• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

{Useful4NewFolks} Types of Targets


.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
...... so we have agreed that the hot pink desk stapler wasn't a good target ;D , but what I hadn't considered as a target were emotions.

I have only done targets so far, with the exception of Tundes, that have been pictures of 'something'..and while doing those, I did pick up emotionalities as an aside, not as the main target.

I hadn't considered that a target could also be something like "Describe the emotions regarding this target". What other 'types' of targets are there that don't call for describing the target, but ask you to focus on specific information? I realize phrasing such a target would need great care.
Re: Types of Targets

...... so we have agreed that the hot pink desk stapler wasn't a good target
I haven't had time to follow many of the threads, and I realize that there's probably another thread somewhere with lots of discussion that lead to this post. But, I'm going to risk it and just jump in with a comment. One of the most valuable things any student of remote viewing can do for themselves is to view a lot of simple objects, non-emotional targets. It's easier to view high entropy targets. But it's not a good place to start. If your major focus is on high entropy targets you will effectively dull your sensibilities so that the less glamorous targets will be near invisible to you.



New Member
Re: Types of Targets

Yeah... Some people think bridges and barns and rivers are boring and uninteresting, and volcanos and world wonders (and aliens) are interesting. In terms of generalized interest (ordinary places, people and things, as opposed to always something exciting), I certainly agree that ordinary targets are critical to development, and only focusing on what has a really high interest margin for a viewer can be problematic.

I do agree that we learn what we practice on, so if we learn to ignore non-exciting elements in exciting targets, and we do almost entirely exciting targets, then non-exciting elements that are targets themselves we eventually get will probably get ignored, as that's what we're teaching ourselves.

(As the entropy referred to is a visual measure of shannon entropy, not the typical entropy physics studies, it's difficult to say without detail study of the specific feedback photo she used, what amount of that her target focus had compared to anything else. That measure doesn't always come out like one expects.)

In walking a few folks through practice targets over time I've noticed that when they're tasked with trivia (say, the little plastic mass-produced jesus icon, which was mentioned in a previous thread), they seem to pick up more from the feedback than from the target. It's like the target itself had so little to tune into that their primary source was their own future instead. Tasking on something from a 'moderate' target pool bandwidth (that was a note from the other thread, and related to the stapler target comments), it seems to just vary. Tasking on something that combines an event with a locational photograph seems to pull people into the actual target more (more kinesthetics, emotions, etc.) even if there isn't a human in the event.

I like to mix a variety of target types up and just take them as they come. It is gradually helping get me out of the weird expectation I used to have that every target was a physical thing (for which I would want to come up with physical data... even when the tasking had nothing physical in it).

But when I choose targets that are small objects, I try to choose something that has at least the slightest interest level in it. Like a gemstone for example, or a macro closeup of a bug, or a pretty vase, or something with some interest in the function (for example, I would choose a pressure-cooker pot before a regular kitchen pot, if I had to choose one (for some reason!) for a target, or a super-expensive one that looks golden, whatever).

pdPJ, in initial viewer development, Shelia's right--taskings would be mundane targets, not emotions or whatever.

But technically, anything can be a tasked. Anything. Now, whether any tasking will get you physical data or even 'useful' data, or whether it'll get you data you can render decently into words, is another story of course!

But it's about the same as in active meditations or metaphysics: you can focus on anything and get impressions from it. Sometimes if you are throwing your own targets into your draw pool you may wish to task something offbeat. Or, if you're working from a personology pool, you might as a matter of course focus on feelings as well as many other things common to people.

You can also, instead of describing someone at a given date/time, can describe them at a general phase in their life. This has no specific feedback and so (back to previous posts of mine) isn't something a novice should be doing much if any of, but data comes as well from that as anything else. Taskings, like identity, are an arbitrary collection of energy: the identity of a tasking is defined by what the tasker chooses to include.

If they choose to include something somewhat vague, such as, "...when he was employed at X" or "...during her trial" or "...at the height of her fame" or "...during his most creative moment", those work too. They are difficult as development targets as there is not specific feedback, but there is often some generalized feedback, and they are pretty interesting as 'psychological gestalt' targets. Also you sometimes get a sense of the 'process' and changes in it.

