Re: Future makes more sense? Why would that be?
Hi there,
Bran is a really nice guy... and intellegent. He's got interesting things to talk about.
And a fine lookin' one too just to be crass lol. He and Winton are just awesome musicians. It was originally hearing Branford on a Sting album that set me off, though I ended up in the record store buying Winton's stuff (Bran didn't have his own albums then I don't think) and a trumpet.
I realize that '2 clues' is probably not RV protocol.
Actually 'an RV protocol' can be good or bad--it's certainly variable. It is a sort of misnomer when I often say something 'violates RV protocol' but what I mean is it violates a GOOD RV protocol (or 'one that would be scientifically approved, or approved by experts in an operations setting').
It is not a bad thing, what you did, it is just something that I would only use "sometimes" and I would use specifically with experienced viewers. If you've been doing this for four years, that is just fine. There are other issues brought up by this though, which I'll address later in the post.
But isn't it almost like giving someone numeric coordinates? Those are clues, too.... aren't they?
No, that's the whole point of the coordinates is to provide direction but NO 'clue' as to the target. They ceased to be geo coords eons ago and became 'encrypted' and then ceased to be that and just became ordinary numbers--the next database record or log number, or something that itself contains info (like the place, tasker, trial, whatever). You don't need 'coordinates' (a carry-over terminology from the original geo) but some use them, but if the coordinate provides any information about the target it is being done improperly. There would be no point in using or needing numbers if one could simply tell the viewer, "The target is two people."
That was the whole reason they quit using geo coords. Because although the chance of someone actually knowing every building/person/object/activity at every possible coord on earth was ludicrous, skeptics argued that the coords did at least provide intell-savvy viewers (which many were) with an idea about 'where on earth' the target was. For example if the tasking was present time and the coords were Siberia and it was December, they would probably get cold and snow -- not a big stretch to figure out.
But even outside science, it's important for analysis reasons that there be some genuine unknowns to the viewer that are known to the analyst so that they can compare the session data against what little IS known, as a sort of calibration on how seriously to take the rest of their data on things which are not known.
well... anyway they are like training wheels on a bicycle... they are confidence builders. Call is Stage 0.5?? It does away with much AOL so I get to concentrate on actually understanding the target.
In its own way this can be constructive for a viewer. But understand that you do need to be able to do double/solo-blind targets without being told outright what the nature of the target is. If the target is a person, is a boat on a lake, is a skyscraper, is a cave, you need to be able to describe it, one way or another (you may not KNOW what it is, I might add--one of the more frustrating things about RV and which tends to cause a lot of analytical problems as viewers' minds try to guess). A huge portion of "developing remote viewing skill" is learning to sort out in your own head the various feelings, impressions and symbols that relate to 'what the target is'.
Now if you can do this, and you want to go beyond that into more detail, then a practice series where you are frontloaded--which would be less info than you are getting in your 'hints' by the way--would be one way of focusing-in. I might mention that normally, the way this is done is NOT by telling a viewer what the target is up front but rather, by having the viewer do a double/single blind, typical RV session, and then re-tasking an additional session on something(s) of the data from the first session. Usually RV starts with work done within a protocol appropriate for the usage; while some point out it is "faster" to skip a session and jump directly to telling the viewer what it is and tasking on detail, you get into the calibration issue again here, where if the viewer figures out that the target is two people, vs. a skyscraper or cave or 60,000 people or whatever, then they are clearly tuned into the target, so they can continue.
Do you think this practice could hamper my progression, or help develop skills in other areas?
The way you are doing it, it is probably most conducive for skill working within an ARV tasking protocol--not for regular RV, and here is why: you are not actually targeting yourself to describe the target, but rather, to specifically sketch what is seen in the feedback photograph. That is clear by the fact that you only get info reflected in your feedback and that you get it so specifically.
Regular RV would want quite a bit of information, like that the people were female or male, adult, maybe their style of dress, maybe their language, maybe even what they were talking about, or the room they were sitting in or the situation/reason/purpose for their talk. Regular RV would generally not care at ALL about the position they are in at a specific fractional-second-of-time the camera caught, because RV tends to have, even at a narrow point, a larger width of focus. (Only in rare targets for things like physics or genetics is the timeframe likely to be so tiny.)
In short, you are not so much attempting to view your target as your feedback. They are not the same thing.
Now ARV ('associative') remote viewing, is a tasking protocol which, to aid in the viewing of targets which are highly similar or abstract, 'associates' photographs to a given possible target. Viewers provide a session, which gets evaluated, and after the 'event' in question occurs, then the viewer is shown the photograph associated with the target that actually came to be or the thing which really happened. For example (to be simplistic), if the price of Silver goes UP on Tuesday you might be shown a picture of Niagara Falls, and if the price goes DOWN on that day you might instead be shown a picture of a forest, and if there is any other option (e.g., some tragedy closed the stock market) you might be shown a picture of an airplane. What you would be asked to describe on Friday would be "the photograph you will be shown on Tuesday." The more specifically you provide information that clearly matched the photograph, the better you'll do at ARV.
