greenwich story for those who read that on fb; some things in the masonic world, even the repulsive feeling I got when I accidentally bypassed an intelligence agency once, though it has to be said that many I can not do this with. But some energy connections are substantially more than fleeting. But I accept that these might be different "signal lines" to RV "signal lines". Though at present I think that they are the same, all that differs is that RV is harder as you have the totally blind aspect and you are looking at a random picture not something that you as an individual connected with.
 

Don

New Member
Perceptions that a viewer can return to with clarity are always AOL. Signal Line data is fleeting, delicate and the viewer can never return to it with any clarity. See. RV is an attention management skill, that requires the viewer NOT to think or process the perceptions, but just record them on paper.
Alex is correct here - although I'm not certain that perceptions a viewer can return to are ALWAYS aol. But I do believe they ALMOST always are. This a belief that is standard thinking in all RV, not just CRV. Another is that a strong, stable, static image is usually AOL or imagination.



Cakra,
You wrote:
This has not been my experience - I have trained (in CRV) with 4 different people - names you'd recognize and the targets were in envelopes picked randomly (pick a number 1-10) or pick an envelope in a stack of envelopes of targets.
That's good. I think it's a better way to train because, by training the way you have described, there is no danger of the RVer inadvertently learning to read the monitor's body language.

But I like the idea of letting the new viewer know, perception by perception, when they are on-target or not. I always wondered why they didn't use a system of colored lights (or something similar) to give the viewer constant feedback. Like, say a red light flashes for an incorrect perception, a green light for a correct perception, etc., with the target-informed monitor watching through a one-way mirror or something. This way, the constant feedback could be achieved without running the risk of the viewer reading the monitor's body language. One thing that makes learning RV difficult is that you don't get feedback until the end of the session - at which point it can be difficult to recall what each perception "felt" like.

You wrote:
occasionally, as the option is given - some people wanted to be 'front loaded'. But this is with nothing more than 'The target is a location describe the location'. 'The target is an event describe the event.' Something like that. Still very vague but more focused - from my understanding this is done so the new student can get a better understanding of how protocols work.
This where the subject of frontloading becomes a bit murky. Does telling the viewer "the target is an event, describe the event" really constitute frontloading? Some would say it does, some would not agree. I tend to think it doesn't. If you were doing RV for scientific research, even this small amount of frontloading would not be allowed. But, for training and operational work, I'm not sure I would call it frontloading.

From reading Joe's "RV Secrets", he seems to say - although even this low level of frontloading should only be done by taskers with years of experience in tasking viewers - that, if the frontloading doesn't tell the viewer anything about the specific information of interest, then it is relatively harmless. NOTE: That's merely my interpretation of what McMoneagle says on this subject; I might be mis-understanding him on this.

I think that the tiny amount of frontloading you've described, Chakra, might be helpful to some degree and is most likely harmless. It might prevent the Rver from wasting time describing an interesting person who was present at an event, when the actual event is the target, for example. Without this small amount of frontloading, we are relying on the tasker's intent to specify the exact target and to drive the remote viewer to the information of interest. And although it technically violates protocol, I don't personally see the harm in this type of frontloading in some specific situations. I know some in the RV community wouldn't even term this "frontloading" - while others would say the opposite.

I tend to be an "RV Purist" (which, from reading this thread, I suppose is obvious, lol), but even I don't think this kind of frontloading is always harmful. But, if it IS harmful, I would think that in training situations might be where it is most harmful - only because it might result in the newbie Rver coming to rely on at least a bit of frontloading - if it is done a lot. But, never having trained large numbers of viewers nor going through an organized, formal training program, I'm not certain about that either. As I said, this level of frontloading is where the subject becomes a bit murky. Don
 

Solaris

New Member
I have the same impression as Stewart does that I can keep connection to the signal line ( many past signal lines) as if it was embedded in my conscious? mind, but after trying to go back along this line it is indeed "empty" shell at the end ( with no feelings) but I would not be so sure that this is just the AOL as this is this very unique first perception ( with elements of the image but not the proper image as it has other tangible and intangible components) upon which all the process correctly ( I presume) developed and led me to the target. Is this possible that the signal line is somehow deactivated after receiving feedback?
 