Hmmn, I did say elsewhere I'd try to give examples. OK, here is one, this examples what I'd call a psychological gestalt and a not very specific tasking:

[TDS method Dec02 solo blind tasked via email, FB after session submittal.]

Scan3. excerpts: [begin] a sort of branding, logical yet personal. {AOL person} {AOL situations change} big. specific. look-at-me. [end]

Defined Collection. excerpts: [begin] (Began less certainly; but solidified as it progressed; had a change of plans; an end result finally achieved; it's ok. It suffices.) Everything comes around in the end. A sense of opportunity made into an obligation. Vaguely annoying but in objective state, not in usage. Direction. Not just of physical, but of planning. Allows one to go on. Coming together. Ongoing. Getting ready. Getting there. I'm here. Hey look. {AOL Person} Whee, wing. Extravagant. Flashy. Sparkle or shine. Big deal. [end]

Matrix. excerpts. [begin] The "big" sense is more self importance of target focus than a hugeness objectively. Uncomfortable. Annoyed. Stern. {PD> I am not getting any negative data in this session yet I'm repeatedly getting the personal reaction of not liking the situation...} [end]

Summary. excerpts. [begin] The target contains natural and manmade and organic elements. There is a sense of an "experience" involved and a very negative personal viewer response similar to how I'd feel in a situation of "entrapment"--whether physical or situational--bound to serve out an obligation, and resenting it.

A sense of process; of change, and then finally a resolution which is considered some "balance" or acceptable end. A term; time. {Sudden massive AOL of prison.} ... I sense this target is mundane yet generates resentment; is utilitarian yet designed for a process; some over-arching control is imposed on it. Whether government, regulation, expense, etc. I don't know, only that it creates a feeling of resentment in some. [end]

Target was: Mae West, at the height of her fame.

{Note this was the pic I showed Laurie on the exercises thread, the first page of that session.}

Now we have no way of knowing whether Mae West, a movie star in the old days, really felt a sense of entrapment, or like she was being controlled, or self important. Given the general knowledge in retrospect our culture has about female movie stars in her day, it's not much of a stretch to imagine that being the case, but we don't know.

So as far as I'm concerned, other than what she was wearing in the photo, there is really no feedback beyond the tasking. (And I had no data pertaining to that unless we stretch to use some early data like 'balance; equality of opposites' -- that's an abstract data, not specific physical.)

The session was half-disaster because I was certain (AOL) the tasking would be a physical target, for reasons I won't bore you with related to the circumstance of my taking it, so I kept really trying to find physical data in it, which was distracting.

Also my first impression on feedback--the pic given me wasn't exactly the one you see, the only diff was, she was holding up a glass of cognac it looked like (it was super tiny, but I found a pic from the same photo session nearly identical, even the pose is identical, only what's in her hand is diff), the fb pic I got was so tiny that at first glance at a tiny poor pic, somehow from that I got the impression there was a man standing behind her to the left, in a suit or uniform, and her, and something between them--and that ended up in my session! Not until I looked really close did I realize that was just the play of light and shadow and she was holding the big globed glass.

Anyway so it wasn't a very good session, but I was excerpting the parts I thought would example for you just a few of the kind of situational, or emotional, or "intangible" (non-physical) infos one might get about a target.

Re: Types of Targets

I agree with Shelia that tangible targets are what should comprise the bulk of a beginners training. They aren't really that boring for a beginning RVer, who is usually beside themselves with excitement over the whole process. "It works! It works!" lol. So probably the best time for a remote viewer to concentrate on a lot of physical objects and fairly nondescript locations as targets is in the beginning. The newness of the RV experience goes a long way towards preventing boredom from setting in.

But eventually it does. That's why I think it's a good idea to throw in wildly different kinds of targets after the first couple months. The level of interest generated by a completely different kind of target is accompanied by the slight change in the perceptions the viewer gets. It serves to spur motivation and prevent boredom. Just throwing in an emotionally-focused or aesthetically-focused target once every half dozen targets or so helps a lot. So do esoteric targets, precognitive targets, and outbounds.

