pjrv : Messages : 3567-3668 of 4038
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pjrv/messages/3567?)
15:59:32
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-PJRV_group---------
#3567
From: "Glyn"
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:58 am
Subject: FW: Retro-tasking experiment #7 -
Part 1 glynis5799
Hi all,
Well #7 wa
s a good one.
Here is my mail to Liz and her session at the bottom. I will be posting Lizs
comments in Part 2
Glyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Glyn
Sent: 14 December 2003 18:53
To: Elizabeth Hambrook
Subject: Retro-tasking experiment #7
Hello again Liz,
Well this is a really interesting one. Yes, I definitely remember that session
of yours. It was when Eva was setting targets and a group of you were putting
sessions up on Farview and I was also doing some analysis practice with them;
before feedback was given. It was coord FV030115, and we had fun discussing it
because everyone seemed to miss that particular one. Mmmmm, dont tell me I
messed you *all* up :-).
Funny,&I just went back to look for it, and the very first file I looked at was
about that one, and the very next one I looked at was a session by someone else
on the same target&(go back and look at the archives)&it mentioned an AOL of a
tank with caterpillar tracks, but the words typed were large green caterpillar
and it came out and hit me right between the eyes with a green messy splat!!. He
he!! Oh Father Time you are mischievous old man. LOL!! I dont believe in
synchronicity&but I am not even going to try and think that one out ;-).
( Ooooh BTW back to #6 fo
r a second... You mentioned coils in your session, and
I couldnt think of any a correlation with the Christmas party..&&.well you know
those party blowers consisting of a coil of wire covered in paper which when
blown at one end shoots out straight and hits someone in the nose? Well I we
were doing that lots& Just thought Id mention that .).
On to #7&.
My photo is from an article in a magazine, and shows a large caterpillar on a
leaf. The little creature is photographed attaching some silk thread to a leaf
to turn it over and fix it down so it forms a shelter; a bit like the ropes
holding down a tent. Now&and this is intriguing& could the major vein of the
leaf which runs diagonally down the picture under the caterpillars head, maybe,
just maybe, if glimpsed really quickly by you back there in the past&&.just look
a little bit like wires coming out either side of a head??
Well, your session certainly fits my retro-tasking far better than the original
target you did it for, but again is it any more than coincidence? What do you
think?
Great fun this time machine stuff isnt it? LOL!
.
-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Hambrook
Sent: 14 December 2003 04:54
To: Glyn
Subject: #7
Hi Glyn,
I kept pulling out long sessions this time so I was forced to go through my
folder to find a shorter session that didn't have a load of drawings included.
This one is a really crappy session too so it will be interesting to see what
happens.
The target was Carhenge tasked by Eva. There were grey painted cars placed in a
circle like Stonehenge. Blue sky, puffy clouds, a circle of beige gravel within
a field of grass.
Someone else who did this target got something similar to my 'wires coming out
either side of a head'. It turned out that the man who built Carhenge was called
something like Mr. Reindeer. LOL
rounded
soft
pudgy feel
dough like feel
sentient being
intelligent
buttons
patch of black on top right of round object
straight line on a 45deg angle
natural
smooth
slightly salty
smell of powder or smoke (thick air)
warmth
something like wires on either side of a head
it is vocal
green
coarse texture
crisp
oval
drops/drips
swing
curl
hang
fibrous
tranquil feeling
comforting feeling almost like love
movement in a curve or circle
hairy
water
Reply | Forward
#3569
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Mon Dec 15, 2003 8:23 pm
Subject: Re: FW: Retro-tasking experiment #7 -
Part 1 docsavagebill
Hi Glyn, Liz,
See it just happens..G. But really it is so much like
ARV that I don't see why anyone is greatly surprised.
In classic ARV..you do the session before even getting
a target pair assigned. Then a second person picks out
a target pair ( or more) and in effect RETRO TASKS YOU
TO HAVE DONE ONE OF THOSE PAIRS ALREADY!. Already a
time loop before you get feedback from the event the
pair matches. So for this to work a time loop has to
be made that that causes you to work a session that
won't be tasked until later, for an event that occurs
even later..a double time loop! Totally a mind blower.
