RV Oasis / PJRV Discussion, Yahoo Groups.
Source Location: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/
Filetype: Archive. Topic: Remote Viewing. Blocked: by topic detail.
Archive Storage: www.firedocs.com/pjrv/ and http://www.dojopsi.info/pjrv/
Archivist: Palyne PJ Gaenir (PJRV, Palyne, Firedocs RV, TKR and the Dojo Psi.)

begin archive

pjrv : Messages : 2871-2871 of 4038


From: TaraMori... Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 12:35 am Subject: Re: Re: McMoneagle on hijacking sessions TaraMori... > Moderator's note: Er.... I'll ask when I can. But much of this stuff is as > well asked a shaman -- a master martial artist, a sorceror, a medicine > mane, whatever -- as a viewer IMO. PJ hurricanes and bamboo pjrv : Messages : 2847-2884 of 4038


From: "pjgaenir" Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 7:56 pm Subject: McMoneagle on hijacking sessions pjgaenir OK you guys. This really WAS a pain in the butt. We actually had multiple go rounds. I kept trying to example my question, and he interpreted it in the normal light, since words like 'retasking' have an existing meaning for him, and partly I think because on some level it seemed so silly a question he figured I must mean something else LOL. However I did get some nice info on retasking and ARV by accident as a result. ;-) Some of which I put in here. Finally I got clear what I was really asking about, partly by re- asking in many ways, and here are his responses, sort of a mini- interview on the subject! There are many areas where I feel like I want to go back and say, "Wait, but do you mean...." but he's done a ton of typing on this already so I don't want to bug him anymore right now. In general there are enough responses here that in total it ought to generally answer the question. -- PJ --------------------------- PJ: Say Jane takes an OLD session of mine, that I did on a civil war battle. She randomly assigns to the *existing session*, a NEW TARGET (let's say it turns out to be a political rally). Then she interprets the existing session from the previous target, in the light of her new target. Joe: Can't do it. It is totally driven by the original intent and target expectation. PJ: Could Jane's review (of my session 3.21.1, for example) be a sort of quantum observation thing, where the review's intent helped 'cause' some viewer data, or choice of data, or phrasing of data, to match that other target? (Caused an effect back in time in the viewer.) Joe: No--In all probability not. The difficulty is that it has already been linked to an original intended target as 3.21.1. Any new intent to tie it to another target even if done double-blind will not unbind it from the original. In fact, if the person reads your results and then attempts to attach them in some way to a different target (scenario) which was not extent when the first targeting (3.21.1) was done, they will be simply deluding themselves with the results. PJ: If so, maybe this relates to why ARV gets so much bleed-through between targets, because someone is comparing the decoys to the sessions. Assuming that's not a multiple-reality issue! Joe: No, that shouldn't be occurring. In ARV, there is a single outcome which relates to the remote viewing. There are no multiple outcomes. If there are, then you can't use ARV. If there is what appears to be bleed through between ARV targets, then the targeting, judging, as well as feedback loop is not being dealt with properly. There is always a single event which determines what the feedback will be on an ARV. Once that has been set (which is the case before an ARV is done), it is never changed or altered - period - full stop. Remember also, the judging must take place as well, prior to the event taking place which determines what the target is actually going to be. The message I'm getting here is that someone is running ARVs who does not understand the basic principal behind why and how they are supposed to work. PJ: Some obvious data found in one and not the other won't match. Otherwise though, there seems to be a big correlation of data, even unusually specific data. Sometimes, the session has something really specific but wrong (about target1) in it somewhere, which exactly pertains to target2. Or, the session seems to choose data, and ways of phrasing it, that applies to both. It seems, in layman review, like it isn't just chance. Joe: Of course it's not chance you are actually completing two separate feedback scenarios within a singular target intent/expectation. What you might get might then correlate with what you feedback, but it won't necessarily be right. In other words, some of it may seem to fit, but in neither case will the information prove to be of any real value by providing anything you wouldn't already know about. It's "reverse file drawering." PJ: Some people believe that "assigning a second intent" (a new target) to a session which has been completed (on a different target), potentially can affect the session itself (sort of affecting the viewer back in time). Joe: There is no effect back in time, you are just clobbering the viewer with non-salient data for the first target the first time around (basically making neither time/space targeted