Missing Malaysia flight a mystery
- Thread starter Chakra
- Start date
Alex,
You wrote:
Someone other than you HAS talked about the location of the plane. EVERY TIME you say this, I point out that I did an Intuitive Session on this subject (termed an "Intuitive Session" because it was not in-protocol and therefore was not Remote Viewing - and neither was yours).
I came up with 2 possible locations. One was near the Gobi Desert. The other was in the ocean, off the coast of Australia, between Africa and Australia but closer to Australia - actually, it was near where they are picking up Pings right now. I described what I got in this thread, a few pages back. But you keep ignoring that so that you can challenge everyone else here.
Why do you keep challenging people? Why do you have this seeming need to needle people? To insult others, create controversy, and continually re-start arguments? Especially when - as you should have figured out from our long, extended discussion - you aren't even remote viewing? What you are doing is NOT remote viewing. Call it whatever you want - hell, even call it an "intuitive Session" like I do - but DON'T call it remote viewing. And then, please, leave people alone. Give it a rest already. Don.
You wrote:
Someone other than you HAS talked about the location of the plane. EVERY TIME you say this, I point out that I did an Intuitive Session on this subject (termed an "Intuitive Session" because it was not in-protocol and therefore was not Remote Viewing - and neither was yours).
I came up with 2 possible locations. One was near the Gobi Desert. The other was in the ocean, off the coast of Australia, between Africa and Australia but closer to Australia - actually, it was near where they are picking up Pings right now. I described what I got in this thread, a few pages back. But you keep ignoring that so that you can challenge everyone else here.
Why do you keep challenging people? Why do you have this seeming need to needle people? To insult others, create controversy, and continually re-start arguments? Especially when - as you should have figured out from our long, extended discussion - you aren't even remote viewing? What you are doing is NOT remote viewing. Call it whatever you want - hell, even call it an "intuitive Session" like I do - but DON'T call it remote viewing. And then, please, leave people alone. Give it a rest already. Don.
Here we go..
Don: I believe this time this is genuine RV and the target is blind. It can be anything ( describe the engine, describe the colour of the uniform or underwear or whatever( I hope the target is more exciting than that ;D)) and maybe even not related with the plane ....Would it be still not blind? I am here to learn so possibly I am mistaken but...only Alex knows....
Alex: I am really keen to use every opportunity on this forum to learn RV so I just bite seeing coordinates. Last time it was not RV and it was a disaster. This time I hope this is RV as I don't know the target.
Are you going to give a feedback to the people who "accidentally" rviewed the target ( later) or the feedback cannot be given for some reason?
Don: I believe this time this is genuine RV and the target is blind. It can be anything ( describe the engine, describe the colour of the uniform or underwear or whatever( I hope the target is more exciting than that ;D)) and maybe even not related with the plane ....Would it be still not blind? I am here to learn so possibly I am mistaken but...only Alex knows....
Alex: I am really keen to use every opportunity on this forum to learn RV so I just bite seeing coordinates. Last time it was not RV and it was a disaster. This time I hope this is RV as I don't know the target.
Are you going to give a feedback to the people who "accidentally" rviewed the target ( later) or the feedback cannot be given for some reason?
Don: I'll call it whatever I want, thank you very much. I "remote view" every weekday. I "remote viewed" today.
Why do you keep challenging me? Why do you have this seeming need to needle me? To insult me, create controversy, and continually re-start arguments.
You are free to call what you do remote viewing or whatever you want.. it's okay with me...
Bottom line is ... does your work produce any tangible verifiable results? My remote viewing does.
Why do you keep challenging me? Why do you have this seeming need to needle me? To insult me, create controversy, and continually re-start arguments.
You are free to call what you do remote viewing or whatever you want.. it's okay with me...
Bottom line is ... does your work produce any tangible verifiable results? My remote viewing does.
Hi Solaris,
Yes, you are right. being blind to the target, working Alex's co-ordinates would indeed be considered remote viewing.
Alex,
I've been RVing for almost 17 years. I've done around 8,000 training sessions and around 400 operational sessions. I wonder what it takes - in your mind - to not be considered "a novice" anymore.
As for the rest of your posts - we've been around and around regarding this subject. I care deeply about what the originators of remote viewing accomplished, I hate seeing it bastardized, so I try to defend the protocols that define it. I've done that. But I've beat this dead horse until there's nothing left to say that I haven't already said a dozen times and in a dozen different ways. It doesn't seem to be getting through. I'll leave it to others - if they want to bother. Don
Yes, you are right. being blind to the target, working Alex's co-ordinates would indeed be considered remote viewing.
Alex,
I've been RVing for almost 17 years. I've done around 8,000 training sessions and around 400 operational sessions. I wonder what it takes - in your mind - to not be considered "a novice" anymore.
As for the rest of your posts - we've been around and around regarding this subject. I care deeply about what the originators of remote viewing accomplished, I hate seeing it bastardized, so I try to defend the protocols that define it. I've done that. But I've beat this dead horse until there's nothing left to say that I haven't already said a dozen times and in a dozen different ways. It doesn't seem to be getting through. I'll leave it to others - if they want to bother. Don
Don writes:
That's how the people must have felt when it was clear that the "world was flat" and the "sun revolved around the earth" and that "information is forever lost in a black hole". All later proven to be incorrect..
Perhaps you are holding back progress?
Last night I acquired the Red Sox to win and they did. tangible results my friends.. without it RV is just fun without proof.
That's how the people must have felt when it was clear that the "world was flat" and the "sun revolved around the earth" and that "information is forever lost in a black hole". All later proven to be incorrect..
Perhaps you are holding back progress?
Last night I acquired the Red Sox to win and they did. tangible results my friends.. without it RV is just fun without proof.
Attachments
Alex the very fact that you completely fail to understand what Don is explaining to you is worrying. Worrying for you because - literally - your brain doesn't appear to be functioning in a rational manner, processing the information put before you etc. Worrying for us because you're diluting these boards with a nonsensical, disinformative approach to RV that might well cause confusion in newbie viewers.
The statement 'without tangible results RV is just fun without proof', for instance. I mean...like...just...what? :-X
Marv
And on we go. Proof of what? Another non-sequitur rendering further attempts at sensible communication pointless.
Marv
Incidentally - should any people new to Remote Viewing be reading this - the provision of TRNs earlier on in this thread IN NO WAY means that the target is 'blind'. The fact that this is a thread about the missing Malaysian place, that Alex wants to know about the plane etc means that anyone viewing that TRN will be MASSIVELY frontloaded. Colour of uniform, engine, whatever - if you know anything about the target and the intention of the tasker setting it to you then you are NOT blind.
Just to clear that up should any aspiring viewers out there get themselves muddled and find their progress 'held back.'
Marv
Marv,
Excellent point, Marv. I believe that - because the TRN could indeed be about anything - working it would be considered remote viewing. But - as you have pointed out - if the TRN refers to ANYTHING associated with the missing plane, then the RVer is massively frontloaded, making the remote viewing of the target extremely difficult as well as casting doubt upon whether any data the RVer gets is a product of PSI perception or just logical deduction.
Don
Excellent point, Marv. I believe that - because the TRN could indeed be about anything - working it would be considered remote viewing. But - as you have pointed out - if the TRN refers to ANYTHING associated with the missing plane, then the RVer is massively frontloaded, making the remote viewing of the target extremely difficult as well as casting doubt upon whether any data the RVer gets is a product of PSI perception or just logical deduction.
Don