pjrv : Messages : 893-908 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/893?)
22:33:16
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#893
From: "nita...ulse.com"
Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 12:41 pm
Subject: Re: 'Real' RV nitahickok
Hi PJ
I have things that I do that I call psychic. I am proud that I am a
natural and psychic. I do more psychic stuff than RV because I have had some
experiences with the RV community that have not been good. I have a lot of
people I like. I also see a lot of people belittling others for the same
things that they are doing themselves.
I see no set ethics or standards which has been discussed before in other
posts. I do see this lack as planned so others can jump on, discredit and
humiliate others to make themselves feel better. The instructors can't agree
and the students go into argumentative camps where doing anything is the
cause of a argument in one way or another.
I enjoy the RV stuff that I do but it is because I am working with nice
people. I think RV will not survive unless someone ends this squabbling and
sets some standards to end the discord over what is or isn't RV. I consider
it mainly the scientific method to prove what you get psychically. It is
because the people doing it are using psi abilities and the person who set
it up just compartmentalized and formatted what a psychic does naturally.
Everyone is trying to be exclusive and special. They never think of all
the people that worked upon proving this scientifically. It is their
methodology and not something to be rewritten where it can be discredited. I
see very little respect in the claims the teachers make to earn money. The
hard working ones trying to give valid results do not do it in any set time
limit. It is the persons talent and practice that does that.
Nita
Whenever you hear that someone else has been successful, rejoice. Always
practice rejoicing for others-whether they are your friend or enemy. If you
cannot practice rejoicing, no matter how long you live, you will not be
happy.
Lama Zopa Rinpoche, "Transforming Problems into Happiness".
Reply | Forward
#896
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 4:44 pm
Subject: Re: 'Real' RV dennanm
Hi Nita,
> I have things that I do that I call psychic.
> I am proud that I am a natural and psychic.
So.... you don't feel some strange embarrassment about being
associated with the term 'psychic'? I'm glad. I don't know why so
many people seem to. Considering these are the same people that are
destroying and diffusing the term 'RV' in the same that's been done
to the term 'psychic', it's sort of ironic.
> I do more psychic stuff than RV because I have had some
> experiences with the RV community that have not been good.
I assume you mean this in the context of who you associate with?
Since 'doing' RV technically doesn't require others.
> I see no set ethics or standards which has been
> discussed before in other posts.
Well as far as 'standards' go, there are very official standards as
what qualifies as RV, but nobody wants to hear about them I'm afraid.
Then there are a separate group of standards that would be had for
each methodology -- I assume it varies with the method. But as far
as "ethical" standards, as long as RV is run more like a Tony Robbins
workshop than a dojo, that's going to be the way it is.
> I do see this lack as planned so others
> can jump on, discredit and
> humiliate others to make themselves feel better.
Planning infers the field is organized, which it's not very. :-)
> The instructors can't agree
Ah, well, they've never agreed. That's okay, because none of the
instructors teach and enforce after-training the fundamental RV
standards of work (double-blind/solo-blind), which means as a whole
they don't agree with the fundamental definition of RV anyway. So the
first schizm comes with deviating from the basic required standards
that define RV as separate from 'psychic' work; the second then comes
when there is more than one methods for obtaining psychic data.
> and the students go into argumentative camps
> where doing anything is the
> cause of a argument in one way or another.
A little more practice and a lot less griping would be nice in this
field I agree. (I love to gripe. So I'm guilty too, lol.)
> I think RV will not survive unless someone
> ends this squabbling and
Well, I said that years ago, but I see it survived.
> sets some standards to end the discord
> over what is or isn't RV.
Those standards already exist. As long as the methods instructors
refuse to teach *and encourage* those standards be followed by
students after training, not much is going to happen, and I'm not
holding my breath on that.
> I consider it mainly the scientific method
> to prove what you get psychically.
I consider it mainly the learning theory method to be sure one is
utilizing psi and not many other subtle senses; and an operations
method to be sure a session can be at least mildly calibrated with
the actual target; and a psychological method to change some of the
more fundamental belief systems we hold; I think the science aspect
of the protocol (and I mean by 'the RV protocol', "double-blind
w/feedback" -- not "how you go about it/methods") is just one of many
important reasons for it.