event relevant or important enough to have done right). PJ: Now I know you are thinking, with your brow furrowed, WHY would somebody WANT to do something so stupid? lol. But bear with me, the 'why' isn't important, only the possibility. Joe: All you are doing is creating two paths of feedback for information you will already know - there will never be any new information you don't know or wouldn't be in your feedback to start with. For information collection purposes it sucks. For RV purposes, all it proves is that when you screw up a perfectly good RV targeting methodology, you get exactly what you expect. PJ: Say I had a tasker named John, and he assigned me targetQ, and then later, he took my session, and randomly assigned to it TargetR. Has John polluted his own clear intent, by affecting himself back in time? In other words, he himself is assigning two *different* intents to the *same session*. Joe: No. Sorry. Still only the original intent and expectation. You're mistaking two lines of feedback as being relevant when they are already known data. So, you get no really good information. There is no altering of the past, because you've set yourself up for it at the outset. When you complete the feedback loop, is when you find out that you've [blown it]. PJ: Say I did a session that was to be randomly assigned to a target in the future (I knew this. For some people, all targets are done this way). Would this make my sessions MORE vulnerable to such "duplicate assignment of intent to the same session"? Because I was sort of targeting "whatever got assigned to the session?" Joe: No. Whatever your targeting was intended for is what counts. Unless you are looking for reasons why you have incorrect data in your original viewing, in which case you could make a case for multiple tasking changes till the cows come home. PJ: What if I hadn't got feedback on TargetQ, for which I did the session, even though it had already been assigned. Would this affect whether my session might be influenced by the additional assignment to it of TargetR? Joe: Nope. Sorry. PJ: Sort of like 'piggybacking' the "intent of the tasking", so the second one was not known to the viewer, but the viewer was providing data that pertained to the second target anyway? Joe: You have to be clear with the intent. You cannot piggyback one intent on the other. You will end up with crap. PJ: Can a tasker, we'll call her Kelly, assign a second tasking intent -- a second, different target -- to one of my existing sessions, and have any effect on that session whatever? Joe: No. Again, sorry. I will repeat what I was saying earlier. With a lousy remote viewer that might be possible, but with a remote viewer who knows what they are doing - it shouldn't make any difference what Kelly does aside or in addition to what the original tasking and expectation might be. PJ: Is the answer to that dependent on my own 'strength of intent' as a viewer? Joe: Of course. How malleable you might be and how easy it might be to [mess] with your mind. PJ: The 'why' might be, to get data on a target that the viewer does not know about. Joe: You will always get the data on the target you want if you do the protocol properly and set up the intent and expectation correctly. Why do it any other way? Unless of course you are someone looking for a reason why it doesn't work right. [and here we were having a conversation about everything except what I was trying to get across, but it's still worth including:] PJ: Would it matter if a target had not yet been randomly generated or assigned, or not? Joe: Now you are asking something completely different. This deals with a totally opposite but significant aspect of remote viewing - specifically - when does the target exist? You can target something which does not yet exist, provided the person doing the targeting has an expectation or intent that the response will be for the next target they will generate, or for a specific target (unknown at the time) they intend to generate at some specific date designated within the future. In such a case, the person generating the target at the pre-specified date/time, cannot have access to the remote viewing data, and cannot play any other part in the remote viewing collection. Otherwise they will be shuffling or file drawering the collected information in a conscious or unconscious way with the data that has been collected. Also, neither the monitor or the remote viewer should know before hand that they are being targeted on something which has not yet been selected or designated as a target. IN ALL CASES WHERE THIS HAS BEEN DONE - the target is RANDOMLY CHOSEN at a later date. There are numerous reasons why it should not be "specifically" chosen by the tasker. Joe: If the judge isn't blind (or as you say, the judge is the tasker), I can guarantee they will find whatever they want to find that is pertinent to their target. So, now we've switched to a separate issue altogether. If one is trying to prove RV to someone, the judge can never be the tasker, nor can the judge be anything but totally blind to the actual target. In other words the judge must be presented with three or more "possible" targets - one of which is known to be the actual target. How