This is an area where some very limited frontloading can also be useful, i.e. "Report on emotions associated with the target". This is general enough to not give anything away and at the same time teaches the viewer how to focus on, perceive, and deal with emotional components of targets. Being able to do so adds another dimension to what the Rver is capable of.

Something else to consider is that we all have different interests and what may be an easy target for some may be a hard one for me - simply because of our unique interests. A picture target of a large, multi-decked cabin cruiser would be a very interesting target to someone who is interested in boats and yachting. It would be pretty boring for me. It would be more difficult for me.

But there are many things to gather information about on most targets other than just the physical characteristics or the emotional aspects. RVers may describe the activities present or associated with a target, the history or future of it, the underlying reasons or concepts that support or have brought into being the present target, what the target means to people in a larger context, abstract and conceptual elemements, etc.

If you have a good tasker, these other elements that may not have been reported on give you a way to go back and rework the same target, drawing additional information from it. For example, with the same target resealed in another envelope, the tasker can write on the outside of it "Describe any emotions being generated in the target site". Afterwards, with the target now sealed yet again in another envelope, another question could be written on it "The target is an event. Describe the context within which the event takes place and any underlying factors". Now, if the target in all of these sessions was the assassination of Martin Luther King, for example, this retargeting, focusing on different aspects of the same target each time, begins to tell the whole tale. It also teaches the remote viewer that, in a very generalized tasking, with no frontloading or cueing at all, just how much information there is to ge perceived with almost every target. It also teaches the remote viewer that s/he is capable of getting all kinds of data and teaches them how to do it.

Targeting and tasking, like so may other aspects of remote viewing, is almost another field all by itself. There's so much to learn and so many ways to go about it.


.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
Re: Types of Targets

Would this be an example of some of what has been posted ~

A company has a new invention. They also suspect that one of their employees has leaked the information to its competition. This company hires a remote viewing company to find out the following:

1. has the info been leaked? & if yes, what kinds of information has been leaked & who leaked it.

2. where (location) is the competition working on their prototype

3. They want to know about the 'thinking' that their competition is having regarding this invention.

So, these points would be discussed with the RV company. The company now turn this target over to it's RVers in this way:

For #1:
In an envelope, would be a picture of this invention with this question written on the target ~ describe the person who leaked information about this invention. The RVer would be told this ~ 'our client wants you to describe all negativites that you can about this target"

For #2:
Picture only of target in envelope. RVer would be told this: there are 2 targets which are the same. We need you to locate both of them.

The data produces information that allows the 2 locations to be noted. The client can identify that they are 1 of the locations leaving the 2nd location to be assumed to be that of the competitior.

For #3: Using target picture with this written on it: the data descriptions having to do with the assumed competitions location.
The RVer would be told this: Describe the future of this target.

If what I gave as an example is a good one, can we dissect this to understand how it works: how it should work, what is wrong with how I presented the questions, xyz would never happen because?, this aspect isn't Rving, it is more ABC....this kind of analysis.

If my example wasn't a good one, what needs to be changed about it to make it a good one?
Re: Types of Targets

That's a very good example. It's one of the kind of situations RV is best suited for, where the client can get the most value from it. But you have to be careful. Working this kind of application is moving very close to industrial or corporate espionage. Since the law doesn't recognize RV as a real tool, it's pretty much up to the tasker and the RVer to set their boundaries of what they will and will not engage in. The RVer, who is working blind, must have a clear understanding with the their tasker as to what those limits are.

As to the questions posed by your hypothetical company, I would refuse to deal with numbers 2 and 3. They are too close to industrial espionage for me to be comfortable with. Question number 3 - the "thinking " of the rival company - this issue, what your client company really wants to know, might be better answered by changing the focus of the question. You could ethically target the future of the specific invention both companies are developing and probably get answers that are more valuable to your client and that way avoid privacy issues.

#1. Your first target for the RVer is pretty good. By putting a picture of the invention in the envelope and adding the question, you have tied the two elements together - they are both now the target. But it's a mistake to assume that the invention actually HAS been leaked in the question inside the envelope. We don't know for sure that it has, nor if it has - who did it. A better statement inside the envelope might be something like "describe anything notable regarding the historical security of this invention over the last six months". The RVer doesn't need to be told anything, just let them RV it. Any breaches in security should then come booming into the RVers' mind since it would definitely stand out from the rest of the target elements. The mind seems to be naturally attracted to anything someone is trying to hide, lol. Always be careful not to make any assumptions in any aspect of targeting.

