Date: Thu Jan ??, ?004 10:15 am
Subject: Re: Another RT Experiment--for Everyone pjgaenir
> One more thing we have come up against is
> how to decide what matches and what doesn't.
> Most of the time Glyn and I have agreed,
> but there is a certain amount of sway. And
> that area can make or break a session appearing
> to be a good match or not.
> For example if the target is a lake and in
> the photo it is seen as grey what do you do when
> blue is written in the session? If the person doing
> the session viewed the real thing rather than
> the photo it could very well have been blue so
> what do you do? Do you give it a yes just because
> it might have been right? I'd say probably, but if
> you're trying to decide if RT works, do you give
> the same leyway or try to be really harsh and
> exclude it because it's not definite?
Well just my opinion, but the retro-tasker should be the sole voice
of choice. They are assumed to be the one privately doing this after
Also, one of the biggest problems in addressing the possibility of
retro-tasking is IMO making the mistake of putting it in a practice
model instead of an ops model. The entire concept of RT was brought
up by Prudence as something that could be part of a distributed
network, that would allow useful information to be gathered, for real
ops needs, without having one's own viewers. Outside of an ops use,
there is something no point to RT.
Which brings up the most annoyingly obvious flaw to RT theory, that
being the real question of *what can RT tell a tasker that he or she
doesn't already know?* The real test of RT is having a genuine
question, having an RT'd session to work from, and knowing which data
applies and how it applies. This is difficult enough in regular RV
never mind RT'd-RV, which is one of the primary arguments against it;
not that it's entirely impossible, but that it's entirely unworkable,
hence it doesn't matter if it's possible, if it doesn't lead to a
If there is not a way to demonstrate this is possible eventually--
learning something we *don't* know about an RT'd target, from an RT'd
session--then the whole RT thing is useless operationally, and hence
the topic is pretty much moot, whether or not we can 'find
correlations with' photographs/targets other than the one a session
is supposed to match.
The question of 'matching' kind of ties into that. Match to feedback
can be a boggy area even in regular practice RV. The real test of
useful data is of course, whether or not it answers a question for a
tasker in non-practice RV.
In which case, if grey or blue answered the tasker's questions or
contributed to the answer, then one or both would be useful, but if
not, then it doesn't really matter whether the color is exactly
matching water, which btw can be grey, blue, green, brown, and even
black depending on lighting and many other conditions.
(I find that in water data, color is often symbolic data, without
this being realized by the viewer. Sometimes blue is said because it
represents water to the viewer. Sometimes the color represents the
state of the water (eg grey or black for polluted, even though the
river may really be brown? ). Viewers usually figure this out
eventually if it's something they do.? )
Of course, if the session is not in depth enough that colors are
attached to anything, but rather part of a list of descriptives, then
we get back to the same issue that such sessions have even in regular
RV, of being generic enough, outside a couple points (and who knows
which? ), to apply to a good % of anything.
I lost track of what I was talking about, as I fell asleep near the
end of the last paragraph, lol. That'll teach me to get too comfy
with my laptop PC here in bed, lol!
// end archive
Top of Page
The names "Dojo Psi" and "Zen do Ryu Remote Viewing" (and "Zen do Ryu RV"? ) are Copyright © by Palyne Gaenir from ?004 to present. All rights reserved.