> the person who set it up just compartmentalized and
> formatted what a psychic does naturally.
Swann is not the only person to have done that. And if you read
Swann's books you'll see that, at least during the times he writes
about, he certainly was not using anything akin to CRV; he was
visualizing projecting himself out of body for godssakes -- more a
Silva type technique than CRV.
CRV was designed as a method of *training* non-psychics first and
foremost -- of removing the belief system issues which are the
primary problem by projecting the psi onto the method instead of the
person, and of forcing an external structure to recognize data types
and 'flavors' that would eventually teach a customized "internal"
structure psychics must use for recognizing these things.
But the idea that RV did not exist except for Ingo, that research
with a psychic in an RV protocol was never done until Ingo, or that a
psychic methodology that might be helpful never existed excepting
Ingo's, is really silly. RV has become a social cult. I said that
eons ago and it's weird to me that it isn't obvious to everybody.
> Everyone is trying to be exclusive and special.
> They never think of all
> the people that worked upon proving this
> scientifically. It is their
> methodology and not something to be rewritten
> where it can be discredited.
The RV methodologies have not been 'proven' scientifically. Ingo did
not have baseline before/after studies -- he wasn't even in lab
oversight during most of it, he was offsite. I think that is a
pretty big insult to be honest, from Dr. Puthoff (an otherwise
brilliant and I'm told charming man) who apparently was willing to
allot the project budget to make Ingo happy but I guess didn't take
his ideas seriously enough to really treat them with the real science
evaluation that they deserved. Ingo had a lot of good ideas and I
see a lot of problems today as probably stemming from lack of proper
research on what he was doing way back when. He is/was a great
psychic and a brilliant man, and I think he deserved better.
When CRV was finally tested along with a couple dozen other methods --
including lots of general public as well as expert viewers, lots of
time and practice for improvement, etc. -- research results were that
no method was really any better than another, and no method produced
better results in the end than someone with zero method, given 5
minutes of instruction about relaxing, trying not to label etc.
As for the various components of CRV, few of them originated with
Ingo. As he pointed out himself, he was "compiling" what he felt was
the best stuff from a variety of fields, eras and people.
In the end, I know three people who can really kick ass at RV.
That's all -- I mean who are *really* good. One has enough training
for about 42 people, but taught himself over time long before getting
all that. One had training from an unmentionable offspring, LOL. And
one had no training but a McMoneagle book and doing it like
instructed. All of them say that it was doing constant practice --
like 2 or 3 targets a day, at least 5-6 days a week -- for about
three years that finally got them to where, although they knew they'd
miss sometimes, in general they felt somewhat confident about what
they are doing. All of them are doing whatever they want to do, in
which matching any method they've learned is purely coincidental,
lol -- it is an individualized process.
That pretty much matches the martial arts curve, which is about 3-4
days a week of "serious" practice, a little more near the end, for a
blackbelt at about 5 years out; less if there is more practice.
PJ
Reply | Forward
#901
From: "smitty97006"
Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 7:05 pm
Subject: Re: 'Real' RV smitty97006
>PJ Wrote:
> "When CRV was finally tested along with a couple dozen other methods
> including lots of general public as well as expert viewers, lots of
> time and practice for improvement, etc. -- research results were that
> no method was really any better than another, and no method produced
> better results in the end than someone with zero method, given 5
> minutes of instruction about relaxing, trying not to label etc."
Hello PJ,
I'd be curious if you could point me to this study. The part that
particularly stikes me oddly is that someone with zero method given 5
minutes of instruction about relaxing etc is as effective as someone,
such as an "expert viewer", who has done daily sessions for years.
Do you really believe this? If its a fact then most people here,
myself included, are just wasting a LOT of time.
Sincerely,
Gene Smith
----------------------------
Moderator's note: Hi Gene. Well either you interpreted something I didn't say
or I just said it really badly! I'm sorry if so.
I meant to say that comparatively (method vs. no-method), no particular method
resulted in "better viewers" than not having one at all, either in the short
term or the longer term given time to practice (both types, method/no-method,
given time). In other words, shoulder to shoulder, whether day 1 or day 720,
none of the methods stood out as providing significant improvement to either
novice or experienced persons using it. There were several people involved in
the study, consultants in learning theory and so forth. The study was done
years ago but will be published next year. It was part of the StarGate research,
but the program ended prior to the lab getting around to publishing it. Another
research paper concerning the issue of viewer improvement over time will be
published as well.