#2. The question now really comes down to what does the client want to do with this situation? Let's say the first RV session indicated that there indeed had been a leak and the RVer gave enough information about the person that the company feels they have been validated in their suspicions. The company now has a crime and a potential criminal to deal with - not to mention the loss of revenue from the invention being stolen.

If the company wants to prosecute, the first session may have given them enough information to call in the police or an investigator. If the first session didn't give them enough to work with, they could ask the tasker to have the RVer RV the actual stealing of the invetion as an event or as a person. Put a picture of the person in an envelope along with the statement "Describe how this person stole corporate information". The Rver could then be told, "The target is a person. Describe this persons' activities". The information inside the envelope will bracket the time that the RVer focuses on. This will most likely give the company enough information to bring in investigators. The Rver may indicate that the information was downloaded from a particular computer onto a disc at a particular time (like a lunch break, etc.). Security cameras may have caught this. It might be recovered from the log of that computer, etc. This is how RV and traditional investigative work can be combined. It may even require multiple viewings of the event from several different angles to get enough information. Other ways to target it could be like this: Put a picture of the invention and a picture of the person inside the envelope along with the statement, "Describe any illegal activity involving both this person and this invention". etc. etc.

Once the information regarding the stealing of the information and the perpetrator has been nailed down and evidence has been gathered to that effect, now is when I would begin to look at what the perp did with the information. Now is when the other company begins to be looked at. But now you're dealing with invading the privacy of another company and you may be drifting into unethical grounds. For example, what if you invaded the privacy and security of the wrong company? Maybe the employee sold the information to a different company than the one that is suspected. Now you've become involved in inadvertantly stealing another companys' secrets for your client company! lol. That's why I think I would stop here. Even if the RVer was able to indicate which company bought the information about the invention, it's not completely ethical to go much further. I'd stop here and turn it over to the authorities.

This was a great question! This is one of the ways that RV can really be useful. As you've already figured out pdPJ, how to best approach the problem and how to best target and cue the RVer requires a lot of thought and consideration. My wife and I have screwed up a few times by not setting up the targeting appropriately. The most important thing is to always make sure you're not making any assumptions in your targeting and cueing - especially in applications where so little is often known about the details of events, people, activities, etc. but so much is awlays suspected by the client.
Best Regards,


New Member
Re: Types of Targets

I don't think I have the time right now to get into that but maybe somebody else does. What you described is (a) more projects than targets (a project contains numerous targets/taskings) and (b) several different ones. How this would be set up really depends on several factors. I would read McMoneagle's Remote Viewing Secrets (or re-read it) as I believe he goes into target delineation and tasking in several different parts of the book, and that might help. -- PJ


.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
Re: Types of Targets

too close to industrial espionage
Thanks Don ~

I'm pleased that I seemed to have grasped what you and PJ were trying to explain to me. I wasn't sure if my example was 'doable'. I see now that it is, however, I never considered espionage or ethics. Those things aside and with your better presentation of the target and how to elicit specific information, lets me know that I am on the right track. :D

Thanks for taking the time to go through that for me Don.

PJ This bookhas been mentioned so many times. I think it's time for me to check it out ~~ so I can be ready when approached & hired to do such a 'project' ROFL ;)
Re: Types of Targets

It *is* a great book. All of Joe's books are great for Rvers. I think every Rver should have "RV Secrets", Mind Trek", and now his new one "The Stargate Chronicles" on their shelves.

But anyone seriously wanting to RV is missing a lot if they don't at least have "RV Secrets" and "Mind Trek". Probably 75% of all the questions a beginning RVer has are answered in those two books. Lyn Buchanan's "The Seventh Sense" is another good one, written from a CRVers' point of view (which Joe's are not). While Lyn's book doesn't agree with Joe's on everything, reading it helps to round out a viewers education, I think. And there's some good stuff in there.