In retro tasking a similiar time loop is set up, by
the second tasker overriding the first. I guess the
question is what makes the second tasker more powerful
than the first or vice versa..?
Reply | Forward
#3570
From: "Glyn"
Date: Wed Dec 17, 2003 5:58 pm
Subject: RE: FW: Retro-tasking experiment #7 -
Part 1 glynis5799
Hi Bill,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Pendragon
> See it just happens..G.
Just!? Just!? ;-)
But really it is so much like
ARV that I don't see why anyone is greatly surprised.
No I'm not surprised it happens. It's just getting the conditions right for it
to work on demand that is the big fat hairy problem. :-)
> In classic ARV..you do the session before even getting
> a target pair assigned. Then a second person picks out
> a target pair ( or more) and in effect RETRO TASKS YOU
> TO HAVE DONE ONE OF THOSE PAIRS ALREADY!.
Mmmm let's think about that sort of thing from a FM point of view...
A. I do a session and try to access the memories which will be in my mind in the
future after I have received the feedback connected to that session. When
finished I tell you I am ready.
B. You pick out two pictures with different gestalts and randomly assign a 'Yes
' or a 'No' to each and give them to a third person.
C. I send that third person my session and they match my impressions with the
pictures from you and pick the closest match. They (or you) then make a bet..
depending on whether the result reflected 'Yes' or 'No'.
D. The event actually happens and it is 'No'
E. I am shown (by whoever) the feedback corresponding to the actual result.
Never, throughout the whole of my life, must I ever, ever, know what the other
picture was, or even its major gestalts....ever..not a hint.or it may have even
led to me having had a spectacular hit on the wrong picture! :-). It may even
be a good idea if I never even know what the event was. But I guess I must
trust you enough to send me my share of any winnings. LOL!
So in the above scenario, I go from A to E directly, and from my point of view
(excuse the pun :-) ), stages B, D and E are just not relevant, no matter what
your intent is. It is my (the viewer's) intent to pick up impressions of the
picture which will become associated (in my future mind) with my session.. that
is the important thing. Then of course there are those who think that the tasker
's 'intent' is the important thing, and additional feedback not needed, but I
will have to agree to disagree with them there; for the moment anyway ;-).
I don't think retro-tasking is the right form of words actually Bill. IMO it is
nothing to do with the tasking, and everything to do with the feedback, whether
that feedback comes in the form of a picture, text, or actual experience; but it
is a word that adequately conveys the concept of being mentally 'confused'. I
think people need to be worried not about being retro-tasked without their
knowledge, but with being 'retro-feedbacked' ..which is probably a lot harder to
prevent, seeing that IMO we all do it to ourselves, unwittingly, just by
speculating about our results and not keeping our feedback 'clean'.
We'd have to be half-asleep or distracted to prevent our own mental
speculation...which is of course what the ERV/CRV procedures were designed for.
'Clean-ness' of feedback however is not given enough attention I believe.
Contamination by retro-taskers is the least of our problems I think..we do that
to ourselves every time we discuss our results or search for additional facts on
the web..compounding feedback on top of feedback and making more memories.
Still, learning to overcome such obstacles is probably good practice, and
discussion and speculation, mentally and with others... is a heck of a lot of
fun, and probably the only way to improve. May not be advisable to discuss
anything with anyone at all, ever, if you want to make serious money out of it
though ;-).
I think that Viewer intent is very important, and a decent Rver can probably
learn to 'thwart' a deliberate retro-tasker, while getting 'cleaner'
impressions anyway.. just by focusing on the 'desired' feedback and ignoring
other, more indirect, information. Which is perhaps why those with oodles of
experience and more disciplined minds (including of course the military types)
seem to make the best Rvers.
My opinions as always. Would welcome comments.