I met Dr. Ed May as a side effect of that study. He was once interviewed and
said something about paying thousands for training being, in his view,
ridiculous, given that 20 minutes of instruction would harvest the same end
results as the training would, and that people claiming training "would make
someone a good remote viewer" (let alone the claims Ed Dames was making
publicly) was literally fraud. He suggested that practice without training and
practice with training were no different in the end as long as the practice was
done in protocol. I look up his number, called him on the phone and ranted at
him for indirectly insulting my personal CRV guru, hahahaha! I told him if it
wasn't published for peer review, he had no right to publicly refer to it.
I was a real jerk, as I'd been told all kinds of (it turns out untrue) stories
about him by a couple people, I thought he was like the Evil White Coated One.
He was a real gentleman, talked to me like an equal and didn't take offense. He
agreed that this was correct, and that he would not do that publicly again until
he had the time and money to get it published.
Ironically, later he and others were criticized by skeptoids for not publicly
disowning the whole methods-madness CRV field since it wasn't scientific and the
term was being used wrongly, which inferred/impinged on the credibility of RV in
the lab. But he did not speak up, due I believe to our conversation.
I don't think people are wasting time or I certainly wouldn't be involved in all
this! I do think that regardless of the "measured accuracy in terms of the lab"
is concerned, that people DO get better -- perhaps in many ways that don't
directly translate to "more hits" only to "better data" per hit.
I used to believe that without "training", a person just wouldn't be as good,
that training was a big step up. Now I believe it really depends on the person.
I think for some people training is as much harm as help, and I think people can
become just as good without a method if they just practice regularly, properly
blind w/feedback.
I've encountered hundreds of people trained in the last seven years and probably
about 80 that weren't or were 'psychics', and other than those who were already
said to be skilled when I met them, the only viewers I've personally known who
became really good were those who practiced, properly, nearly obsessively, for
several years. With or without a method. With CRV or SRV for example. Method
type, or lack thereof, didn't matter. It seemed to be the personal drive, and
the constant practice, and the doing it fully blind w/feedback, those things
seem to be the core points.
I would say the psychology was the key but actually, I think whether people
really do practice constantly and properly is itself the statement about where
their psychology is with it.
Everybody tells me they get better. Maybe not at target contact but at knowing
what the hell to do with it when they get it. So I think that is really what we
are all working for.
There of course are a lot of people I don't know, so I'm only one perspective.
And perhaps my definition of a good viewer is a little tighter than some
people's because I'm spoiled by friendships with a few people that are pretty
darn good at it. Actually that doesn't help MY viewing, I was overcritical of
myself right out the gate, and have only gotten moreso since seeing what others
can do. If I can just get my schedule worked out to get the practice in, I
think... eventually... I'll be ok. :-) I assume everybody else will be too.
PJ
Reply | Forward
#908
From: "Eva"
Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:59 pm
Subject: Re: 'Real' RV k9caninek9
You can change the label on something over and over again, but the
stigma that the subject carries will tend to follow the subject and
not get shaken off by the label. It may work at first, but as soon
as the person sees that the subject is the same, they will reattach
the stigma to it (if they carried stigma for it that is). I just
think it is more than hilarious that people think they can call
it 'remote viewing' and somehow avoid the stigma that is attached to
psi. If you explain rv to any layman, the first thing they will
think is that you are talking about psi. The only solution is to try
to educate people about the realities of psi and that is just not an
easy task. It takes time and effort and an open mind on the part of
the listener. There is no short cut for that and insisting over and
over that rv is not psi will just tend to confuse and piss off a
skeptical listener. Anyway, that's my opinion on it and I'm sure it
will irk some people, but what they hey, I feel kind snippety
tonight! ;-)
-E
-------------------------
Moderator's note: LOL. Well I agree that educating people about psi is the real
answer. RV *is* psychic functioning. A FEW people might have been prone to
giving RV the tiniest shred more credibility than 1-900 because of it's
scientific nature. But now that everybody calls everything RV, the term is
diluted beyond use anyway. I guess my main confusion is that people won't just
call plain psi work psychic work. It's like it's some embarrassment or they just
want to be 'cool' like stargate or claim the science history. I think you're
right -- in the end, since it is psychic work, one really just needs to educate
others about psi. P.S. Good luck on that part. ;-) -- PJ
Reply | Forward
#902
From: aeonblueau8008...
Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 5:01 pm
Subject: Re: 'Real' RV terri8008
IMO.. RV needed to be (or wanted to be) distinguished from the everyday
psychic or street corner psychic (and it earned it IMO).
Everyone is psychic.
RV (hopefully) was/is a bit more to the point and stream-lined, and some feel
you (needed) to learn it, can learn it, and it can be taught.
Just learning/adopting a session structure is highly beneficial.
Generally as I've watched and seen folks seem to naturally gravitate, be
attracted to "their" teacher, good bad bogus pro con.
I've tossed out coords for years on lots of lists, and if i'm dealing with
psychics, general public, the first question is... "what is that".
Some psychics want frontloading.. that's fine but tell me something I/we
don't know, it rarely happens, if ever, on lists anyway.
I'd rather deal and work with someone somewhat trained in some form of RV.
We then are (somewhat) working on the same sheet of music and can understand
each other.
If RV fades to just "psychic", (even more catch all) well, I for one couldn't
post a set of coords to a PSI list and have everyone respond with what is
that.
After you are trained or taught or tutored or have a clue as to what you are
doing and have developed structure as tho it's second nature.. then you begin
to explore and play around with different techniques, that's a given.
Everyone does that.
Then you start discovering things about RV and about your self, you push the
window, take off your training wheels.
Some share, some don't and what works for some simply won't work, will never
work for another.
I did and do, as a rule it sucks, my sessions, as seen public on Ev's list..
some for Mary A way back on innerlight list, some of those are pretty bad.
Maybe I haven't played around enough(lazy), but when I fall back to what
works for me, well i'm just an ERVer and that works for me and i'm content
with that.
I'm not too good at anything else, cards, colors, dowsing, coin tosses, spoon
bending, ESP or RI.
Pretty good with pre cog tho..
I always fall back to the same ole same ole.
I prefer (have to be) to be totally blind, but that works best for me.
I prefer a monitor. But that's the way I was raised and in that I trust
(because I like the results). A good Monitor (compliments) takes reduces
stress off your session, you don't have to think/control (as much).
Somewhere sometime there must be feedback, IMO RV requires feedback to work
or come full circle (1 day 1 hour 1 year 100 years from now). I don't need
to see or know it, and I must have complete trust in who/whom I work with,
but it must exist.
Some of that.. all of that is what might set an RVer apart from just being
labeled psychic.
We are all psychic.
Folks take different labels.
Some are empaths, so right off you know their quals.
Some are clairvoyant, a bit different but you know their quals and what to
expect.
Some are readers, some are dowsers etc. et.
It just comes down to debating labels.. but labels help to define IMO.
You just find your nitch.. call it whatever you want, but in general folks
on an RV list sorta expect that (as opposed to a general catch all PSI list).
I don't have any problem with the label of RV.. usually that comes from folks
who don't understand what RV is or does or who are forever trying to change
it.
Just about every PSI skill/utilized is- remote viewed.
~~Terri.
pjrv : Messages : 889-917 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/889?)
22:33:45
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#889
From: "PJ Gaenir"
Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:09 am
Subject: 'Real' RV dennanm
This is moved from PEM to the list, as I'd like to hear what others
think about this topic.
> It just seems kind of convenient that some people can say that
> nothing is rv unless it has feedback.
Well, the formal RV protocol requires only that feedback exist
SOMEDAY. That may be, that 100 years from now, there is feedback,
and someone compares your session to it. Obviously, this is a pretty
unworkable labeling process for the process outside of a lab, there
is no doubt.
But I happen to believe that non-fully-blind RV, or that without any
feedback at all (e.g., The Galactic Hall), shouldn't be called RV
anyway. I don't know what the big knee-jerk terror is about calling
it psychic work for godssakes. Everybody wants the association with
RV because of its "scientific" background, but then most won't do a
thing toward doing it in a scientific (double blind or solo blind,
with some form of feedback) protocol. That's so weasel-ish.