No problem with the question. It was a great one. We don't often discuss the ins and outs of exactly how to approach an applications problem like that. You made me have to stop and think it through. I'm still not sure I gave the best - or even a really good - way to go about it, lol.
Re: Types of Targets

Hi PJ,

1. has the info been leaked? & if yes, what kinds of information has been leaked & who leaked it.

2. where (location) is the competition working on their prototype

3. They want to know about the 'thinking' that their competition is having regarding this invention.
You would need to ascertain whether or not it actually *had* been leaked (Don went into this too). The way I would approach that would be along the lines of an 'If/Else' Statement.

For example...if the whatsit has been leaked to competition then describe who done it.....if not then describe the Eiffel Tower. You must just hope that the culprit and the Eiffel Tower don't look too similar.. ;D

If the results are not highly Tower-like :), then you can go on to the next question. Whatever happens either way, don't ever tell the viewer about the 'Else' (the Tower) , because if future memory plays a part at all..and we don't know... then it's almost an invite to view it....just my opinion. Just use the first part as feedback; preferably at the end.

How does that sound?
Don't all shout 'Rubbish' at once  :D



.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
Re: Types of Targets

Hi Glyn
Sounds good to me.

What I have learned (amongst other things) in this thread are the several ways of presenting targets that I wasn't aware of...such as inserting a written request/statement in with the sealed target picture...and the one you just mentioned, the if/else.

It seems to me that much of the protocols and methods are much like computer programming :D U am seeing many similarities. I am not by any stretch of the imagination a programmer, however, way back when, I used to be proficient with basic and Dbase III (boy, does this ever date me :eek: )

I am very interested in the ways that targets are presented to the viewer. What other methods, styles are there...I don't know what to call what I'm trying to ask...I'm sure there is a CRV or some other method word for it ;D (if I can get the terminology, then I can ask the question LOL )

Another thing that has sunk in is this idea of chasing down the data by asking questions as the data presents itself. Such as, sensing mountains - then using the mountains to get a sense of climate, or topograpy, or continent... or using mountains to sense the size, height etc of the target..things like that. Kind of like following cookie crumbs ! Perhaps a better way of saying this is being able to be more proactive in session than reactive.

hmmm....having just said that makes me realize that a delicate balance must be maintained if being proactive cause you don't want much logical thinking going on.


.... don't be ambiguious with your intent ~
Re: Types of Targets

LOL...you modified your post Glyn as I was responding to it...and if what you said is rubbish, then we're gonna learn somethin ;D

Your saying show an Eifel Tower reminded me of being able to program yourself with your own set of symbols for answers...much like programming yourself for pendulam responses.

I wonder a which point we interfere too much with the process and just plain muck it up ???..Sometimes knowing too much simply complicates the simple :-/
Re: Types of Targets


LOL...you modified your post Glyn as I was responding to it..
Just as I was modifying it I wondered what would happen if someone was replying when I changed it :). What did it do?

Your saying show an Eifel Tower reminded me of being able to program yourself with your own set of symbols for answers...much like programming yourself for pendulam responses.

Now that is an interesting subject in itself. I have a book (somewhere) that shows you how to use the pendulum with different string lengths (apparently that can make a difference according to the author), and also if you're looking for something then some pendulums are hollow and you can put a bit of, for example, a mineral inside to sort of 'resonate' with what you're searching for.

Mmmm I'm wondering if a small possesion or part of clothing or hair or something of a missing person may work as well ? I must find that book. Sounds a bit 'out there' doesn't it (?)..but in the light of new thinking about the Zero Point Field, and the idea that we may all be connected, then then who knows what may or may not work?

It's funny and sad at the same time.. some of these ideas were old when the Romans invaded Britain.......but give them a new label and connect them to Quantum Physics, and all of a sudden they are almost respectable..sigh ;). Still, we can, hopefully, see through the superstition now and get to the science of it.

wonder a which point we interfere too much with the process and just plain muck it up ???..Sometimes knowing too much simply complicates the simple
Yes, I think you're absolutely right. It's possible to add so many layers of complication that we risk tying ourselves in knots. Fun though isn't it? ;-).

I have a few of those If/Then/Else type of taskings in my own pool. I am not using this pool yet because it is too small, but every time I come across a great target, or think of something I'd like to know, then I am adding it to my database.