Don

New Member
But I think that I can return to some energy streams, as I have, I think, been doing that. For example earlier today, as mentioned above, I felt a strong light source as if it was coming from high windows on a wall. The high windows on a wall, was an aol, but the photo was lit strongly precisely from that specific perspective. Even now, 12 hours later I can still feel that light energy
To say that ALL repetition of perceptions are AOLs would be - in my opinion - not entirely correct. I've had perceptions repeat. Sometimes it's an almost exact duplication of an earlier perception; sometimes it is changed a bit.

This is a subject I remember thinking about back when I first started remote viewing. "If I get the same perception again, is it another pure perception, or is it a memory of the earlier perception?" The fact that memories and PSI perceptions and memories are so similar makes it difficult to know for sure.

I mentioned, in my last post, that Alex is correct when he wrote:

Perceptions that a viewer can return to with clarity are always AOL. Signal Line data is fleeting, delicate and the viewer can never return to it with any clarity. See. RV is an attention management skill, that requires the viewer NOT to think or process the perceptions, but just record them on paper
But if the repeated perception is also subtle and fleeting, I see no reason it cannot be just as a valid a PSI impression the second time as it was the first time. It is the act of PURPOSELY going back to the same perception that many Rvers believe is an act of the conscious mind - and therefore is not a true PSI perception. But this is just a commonly-held belief. I know of no research that verifies this belief.

Another thing to think about in regards to this subject is the kind of remote viewer we are talking about and that viewers' experience. What the RV community (as well as the outfit at Ft Meade) referred to as "Naturals" (like Ingo Swann, Pat Price, Joe McMoneagle, Gary Langford, Ken Bell, and others) seem to have a totally different remote viewing "experience" than remote viewers who are not "naturals".

Some of the differences between "Naturals" and" Non-Naturals" seem to be: Naturals access the target more easily (meaning with more freedom); Naturals may access the target at any level or any information-stage at any time (meaning naturals may get any type of data at any time, even very high-stage data may occur very early in the session.. They are open to receiving spontaneous PSI impressions. Their approach is not built upon a linear approach of stacked types of impressions); Naturals seem to be more prone to AOLS; Naturals tend to get more conceptual and abstract type of data; Naturals seem to end up with more incorrect data in the session results than Non-Naturals; Naturals seem to have an easier and more innate ability to do some advanced exercises such as controlled movements within and around the target and to perceive words, numbers, letters, and names.

Note: all the above comparisons are only what I've noticed as the way things SEEM to be. They are only my opinions and are not even really firmly-held opinions at that. They are based on what I've seen in the results of various remote viewers, what I've read in the works of various RV authors, and on my own experiences in using different RV methods.

But the upshot of the differences between different kinds of viewers is that I think it is difficult for a Non-Natural to understand the RVing experiences of a Natural. I can easily see how a Natural, especially a Natural with a long history in other PSI practices, might be able to cleanly re-experience a perception they felt earlier in the session. Lots of experience in clairvoyance, scrying, mediumship, energy work, etc., might confer abilities the rest of us have never experienced.

Is this possible that the signal line is somehow deactivated after receiving feedback?
I don't know if it is "deactivated" or not but it would definitely be different. For one thing, after feedback, you are now in a totally frontloaded state. In addition, you have also experienced the target once - via PSI impressions - so now you are also dealing with the recent memory of the signal line. Added to those elements is the fact that you are also bogged down with the knowledge and the thoughts about what you perceived accurately during your session, what you didn't perceive at all (the parts or aspects you missed), and the parts you mis-interpreted or overlayed with analysis, emotion, or aesthetic factors. You are also dealing with the complexities brought about by how you emotionally feel about your RV performance. So there are many mental and emotional factors that would impact you. Personally, I don't know how an Rver could even know for certain if they are really accessing the target a second time - versus just trying to do so but actually merely remembering it. Don.
 

Solaris

New Member
Valuable points made Don. I don't know if there is any connection or side effect of the RV but on few occasions I have experienced deeper perception of memories I have been accessing from time to time ( not using RV). Maybe this is just illusion but I think it is easier to access things in more detail.
 

stewart edwards

New Member
Don, thank you for your considered response, it is appreciated.