those are presented to the judge is also complex. They cannot be photographs which have been handled - as the actual photograph will have more prints on it than the bogus matches. Whether a judge notices this consciously or unconsciously is not material it affects the outcome. So, how the multiple possible targets are presented matters as well. If in the case of an operational target, the concept of evaluation changes completely. The tasker should never be the judge for what material is important, and the judge should not know what the specific tasking actually is. The judge should evaluate the material and list what is pertinent from the RV, state what carries more weight than the next in terms of items, and then pass the judged materials to the tasker who then can weigh what they might do with it. Joe: This part of remote viewing will almost never be discussed, since the skill in evaluating what a specific remote viewer has said is person dependent, reputation ally dependent, experience dependent, and very clearly dependent on the ability of the judge to remain open, objective, and unbiased. Thee are qualities that have almost gone unaddressed withint he public domain, primarily because they have always been secondary to everyone wanting to be the "best remote viewer on the planet" and never the person who has to evaluate and deal with the issues of outcome. PJ: This is not just talking about bad sessions, this was often in GOOD sessions. It was downright fascinating to see how the viewer, out of ALL the things they could have written about the primary target, chose the things -- and worded them in such a way -- that it seemed to 'encompass' the second target as well. Sometimes, a *really specific* (wrong OR right) piece of data in the primary session matched perfectly the second. Joe: Now you are talking about another completely different issue, which gets into how targets are contained, separated, or maintained as individual targets. Again, this is as critical and important as all the remote viewing that's ever been done, but no one pays any attention to it. In itself, it is such a complex issue we don't have the week necessary to address it. When you see occurring what you have stated in the previous paragraph, I can almost with absolute certainty state that both targets were inappropriately targeted or presented inappropriately to the remote viewer. It might have been a problem as diverse as how the targets were stored, or how the targets were selected. It might have to do with how soon the target feedback was presented to the viewers, or how the target evaluations were being done and when. PJ: It seems a little similar to the effect of accidentally getting two targets, which I've done, such as trying to RV the target in the envelope and it turns out there's two. Mostly the result is just what I've seen myself in that particular case: the viewer has a difficult time making solid contact, seeming to go back and forth between the targets, and usually ends up with a "conglomerate" of the targets -- enough to seem like a real session on either target, but probably not as good a session as they might have had if their targeting/tasking/feedback had been singular. Joe: I could respond with a very egotistical statement like; "a good remote viewer would know when there are two targets and would differentiate between them." I've had to do that on more than one occasion when being targeted live on camera by bozos who do not follow the protocols and rules with regard to how they identify the specific target they want me to work. Having said that however, it actually is simply that - something the remote viewer has to learn to deal with and recognize. If someone puts it off to inappropriate targeting, or "sorry about that, I put two in the same envelope," they are not doing a very good job. I would use it as an example of when the viewer should break from their own "rote" and devise some internalized methodology for handling the issue. In real life, this stuff happens, and the viewer should be learning to cope with it, instead of coping out with "I got it wrong because the person who set up the target didn't do their job." I hope you hear what I'm saying here. The viewer needs to focus on "intent and expectation" with regard to the target - not the target alone. PJ: Might it be that 'intent' is really the secret law of the universe here, and that all the shamen and casteneda-ish sorcerors were right all along -- that it's really whomever has the strongest intent that will dominate any given energy transaction? Could this apply to RV as well? Joe: Yes that might be true. But, whose intent carries the day? Really bad remote viewers are swayed by the intent of someone standing in the corner of the room. Really good remote viewers develop their own intent and methods that are designed to override all other forms of intent. Really bad taskers never understand intent at all. Really good taskers use really good viewers intent to work for them. Really bad judges never understand why intent is even necessary, and really good judges understand that they are being just as psychic and are just as blind as the remote viewer and intent is everything. [end] Reply | Forward