Once I have a few hundred targets then I'll start using the pool. It will be mostly validation, but some experimental. I'm wondering if that sort of tasking could allow me to risk putting in some 'esoterics' with the proviso that if I'm viewing myth or 'archetype' or something that does not exist in this reality then I don't go off into AOL... I just go to the alternative target. It would be intriguing to see results over the same sessions over time. It wouldn't really prove anything that would stand up, so is for me only..but it keeps my practice fun...and that's so important :)

Kind regards,
Re: Types of Targets

Hi again PDPJ, I just saw your other mail.

What I have learned (amongst other things) in this thread are the several ways of presenting targets that I wasn't aware of...such as inserting a written request/statement in with the sealed target picture...and the one you just mentioned, the if/else
Yes, and once you know of these things, all sorts of ideas present themselves.

It seems to me that much of the protocols and methods are much like computer programming  :D  U am seeing many similarities.

Well, if the quality of instruction to the sub is important, then logical statements like used with a machine could help I guess, but if nothing else that sort of thinking may help with possible ambiguities when setting a tasking.

Another thing that has sunk in is this idea of chasing down the data by asking questions as the data presents itself.  Such as, sensing mountains - then using the mountains to get a sense of climate, or topograpy, or continent... or using mountains to sense the size, height etc of the target..things like that.  Kind of like following cookie crumbs !   Perhaps a better way of saying this is being able to be more proactive in session than reactive.
I know some Viewers do that, and may have success. I've tried asking questions sometimes, but yes I think you are right in saying that a delicate balance must be maintained, because it could throw you into AOL as the conscious mind tries to jump to conclusions and make associations based on data already in your memory.

Re: Types of Targets

I think your if/else tasking is an awesome idea! I think it's very original too. I've never seen it anywhere else.

The only problem I can see with it is if the Rver doesn't describe either one - then what? I suppose you could just do it over, lol.

It's like using ARV to answer a binary question but it goes one step better by actually describing the subject matter of interest at the same time. You know what I mean by that right? With ARV, you could use one picture to repesent "Yes, information about the invention has been stolen". And then a different picture to represent "No, no information has been stolen". Which ever picture the Rver describes is then your yes or no answer. (Of course, in this scenario, no feedback could be given to the Rver until further, physical evidence is found to show that the Rver is either right or wrong).

But your example of an if/else tasking is a little bit better, because one of the choices for the Rver to describe is actually exactly what we want to know - how was the information about the invention stolen? I don't see any reason the subconscious would not understand this kind of targeting and react to it appropriately.

It would be a great way to target esoteric subjects, as you're thinking. The only caveat might be to think out clearly and be sure of what you mean - what you are meaning when you task your subconscious - by the words like "real" or "exist in our reality". This is because, to the subconscious, "exist in our reality" may mean something entirely different than it does to the conscious mind. As an example, thoughts are "things" to the subconsious and can readily be targeted, as can things in the future that don't yet exist in our temporal reality - but these things aren't real at the present time in a physical, material way. I'd suppose the exact wording wouldn't be very important. But making absolutely certain that you are very clear about what you mean probably would be.

I target esoteric subjects every now and then (well, my wife the tasker does, she's in control, lol). I don't see any problem at all with doing them once in a while. Just keep a healthy skepticism about it all - even towards your own results. They ARE fun and I think that makes them great for keeping up the motivation to practice. Doing these kind of targets has made me rethink my views on a lot of subjects and really changed my perspectives on how reality in general and many things in particular may be and work.

I love the if/else idea. I'm going to try it - as soon as I can get off of this missing streak I've been on for the last week, lol.
Re: Types of Targets

Btw, Glyn, I just wanted to mention that it sure is nice having you around in the RV community. You do some incredibly creative, original thinking. You've caused me to look at several aspects of RV in a different way and I already have a lot of practice targets under my belt. Ever since you started posting on some of the RV lists I noticed what a refreshing view you have of so many of these subjects we discuss. For anyone who's paying attention, the questions you come up with can teach a lot. Thanks.
Re: Types of Targets

Hi Don,

That WAS creative of pdPJ, as I'm sure she hasn't heard of it publicly!