So in ARV, you are viewing the feedback, not the target. And that means that instead of a 'spectrum' of information about the target itself (as described in the example of 'two people' above, from one of your sessions), you really DO want to be as specific to that exactly fractional-second moment in time when the photo was snapped as possible. Your session 'ideally' for ARV would be highly visual and would really clearly show the relationships of the 'shapes' in the target.
In this regard, your sessions are excellent. See
http://www.remote-viewing.com for Greg K's ARV info, and
http://wwwp-i-a.com for Marty R's ARV info. Greg has some of his own sketches on his site (some of his good matches).
It would seem to me that the numbers are for reference & filing... and for the RVer, it's just a placebo....(of course I could be very wrong)
You're right it's for nothing but ref & filing--at least for 'most' belief systems in RV, not all of them as I mentioned previously. The only way I could understand calling a task number a 'placebo' is in the context of belief systems that feel the number itself, or the tasker's bond to it, is creating some extra information.
then instead of our 'future selves' passing down info to present 'us', perhaps in RV we are always simply remembering what we already knew.
Sure, if time is a perception and not an objective thing, then technically all time is now and all space is here, so a target is never actually separate from us in space or time. To the degree we think of it as such, we interfere with our ability to become aware of what we can know about it. Many of the rituals, models and belief systems in psychic work and remote viewing are basically steps to help the viewer mentally accept their own connection to, access to the target.
For example there is the old radio 'Signal Line' idea, which was moved beyond decades ago but there are some who still really use that idea and others who just use it as a 'handy model' in initial training. In a nutshell this suggests that all information is stored in some unspecific mass database called 'the matrix' which is somewhere undefineably 'out there'. And then we are here. And that you send your intent like a database query flying out to the matrix like a prayer to god basically and it gets the data and flies it back along that same carrier-wave to you. It's a charming model, and a great improvement on some of the other more spiritualist ideas like channeling dead people if you ask me, but still rather hilarious in today's world where some understanding of the concept of physics non-locality is beginning to filter in to even laymen.
{Do you not attempt to get other information in a session? Feel/touch, smell, taste, sound, concept, etc.?} What can I say? I am not trained.... I just , do it.
This has nothing to do with being trained--your source of info is a McMoneagle book and he says that part of the process is using ALL senses to obtain any info possible. That is generally natural for people unless they are, without realizing, pre-biased by the term 'remote VIEWING' to assume that it's all about visuals.
However, in the first year into it, I did get 'wet.' The target was a busy waterfall - a number of large rocks sticking out from under the mountain wall produced areas where the falling water would bounce and spray out in white colors... For that one I clearly remember stating that I could not draw it... because 'it was like a movie clip'. I said, 'Its like I'm at a ski resort, and I'm skiing down a mountain... big bounce to the right, turn..go down... big bounce to the left... turn, down... big bounce to the right...turn.. go down.... then I get ALL WET! What can this mean?" Of course I was describing the water falling down and bouncing off the rocks and then finally hitting the river at the bottom. It looked like a ski mountain because the water being sprayed was really white in the picture. This is the only time that I got my other sensations involved, and it's the only time that it was a repeatable 'movie clip' that I could view, over and over again.
I call them 'mini-movies', although I usually experience them differently (as one diff, only once). You were 'personalizing' the target there, which is one way of taking in data.
I'm tempted to think that you have always gotten some other data but been so hooked on the visual focus you didn't think to write it down. For example on the waterfall mentioned above, nowhere did you say 'outside' or 'cold' or 'fresh' or 'white' -- even though I bet all of those things were within your sphere of experience during the session. A big part of remote viewing's hard lessons is that we are usually aware of a ton more info than we actually know, but it takes a lot of practice to learn to fork it out of ourselves and write it down.
A good way to start expanding this in yourself is to do whatever you choose to do normally but add a sort of bullet point list off to the side of your sketches and try to tell something else about the target. Open yourself up--especially AS you sketch--to colors, smells, textures, concepts, ambience, etc.
If you are sketching two people sitting across a table from each other, you have info even in the sketch you could flesh out, stuff you already get -- 'separated by an elevated, flat, hard area [like a table]' or 'female, and female, one has hair to the middle of back' or 'holding something in her hand'. All of these are data points and worth putting in text. While you're sketching ask yourself, what color is the shirt, the hair? If your targets are real (not staged photos like CD collections but news photos etc.) then you can also ask yourself concept questions (e.g. over time you would hope to become aware when the people are international politicians, vs. soldiers, vs. children, and/or what their conversation or situation relates to).
A tasker could take one of your sessions and say, "Describe for me what she is holding in her hand." Then you are back into severely frontloaded remote viewing again--but still, it is psi--and you need to be able to describe it sufficiently so that the analyst knows whether it is a jar of pickles, a baseball mit or a .38 caliber pistol.