There is no reason why viewers cannot simply refer to their work as
RV or psychic depending on the protocol -- if they say psychic it
would mean, the monitor was not blind, or the target was a person and
the psychic was not blind, or the target was blind but there is as
yet zero feedback to judge accuracy[*see below], or whatever.
There is no shame -- I have seen people do a session knowing what the
target was right up front and still kick ass on details they didn't
know. People like McMoneagle -- criminy, he must know what the target
probably IS just a few minutes into it, he's so freakin psychic,
which means the rest of the session is non-blind! I actually think
even learning to work frontloaded to varying degrees is eventually
necessary, not to do all the time, but to be able to do in a hard
situation without getting totally thrown by it.
It just isn't fair to RV as a field people worked hard to give some
legitimacy to, to do non-legit stuff and use the same term. It has
trashed the definition of RV, now some labs call it "anomalous
cognition", a dense enough term nobody in the public is likely to
steal it. At this point the term is useless I suppose.
It is no worse to call non-feedback work RV than it is to call non-
double-blind work RV. There is a major double standard of sorts in
part of the methods world, where they can work severely out of
protocol and they'll call it RV anyway, but god forbid someone should
do a target double-blind but without feedback -- "that isn't RV!"
It's bogus -- neither are RV in a formal sense. And if we're not in
a 'formal' sense because someone thinks that only matters in a lab,
well, one situation is not better than the other.
Besides. When you think about it, even RV formally has limits on
feedback. A viewer can get a ton of data that is not apparent from a
feedback photograph. What, does one break down every word as being
RV or non-RV?
Many anomalous targets DO have feedback, they just don't have
feedback on the details or the cause or whatever. However, if a
person double blind or solo blind and truly NOT frontloaded with
nature of the target, does a session for example, where the target
turns out to be a sighting of mysterious lights, or a crop circle, or
whatever, the nature of the target itself does give SOME feedback.
We know that the physical reality was mysterious lights or a crop
circle. If a *double-blind* session turns up data that clearly
correlates with what aspects of the target we DO know, then I am
willing to consider seriously the rest of the data, even if it
doesn't have feedback.
If you RV a crop circle, and you are truly double-blind or solo-blind
(no unspoken frontloading like many groups working together or on
certain projects have), and your data ends up having enough points in
common with the target to suspect you were on target, I call that
RV. It was done in protocol. It has feedback.
OK, it does not have feedback on the ORIGIN of it. But then, the
average target of a bridge does not have feedback on its origin or
lifespan now does it? You could RV a bridge and get that there were
people on it repairing it and your feedback doesn't show that, but
maybe there are or were, who would know? I once -- back in '96 --
viewed a partial shot of the top of a skyscraper, and got an entire
bilocation 3rd-person experience, had NO idea what the hell that was
all about, but one of the very CLEAR pieces of information in the
experience was that it was taking place in an executive's big office
very near the top of a really tall building. Well, I've got no
feedback on 99.9% of my session, but I still call it RV, because the
feedback I did have, matched well enough with a specific part of my
data, for me to believe my data was related. I don't claim that data
was 'true'. But I call the session RV.
Half the reason that operations need to be doubleblind as much as the
lab, is it is so important there be some way to validate whether the
viewer may be on target, and how accurate their session is. Every
general gestalt or tiny detail that a viewer might get through non-
psi means, trashes the ability of an analyst, who desperately needs
some 'benchmarks' on the viewer session, to compare the session with
reality.
In the ops world, viewers don't get much feedback. But the good ones
continue practicing with detail feedback, as it is a constant
learning/swimming/changing process and they need to stay sharp.
So most of the feedback issues are oriented toward viewer-skill, and
session-validation (even if only in tiny parts) in ops, and session
evaluation in the lab.
If a viewer works properly blind and has *some* form of feedback -- a
photo of an archeological artifact, a crop circle photo, a newspaper
story about lights in the sky -- then I call it RV.
Now, the Galactic Hall is another story. Because there is NO
feedback at ALL, we do not know that the target even exists
beyond "thoughtform" stage.
And even physical things with zero feedback -- e.g., "I think there
is a secret underground lab of the reptilians at these coordinates"
it's back to the thoughtform problem again, until there is at least
one piece of hard data we can consider feedback.
