Why not?


New Member
So I hear a lot about the difficulty of remote viewing numbers yet I’ve also read about remote viewers “viewing” documents that are filed in / locked away in highly classified areas..
so my question..
IF remote viewers can be super accurate reading written words / documents etc. Why would it be so difficult to read a number written on the same page? A word OR a number written on a page should be “viewable” right?? And if so.. Why would we need ARV? Could we not task, “view the document you’ll be reading on the 31st January 2019 as accurately as possible. Describe all of the words written on the document and numbers present”..
Or am I mislead to believe that viewers have been / are accurate at reading hidden, written documents??
Thanks all.


I think the number of RVers who could accurately read locked away pages is pretty small. I may be wrong about that. I don't think numbers would be any different from words in that case. As this is posted under "Associative Remote Viewing" I'm assuming you are inquiring about using it to find future numbers, which adds a whole other layer of complexity to the problem.


New Member
Yes. I’m interested in learning how to RV numbers. I guess my question may have been better suited under a different topic? But if it’s possible to train RV to accurately read documents then ARV wouldn’t be required at all. eg. RV the document hidden in file X at address 123 Lane on Jan 21st, 2019 4pmGMT in clear and accurate detail.
The document will have 4 very distinct numbers written on the document from an event that happened January 20th 2019 and the RV session will be conducted 19th January 2019.
I guess if RV is possible for such a scenario - I wonder why using / training ARV is required at all??
And I only ask in this forum because there are much better viewers than me here and maybe someone knows why it isn’t used (method above) or the barriers faced with it.
If I get any feedback with stories, experiences, barriers etc then I can steer my learning around them.
Thank you all again.
question here is whether you need to get an impression of the key ideas/meaning of the document or the exact numbers/words. the latter is obviously more difficult for most people. impossible? probably not


do you ever dream you're someone else?
Nothing's impossible... :) And expectations can sometimes affect that, so by all means, expect a lot!

Plenty of documented viewing (from intell and the lab, and even the layman's world) has some mind-boggling detail. It is not 'only' that, and often it's not known how to apply that until the answer is known.

Any viewer tends to get things incredibly 'specific' that are an abstract-data like that at times -- some people are better at this than others -- but doing it predictably on one data point let alone many combined (and in sequence) is... rare to say the least.

Applications viewing often needs to be a lot more specific than is common. By which I mean, it makes demands on skill in that area, in some cases. Depending on the app. For example even emotional or symbolic data or one-specific-data-point can work if handled well at the evaluation point and if the goal were, for example, simply having a good idea of the outcome, as opposed to some specific data points.

If you mean training for it like a metholodology (?) -- any ARV 'training' would surely be in the tasking/feedback protocol. Viewing is viewing. Sure any viewer may know the context of their viewing -- which might slightly shift their approach -- but that's more like choosing how to communicate with the guys in the locker room vs. your grandmother, or in a business management environment vs. at the bar.

There are several important elements related to why ARV might be very useful compared to ordinary viewing, but it's like 3:30am here and I'm too tired to go into them. ;-) I'll try to come back in a few days at the latest and add to this.