Next President of the USA?

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
PJ said:
I will say that with experience, being "off-target" becomes more rare for sure, and the chronic process errors gradually reduce (one hopes), so on the whole one's work feels a lot more reliable than when they began.
To clarify, or later I will end up regretting the words I used for that:

Evaluation of 'on-target' without carefully selected targets and a judge -- meaning self-evaluation mostly -- is a pretty 'soft' measure to say the least. Probably, our evaluations in the early days vary wildly in both directions.

Until a viewer develops a certain level of skill where in a hard protocol the data is pretty specific (and this includes not having 15 pages of 'other' data as well of course), the sort of session whether it's going to be "obvious" whether the viewer is on vs. off-target, evaluating this is just casual. But at that point, it can be taken more seriously and since usually most of the more egregious 'process errors' are also more rare then, the overall result is much better.

I don't know that the underlying target-contact-ability improves. The science lab implies -- remember their measuring means differ, and are consistent, and have measured a few viewers over decades -- that target contact operates rather like talent would, in music or sports. You have what you have. There might be a genetic component. Of course, practice and coaching and many other things can eventually change your experience of that talent and your performance with it a lot. But it doesn't necessarily make you more talented; just more skilled.

This is a point of debate in the larger field so I should be clearer, is all. Target contact is one thing (psi talent, I'll call it). Viewing skill is another. You can train skill, but you can't bestow talent.

Though since as some like McMoneagle say, the amount of viewing dependent on psychology is "all of it," it's possible that talent and skill are both lovely things but that the crux of the matter lies with psyche adaptation more than anything.

PJ
 

fletch

New Member
snorble said:
Isn't it amusing what high standards the cynics have?

Without those standards they would have to face reality and their cynicism/self sense of prestige and in some cases income would go poof.
 

fletch

New Member
PJ said:
Er, I hope it goes without saying that if someone who knows the target is sitting three feet across the table from the viewer, the protocol is not RV.

PJ

It is worth mentioning. RV info is all over the net but not everyone knows how to dig for it. Even when they find it they may not know if what they found is the real deal or a load of for profit horse puckey.
 

AlexDiC

New Member
My test for "real" is if your technique produces accurate TANGIBLE results...

What is everyone else's test?
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Let me clarify.... Real is if your technique "produces CONSISTENT accurate results".

I suppose anyone could hit a target from time to time. In fact, I've taught many viewers and very often their first set is nearly perfect... than they start to think and it takes months of training and practice to get passed that hump and return to accurate work.

Only good techniques with a skilled and practiced viewer produces CONSISTENT accurate results. That's real to me..

Anyone else? There is a fair amount of talk on this site about "real RV protocols" Anyone care to define their standards of real RV?
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Feel welcome to start a thread on the topic Alex.

We have over a decade of people fighting over the topic in the archives but there's always room for more. ;-)

PJ
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Trump up by 4 points

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch
 

snorble

New Member
You give the only poll that shows Trump in the lead. Literally every other national poll shows HRC as +5 or +10.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Further, every gambling establishment that will let you wager on this has HRC at a significant lead, and the lead is only growing, even after the FBI said she broke the law.

6/2, HRC at 68.75% to win
6/22, HRC at 76.19% to win
7/6, HRC at 77.27% to win

I don't like either candidate. Trump might still win. But there is currently zero evidence that suggests Trump is the favorite.
 

fletch

New Member
If one were to watch ALL the news one might find it interesting if either candidate stays out of jail much less takes office. For instance,,,

~Racketeering Lawsuit Exposing Nationwide Vote Rigging in DNC Primaries Could Derail Clinton [There's a LOT of evidence supporting vote rigging to include it actually being televised live on CNN. If anyone wants the link say so and I'll post it.]
Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/election-fraud-rico-lawsuit-alleging-widespread-e-vote-rigging-dnc-primaries-derail-clinton-nomination/#CdhjWm0xIdjCbdiW.99
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/election-fraud-rico-lawsuit-alleging-widespread-e-vote-rigging-dnc-primaries-derail-clinton-nomination/

~Lawsuit Charges Donald Trump with Raping a 13-Year-Old Girl
http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

Then we have the racketeering suit against Trump for Trump U which may be followed by racketeering charges for Trump I.
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Okay. Trump is now the RNC candidate. A few more steps closer to the presidency.


My RV application determined that Trump shall be the next president in January... 8 months ago...
 

Omega

Euphoria = Hitting the Target !! : )
Ha ! NOT According to this group !

https://www.amazon.com/Remote-Viewing-Hillary-Clinton-Presidency-ebook/dp/B00YYVF6ZK/ref=pd_sim_351_8?ie=UTF8&dpID=51jeaA5%2BNAL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_OU01__BG0%2C0%2C0%2C0_FMpng_AC_UL160_SR100%2C160_&psc=1&refRID=KD489MDG8WBTNRTPSHMN

It would be nice to know more about this group, as they appear to be churning out books by the score, so the amount of Sessions this group must be doing....is well for the want of a better word....massive !
 

Gene_Smith

Administrator
Staff member
Looking at all those titles it seems like they've got themselves covered for plenty of various outcomes, e.g. here are just two of the book titles they have for sale:

Remote Viewing the Donald Trump Administration: Troubled Times Ahead

Remote Viewing the Hillary Clinton Presidency: The Inevitable Disasters Facing the USA
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Yesterday I received a set from a good viewer of a blind target. Using the same Next President Cue that used in January.

The viewer produced a nice "tall rectangle".

The analysis is simple.... which is the two options (Tower or country home) most closely matches the RV session is the answer.

Clearly it matched Trump Tower. This set is consistent with work completed January 2016.
 

Attachments

  • 20160819_062740.png
    20160819_062740.png
    134.3 KB · Views: 3

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Cool.

Trivia questions:

of a blind target.
Blind, double-blind, solo-blind?

Using the same Next President Cue that used in January.
1. What specifically was the 'tasker intent'?
2. What specifically was the 'cue'?
3. Were you the tasker?

The viewer produced a nice "tall rectangle". The analysis is simple.... which is the two options (Tower or country home) most closely matches the RV session is the answer. Clearly it matched Trump Tower. This set is consistent with work completed January 2016.

Oh so something about those options was in your #1 (tasker intent). Sorry maybe I should have read backward in the thread as a refresher.

I consider the entire political cycle a train wreck, but I'll take a novel trainwreck over the same kind we have every four years (since I believe "novelty" is critical to allowing change and creative evolution), so I kinda hope you're right. Probably we're all going to hell in a handbasket anyway, and best if historians aren't blaming the final crash on a woman. ;D

PJ
 

fletch

New Member
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438430/hillarys-senate-record-bill-renaming-nyc-building-her-single-success

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/photos/slideshow.html
 

Mycroft

Active Member
Wow, after watching a few videos this morning, maybe the task should be does Hillary make it on her own strength to election day? She appears to have very serious health problems.

Mycroft
 

fletch

New Member
With her wearing glasses as a sign of brain damage, her dysphasia and lack of physical and mental stamina to take on Isis it might be a close call. ::)
 

AlexDiC

New Member
PJ: I set up the cue and sent the TRNs to a good viewer, slipped it in while we were working on a different project... as a "calibration target"... keeping the viewer "honest" .

My "intent" was to present a few TRNs (on and off the project that I am current working) and see if I can extract useful data and have a high confidence level.
 
Top