Say we did a session and describe a secret underground base. Say the
feedback is a picture from an airplane of a corn patch. It's "bad"
RV because it doesn't match the feedback. I would not necessarily
believe a word of the session. But, if feedback should turn up that
correlates to session -- a photo showing that place with bulldozers
100' down 14 years ago -- then we might throw away the concept that
it's 'bad' RV (missed/wrong) and say, now we don't know how good the
session is, but it still IS RV because it has feedback, and there is
correlating data to the viewer's session, so it's worth seeing.
Given the list of RV no-no's one can be guilty of, I'll do targets
without 'detail' feedback any day, and call it RV if there is SOME
feedback that I can match up to my session. I would not, however,
outside some deliberate trial to test or practice such, ever do
something out of protocol -- non-double/solo-blind -- or with
zero/zero feedback ('the galactic hall' stuff).
Anything else that might come along, for any reason, I would consider
psychic. Not RV. No big deal. I get that stuff too.
My "spontaneous" experiences are "psychic", not RV. That's fine.
PJ
Reply | Forward
#907
From: "Eva"
Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 10:46 pm
Subject: Re: 'Real' RV k9caninek9
That was a small snippet from a very long PEM. What I meant was that
I sometimes hear it said that if you rv aliens or crop circles or
whatever, then it's not rv cuz there is no feedback (that can be
assured). I can't accept that. RV is a method and if you follow the
method, then it is rv. How the information comes is not known so how
can one make an unknown and unprovable theory (ie that a living
entity must know the answer in order for an rver to get the answer) a
requirement for the label of rv? That makes no sense. Now
obviously, if a person is not 100% accurate with their rv (and I know
of no one who is), then the answers that are surmised on the esoteric
target can't be assumed to be 100% either. That's just common sense
too. But it's still rv as far as I am concerned.
-E
> This is moved from PEM to the list, as I'd like to hear what others
> think about this topic.
> > It just seems kind of convenient that some people can say that
> > nothing is rv unless it has feedback.
--------------------
Moderator's note: RV isn't a method technically though, it is a protocol (set of
rules to use ANY method "within"). CRV was methods designed to be used within
that protocol, hence its RV name. It isn't really Ingo's fault that so few
choose to use his methods in that context alas.
But the part about feedback in the protocol - that has nothing to do with the
assumption that someone alive has to know the answer like because someone
assumes that is 'how' psi works. Nobody knows how psi works, as you point out.
So if that were the reason it'd be stupid. Feedback is only part of the
protocol but it is a *science* protocol, and without feedback, results cannot be
measured. And if it cannot be measured, it isn't science.
The term was coined to specifically describe what *science* was doing. Hence to
use the term, even outside a science lab, if you match the primary protocol
points one can legitimately call it RV. But when major protocol pieces
(blinding, feedback) vanish, it's no longer the thing the term was coined to
mean... though it is still psychic, obviously.
I happen to think a crop circle target IS remote viewing. You don't have
feedback on the origin, but that goes for lots of non-esoteric stuff too. You do
have it on physically provable end result. -- PJ
Reply | Forward
#917
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Thu Oct 24, 2002 8:36 pm
Subject: Re: Re: 'Real' RV docsavagebill
Hi PJ and Eve,
> Moderator's note: RV isn't a method technically
> though, it is a protocol (set of rules to use ANY
> method "within"). CRV was methods designed to be
> used within that protocol, hence its RV name.
I've read this before in Joe's book. But it was never
clear to me WHAT the "protocol " was. Other than it
was doing psi blind to the viewer.
Websters: "PROTOCOL def #4" :
a detailed plan of a
scientific or medical experiment, treatment, or
procedure
OK so RV is a plan for a psi experiment.. but what
plan? Is it a plan for doing blind psi session of
any type? Is it a blind psi session done with
feedback?
What is it?
And I'm not taking a thing from the tremendous work
the SRI and Ft Meade people did.
But I don't think it was ever meant to be ONE THING!
IT WAS bootstrap pragmatic attempts to do psychic
spying in any way that worked. And what worked has
been termed RV. But I don't think it is One Thing. Its
a collection of ideas and methods and protocols that
werre used at SRI and at Ft meade IMHO.