How would you rate the pics I did (up on my site)?
As a feedback-focus, they are fabulous. Alas since you were not remotely blind to the nature of the target, having been told 'two people' for example, then I cannot judge anything about the regular/overall remote viewing quality, only how well you described your feedback--which IS a form of psi, still--and it's wonderful.
Can I hope to get much better?
I think it is fairly difficult to continually practice anything and not gradually get better. How much better and at what facets will probably depend on what you choose to focus on. At this point I would say your visual skills are really excellent, and it would be good for you to practice bringing in other senses and eventually concepts into your viewing--in particular in a double/solo-blind protocol.
You really should visit the RV Galleries -- that's
http://www.RVGalleries.com -- and under the heading GO VIEW! click on 'practice' and then do a session and get feedback. You don't have to upload any data if you don't want to share--though if you do, then under the GO SEE! heading, 'practice' link, your session could be seen by other viewers who can comment (sometimes that's helpful and fun). You can actually set a session for an alias or for 'anonymous' if you're shy by the way....!
All the pics in there are 'real' pics (a lot of news and historical and personal sourcing) so they've all got concept in them.
Also, the Galleries offer an option that might fit in well to how you are going about this. (They are pretty flexible, on purpose.) You want some frontloading. A good RV protocol suggests double blind. Well in the personal settings area you can choose categories for targets. There are four 'basic' categories that people get by default: (1) People, General (2) Animals/Critters, (3) Basic Gestalts, (4) Basic Events. Now it doesn't tell you how MANY people are involved -- and since there's nobody potentially in person or by phone telling you, you can't 'accidentally' (through subtle physiological senses) get any more info. But you could un-check all categories but people for example, and then generate practice targets for yourself. It would be up to you to figure out how many people, and anything and everything you could about them and their situation or location or activity. But it would at least be frontloaded to the point of telling you the focus of the photo is one or more people.
(I strongly recommend beginning a double/solo-blind protocol. You seem to have terrific talent, it is such a shame to see you limit yourself. I know it's confusing getting that far, but that's part of learning RV, lol.)
For example, do people actually get to read words off of targeted street signs? content out of books? etc..?
Yes, not a lot of that usually but it depends on the viewer. And 'how' the data comes in may vary wildly and is important to consider. For example some viewers do well at getting the content of a document, but it may or may not be literal words; it may be a general, conceptual translation. It may be a symbolic description of what it's talking about (e.g., the viewer may describe an event which the document describes, or may describe an event or circumstance which is directly responsible for the doc's existence in some fashion). It may have a word or two, or data may be limited to important basics, e.g., "Political" and "French" -- which depending on the tasking needs, could alone be very useful as info.
Sometimes the data is pretty literal but it isn't clear why to the viewer (from McMoneagle's Part-V Japan info, "Joe said he wanted to call it a “sports arena†but that was not what it was, as it was too narrow to be one." -- the target was actually a really big car showroom officially called 'Sports Auto Arena' in Japanese). Some viewers who get more comfortable with viewing numbers may use a symbolic-associative approach, working with their subconscious (consciously) to agree on some symbol which say, will represent the number 4; that's a long-term process and a lot of work but like anything else, can be doable depending on the skill, practice, and psychology of the viewer.
RV will probably never be as literal as any viewer wants it to be. It is often damnably intangible, sometimes abstract, sometimes misses wildly for no trackable reason. Most of what viewers feel comfortable with in RV is how we feel about sessions AFTER we get feedback, and can then fit our session experience into context--but despite the someone inconsistent nature of psi in general, a good viewer can be invaluable if connected with a real need.
BTW, I attemped an OBE last week for the first time. I was lying in bed... i got a white light and a sensation started to come to me, but in that instant that I realized that it was starting to happen...I frightened myself and I literally ZAPPED right back.... I have not been able to return (even to that point) since...
OBEs are fun. You'll do it, it's just that when you think about it you move into 'observer role' which puts your perspective right back into your body. After it happens a time or three you'll be less scared or excited and able to just go with it.
Just FYI, there isn't any evidence that OBE's are literal; it may be a focusing-down (filtering 'as if one were limiting info to body-size' like we do in our waking life) a massive field of info we'd normally, in say dream state, have full access to. Just like your perception of the waterfall rocks doesn't mean you 'left your body and were bouncing around the rocks' -- your "perception" was on the rocks -- OBEs may be a translated perception in which we pay attention and filter in a manner that makes 'leaving the body' feel very literal (and very cool!), but is not actually leaving the body as far as 'you' (spirit? identity?) goes.
Best regards,
PJ
) Do those sessions when you have time to jump in the car and go to the location. Consider the focus of the target to be a 2-minute period when you are standing AT the target location. "Live feedback" often makes the process more fun (and sometimes, the sessions more intense) than still photos.