IF/ELSE tasking is not that unusual in ops taskings. It is relatively workable depending on context, but it needs to be limited. Too often it's used mostly as a tasker's way of trying to get 9 sessions of information data for only 1 session of pay, LOL. It requires to some degree that the tasker either know or suspect quite a bit about the target, which in ops targets is sometimes a problem as it indicates tasker assumptions. My own opinion is that there shouldn't be more than one clause per session, two at the most.

It is greatest when used--you hit on it immediately!--for targets that might not exist. Sort of like, "IF the target does not exist in our consensus reality as we know it, describe X (something glaringly obvious data-wise). If it does, describe the target in detail." That way to some degree the viewer has feedback either way (at least on the tasking), and the viewer isn't off trying to describe something that is little more than a thoughtform.

Because you know, if the viewer is all over the map on something that isn't real, they're just pissed off later, and if they're describing something that isn't real, then you've torqued their belief systems. Because when you EXPERIENCE something, it's like having a precog participatory vision, once you've experienced it your psychology feels it has to be real because it already happened for/was experienced by you. That has really screwed up a lot of viewers targeted on comet 'companions' and certain assumed aliens-situations and things like that.

I think it would be useful to try some of the IF clause tasking--SINGLE clause only :)--on outbounds, like when you aren't sure there is something at the location specified, like if it's just cement or grass (or impossible to get to) -- like when assigning local targets from a distance -- pick a location you ARE sure there is something at as an alternative--that might work. The viewer would only look at that location or even know about it IF location#1 didn't pan out (like in a separate envelope or 2nd card behind the first).

Let's try it! :) I'm sending you a local phone book and a street map and security envelopes and index cards... probably week after next as I'm waiting on several things right now including money. ;-) I'm also going to take my digital camera out and see if I can start building a serious library of local and semi-local targets, so that eventually I'll have several hundred. They'd still be based on live feedback but then a non-local tasker could choose different ones for different reasons.

Re: Types of Targets

Hi PJ,
You're right! This plays right into what we've been talking about - tasking outbounds from a distance! I'm ready to try it when you are. We can do some regular outbounds (precogging on feedback time, with no beacon person) and also do some if/else type of taskings. This'll be a first for me - both long-distance tasking and the if/else qualifying cues. I'm looking forward to it!
Re: Types of Targets

Hi Glyn,

There are some cool ways to go about dowsing, you mentioned the length of string. An entire system was come up with T.C. Lethbridge (the late british archeologist) which depended on the length of the string and the number of times the dowsing pendulum rotated (+/- 1).

Now this was an incredibly inconvenient method, since (a) most people, unlike him, do not have a high stairway/balcony with two stories of space down for the longer strings, and it is hardly convenient to carry a two-story ladder out to the field ;-), and (b) dowse-dating something which is 897 years old makes for a very, very tired arm. :) As he griped also. ;-)

However he found some really fascinating coincidences using this approach. He found a lot of things seem to be 'the same frequency'--to use one term of many we could choose--as each other. And some minerals and so forth come out as masculine or feminine. And the correspondence of length of string was interesting, for example, a given animal or bug would likely register the same as their favorite food would.

There were some other things I noticed that he didn't, that I found interesting, like that gold was feminine and diamonds were masculine, and it made me think of the traditional wedding band of a diamond in gold. Little stuff like that.

Lethbridge was a wonderful thinker, intelligent yet open minded. There is a book, 'The Collected Writings of TC Lethbridge', it's out of print and I had to get it from england but it's worth the effort, it's really wonderful. He also talks in it about his experiences with, and thoughts on, 'ghouls' (a place that harbors a horrible feeling--sometimes said to be found on cliffs where people suicide and such), and psi, etc.

Re: Types of Targets

Hi Don,

Glyn, I just wanted to mention that it sure is nice having you around in the RV community.

Thankyou for that Don........now you have me all embarrassed. ::)

I am sure others must have thought of that one though.....maybe I was just the first to post it on a public list. That's the problem, I am sure there would be many more ideas flying around if some others out there could perhaps overcome their nervousness at posting in public,... or come out of the back-room. Jump on in folks....you can only be drowned once ;D.