Best Regards,
Bill
----------------------------
Moderator's note: Well everybody except the few people
Ingo trained (and that legacy) knows what "a good RV
Protocol" is, including Ingo. Either he didn't bother
passing that on (which I doubt, given even the CRV manual
is clear about even training being done double blind
past stage 3, let alone ops), or they just didn't feel
like being 'inconvenienced' by it (which usually means
people aren't doing so well IN it as out of it). Had
this been taken a little more seriously, I suspect legions
of RV methods students would not be bewildered about it.
"Bootstrap" is a really good term that works for methods --
but not for the primary rules those methods fit in, which
were well defined 10++ years before Swann even began his
development of CRV methods. -- PJ
pjrv : Messages : 903-919 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/903?)
22:33:57
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#903
From: "nita...ulse.com"
Date: Wed Oct 23, 2002 9:27 pm
Subject: Re: Re: 'Real' RV nitahickok
Hi PJ
I have to admit that your reasons are better than mine on most of these
things. I am talking about standardizing it where everyone can see the
strengths and weakness's of a RV school including whether or not people
follow the protocol.
The ethics is another subject because I have been on the short end of the
stick on a number of issues. I have been stalked, lied about, harassed and
threatened by a person. The very people who knew this stuck up for the
person doing it. I had been threatened by the person for no reason. They had
convictions for stalking others. They are still on a lot of the lists acting
like a expert trolling for new people to abuse. The reason this happened is
because I became friends with the very people I met them with at a
conference.
I have had people bounce checks to me and then say I didn't have any
ethics. I wasn't the one who acted incorrectly and bounced checks. I have
been bewildered by the people living in their own realities. You are right
about it being a social cult.
The ARVer's have been a breath of fresh air. They are reality oriented
and try to do a good job. They try to stick to the protocol and they treat
people nicely.
I mentioned Ingo but a lot of people also helped to bring about the
manual. It is still just a way to become psychic. It is nothing to be
ashamed of in any way. I am really more of a mystic in some ways but a
psychic is just someone who uses psi abilities.
I feel that the main reason to be ashamed of what you are is because you
don't know how to be a real person and accept yourself. I am a RVer when I
use the protocol. I am a mystic and psychic when I do the other work. I am
just a person who is dealing with reality otherwise.
Nita
Whenever you hear that someone else has been successful, rejoice. Always
practice rejoicing for others-whether they are your friend or enemy. If you
cannot practice rejoicing, no matter how long you live, you will not be
happy.
Lama Zopa Rinpoche, "Transforming Problems into Happiness".
Reply | Forward
#912
From: Timelord2029...
Date: Thu Oct 24, 2002 2:46 am
Subject: Re: Re: 'Real' RV psitrooper24
>in the end, since it is psychic work, one really just
>needs to educate others about psi. P.S. Good luck on
>that part. ;-) -- PJ
well I find the best way is to show them first
hand what its about.
There are a numeber of ways but if you cant
demonstrate it yourself, show them REAL demonstartions
or RV projects from sites over the web,
(try avoiding sites that say we are the only RV group
on earth)
2nd get them to try it for themselves.
Most people ive met heard about RV
from the Discovery Channel and re runs of
the brilliant 2hour documentary
"Billion Dollar Secret" by Jane's Defence Weekly editor Nick cook which features
Lyn Buchanon and ..Jim Marrs which is shown on a regular basis here in the UK.
Funny that because that documentary ends with RV/Ufo's/
piloting ufos and alien abductions with the author finding the RV part more
facinating than what the program was all about in the first place.
I think Nick got more than he bargained for
that time LOL
Peace,
Tunde
Reply | Forward
#919
From: "Pame"
Date: Fri Oct 25, 2002 3:40 am
Subject: Re: Re: 'Real' RV elittlestar
HI
would you consider this feedback
ok, do you think that this information from cnn will help clear the light on
ufo info.? and we may now get more feedback data that will not be
considered esoteric ...
can this change thinking!
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/10/22/ufo.records/index.html
pame
------------------------
Moderator's note: Cool! Hope the demand works! :-) I'd surely vote in favor of
removing all the secrecy stuff around UFOs.... PJ
|