Before I focus on one of your comments, let me make clear that I do not consider myself to be a "natural" at RV, far from it, and I am currently in that post beginners deep pit, but some of my own experiences do support what you say.

Don said:
I can easily see how a Natural, especially a Natural with a long history in other PSI practices, might be able to cleanly re-experience a perception they felt earlier in the session. Lots of experience in clairvoyance, scrying, mediumship, energy work, etc., might confer abilities the rest of us have never experienced.
Specifically re energy work, I have substantial experience, a lot of my development in this area is very public on masonic forums since the millennium. I learnt it the hard way with no more than occasional hints that I was on the right track.

That said in a couple of odd circumstances people have referred to me as a "natural" [not in a RV context - but in terms of esoterics more generally]. I have no idea if this is true. All I know is that I found things through living life and was then able to get confirmation that I wasn't going do-lally mad, and that I was then able to explain a lot of it to others in easier terms than the old esoteric texts do.

Some in both the masonic as well as in the conspiratory worlds, once put me on a pedestal, others [especially in the masonic world] make their dislike of me very clear and public. Though most of that I was simply making sense of it all.

The easiest way that I can explain "re-connection" is in terms of reincarnation. If at some time in the past you have had a strong connection with something, it is possible to leave energy traces through the ages that can be picked up on in this lifetime to help you on your way, a bit like a road map. When you peel back the layers and step into the hidden beauty of life the hidden mysteries of life really are beautiful in their elegance and functionality.

But as I have said before I have done relatively little esoteric work over the past 5 years so I am a bit rusty, at the moment.

Not that any of that has much to do with RVing in the scientifically defined way that it is dealt with today (just ordered the Mind-Reach Targ Russell book btw). But esotericly you can argue that I have some quite substantial historic experience of not dissimilar things in a wide range of different circumstances. The main difference from what I can tell is (1) RV is blind and that (2) you probably don't have an obvious specific connection to the target as it is blind - given to you as opposed to you stumbling across it from following your own heart.

Anyhow remember I am in that newbie post high deep pit, so take the above with as much salt as you like.
 

Chakra

New Member
So back to our regular program IE actual topic of thread.... ::)

Diego Garcia military base - so why did the US military not see it? Or have they?

http://devel.malaysiandigest.com/opinion/495483-mh370-vs-the-2004-indian-ocean-tsunami-the-role-of-the-diego-garcia-military-and-intelligence-based.html

"THE United States' being one of the few countries which has the technical resources and capability to locate and recover the missing MH370 has become the point of contention in this article written by award-winning author and economics professor, Prof Michel Chossudovsky which was first published in Global Research.

Chossudovsky likened this situation to that of the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

He wrote : The recent stance of the US military and its failure to act in relation to flight MH 370 bears a canny resemblance to that adopted by Washington in relation to the Indian Ocean tsunami tragedy in December 2004.

Both events pertain to advanced observation and tracking technologies located at Diego Garcia. In both cases the US military remained mum."


And...

http://www.thestar.com.my/Lifestyle/Features/2014/04/04/Where-in-the-world-is-Diego-Garcia/

And...MH370 Timeline

http://cdn.knightlab.com/libs/timeline/latest/embed/index.html?source=0AvQUVdC03s9jdDVDSUdnNXhkeUs5bHIzQ1VGUXhFbmc&font=Bevan-PotanoSans&maptype=toner&lang=en&height=800

To add to WHY it might have gone 'missing'.... some very interesting questions arises.
Corporate espionage anyone?

Anonymous - Rothschilds & Malaysian Airlines MH370 Connection

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKwXDL7loLc#t=105

We'll see what direction this thread goes now... lol 8D
 

Chakra

New Member
Just getting more and more interesting - now a possible military accompaniment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpKot27qbyw
 

Solaris

New Member
Very interesting and as nothing adds in the official story it must be a lie. With so advanced military technology it must be possible not only to know what happened from day one but actually to see it happening. I am sure they have images of this plane in flight ( I mean real images not GPS data). If it was a military operation so what happened to the people?
 

AlexDiC

New Member
still...now after a month... NO ONE, other than me, has viewed the current location of the plane?

I know, I know everyone is busy.
 

daz

Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
no Alex not busy - just working within RV protocol which means we oinly work BLIND targets.
 
Top