From: David Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:32 pm Subject: Re: McMoneagle on hijacking sessions a_healey56 Thanks for getting this PJ. This is probably one of the only places we can get one-on-one feedback from someone like Joe. Dave Reply | Forward


From: "Eva" Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 8:30 pm Subject: Re: McMoneagle on hijacking sessions k9caninek9 Another question, can the intent of 5 weaker people overcome the intent of one stronger person (depending on relative strengths obviously as 5 ants can't move one human)? ALso, is intent an all or nothing scenario. Can weak intent weakly affect someone while stronger intent will more strongly affect someone. How about multiple attempts at intent. Is that stronger than one attempt? -E ----------------------- Moderator's note: Er.... I'll ask when I can. But much of this stuff is as well asked a shaman -- a master martial artist, a sorceror, a medicine mane, whatever -- as a viewer IMO. PJ Reply | Forward


From: "stanley01420" Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 8:59 am Subject: Re: McMoneagle on hijacking sessions stanley01420 Might be asking the wrong questions... How about this.. what *really* is intent? What is it comprised of? Is it merely selfish desire or is it something else entirely? trypper > --- In pjrv...oups.com, "Eva" Another question, can the intent of 5 weaker people overcome the > intent of one stronger person (depending on relative strengths > obviously as 5 ants can't move one human)? ALso, is intent an all or > nothing scenario. Can weak intent weakly affect someone while > stronger intent will more strongly affect someone. How about > multiple attempts at intent. Is that stronger than one attempt? Reply | Forward


From: Bill Pendragon Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 1:10 am Subject: Re: McMoneagle on hijacking sessions docsavagebill Hi PJ, Well no wonder you were cranky on Freevent. That interview sounds extremely frustrating..G Why didn't you just explain you were asking about deliberately hijacking someone elses session? Were you afraid of his reaction..G? Anyway.. I take it that he feels stealing sessions is possible from those with weak initial intent about tasking? I seem to see a tendancy for the Ft meade guys to always answer a question with NO! ...and then proceed from there..G Best Regards, Bill ------------------------- Moderator's note: Bill, the term hijacking has an entirely different meaning to a soldier with a counter-terrorism specialty. It has no meaning in the official remote viewing world and hence would have no RV meaning for him. So I tried to explain it instead. But the term 'retasking' has an existing meaning, which causes problems in communicating when people are using the same word for very different things. Gimme a break, I bugged the poor guy repeatedly on request, I'm sorry I didn't do better. No, I'm not afraid of anything from Joe, he's never anything but honest with me to my knowledge. Re: your second para: I think all Joe is saying is that you can't make any rules about will/won't happen or is/isn't possible if the viewer sucks as far as their autonomous intent/will is concerned, because that is the primary thing that drives psychic functioning and its results. And I was not cranky on freevent damn it. Now I'm cranky. LOL. PJ Reply | Forward


From: "stanley01420" Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 9:48 am Subject: Re: McMoneagle on hijacking sessions stanley01420 Seems like Joe said 'no' to me. Am I misunderstanding him? trypper Reply | Forward


From: "Eva" Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 8:11 pm Subject: Re: McMoneagle on hijacking sessions k9caninek9 I thought he was saying no until I got to the last paragraph. Then I thought he was saying 'not if you are a good viewer.' And by good viewer, he apparently means, 'about as good as him or better.' LOL! -E > Mary wrote: > Seems like Joe said 'no' to me. > Am I misunderstanding him? ---------------------------- Moderator's note: All we need is Mount Olympus, LOL. ;-) What I got out of it was "basically, no you can't do it, but if the viewer's no good, all bets for what can't be done to/with them are off." -- PJ

// end archive

Top of Page