Kind regards,
Glyn
Reply | Forward
#3571
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:40 pm
Subject: RE: FW: Retro-tasking experiment #7 -
Part 1 docsavagebill
Hi Glyn,
After 3-500 or more ARV sessions I'd have say
"feedback is highly overrated". It's totally clear to
me that the RV mind can find information even if it is
never fed back. It's the intention that makes the
difference. IMO you can NEVER hide information from
the RV mind. I've seen to many cases of an ARVer
exactly matching the wrong target even when he never
sees the "wrong" target to believe that. Nothing is
invisible to the RVer IMO. The viewers mind usually
starts out obeying the "rules"..but seems to
eventually find a way around being blind, by "reading
of the judges mind". Even using a computer to judge
failed to thwart displacement according to Greg K and
he has done 1000's of experiments . More than any
other ARVer in my opinion. Feedback is a very easy
hyppothesis to swallow..but it just doesn't produce
what it's hyped up to. ..G
Reply | Forward
#3573
From: "Glyn"
Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:46 am
Subject: RE: FW: Retro-tasking experiment #7 -
Part 1 glynis5799
Hi Bill,
Thanks for that, it's just what I need. I haven't swallowed the feedback idea
hook line and sinker, oh no. I am testing for it. Of course 'feedback' (re FM
theory) would not only mean the viewer did not have, or was not given, the
original intended feedback, but never ever even a hint of what the target was
throughout the rest of their lives; not an itty-bitty smidgeon of a gestalt
even, not a rumour, not a mention. If you can guarantee that then I would love
to hear of instances..but of course if you give me these instances in case the
Viewer may somehow somewhere get to know ;-).
That of course why this feedback thing is so hard to prove or disprove. I'm
being lighthearted here, but that is the problem with this Bill :-)
However Dunne's theory was that time was serial.that we may be getting the
information from the memories in our own minds in different time-lines; still of
the feedback however. So I fear we may never be able to disprove the feedback
idea.
I absolutely agree with you though, Viewer intention is *all*.
Kind regards,
Glyn
Reply | Forward
#3578
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Fri Dec 19, 2003 11:51 am
Subject: RE: FW: Retro-tasking experiment #7 -
Part 1 docsavagebill
Hi Glyn,
LOL...When a model needs this kind of interpretation
to stay believable..maybe its getting senescent...
C'mon an "itty bitty smideon of gestalt". Now how
could that produce a good session unless the mind had
other ways to get it..G.
Hugs,
Bill
> not an
> itty-bitty smidgeon of a gestalt
> even, not a rumour, not a mention.
Reply | Forward
#3589
From: "Glyn"
Date: Sun Dec 21, 2003 5:49 am
Subject: Those itty bitty words :-) glynis5799
Hi Bill,
Re the offending words. In the mail that I was responding to, you had said (in
so many words) that, you knew of situations where viewers had not received
feedback but nevertheless had good results. Do you actually know that, or have
you just heard that? I cannot dispute what you say, I just wanted you to say
more about it.
What I was trying to convey (using purely layman's terms, which were intended to
be humorous, sorry ;-)), was that *in the light of FM theory*, to be sure the
viewer does not get the information from far down their mental 'time-line', then
they must never have even the smallest idea of what the feedback (or alternative
feedback in ARV) would have been. Bugger-all in fact..sorry again. LOL!!
To factor out FM, then experimenters are faced with never being able to discuss
their experiment with others; in any useful detail. If detailed examples of this
happening are in the public domain, or ever likely to be, and there is any
chance of the viewer(s) ever getting to know about it, then their FM is not
removed from the equation. I am saying, in a round about way, that if you give
me details then it could still be FM, but if you don't but still maintain it
happened then FM may not be a factor, but I will have to take your word for it
or try it for myself.....which I have...but if I tell you about the results I'll
have to kill you. LOL!!!
Forgive me, I am not a trained scientist, nor will I pretend to be, but I am
definitely not playing here. I am actually trying to shake my own 'belief' in FM
rather than convince anyone else about anything. If I do use a model at the
moment then it would be JW Dunne's. These are informal experiments that may go
some way towards that result.
'Senescent'. now is that me or Dunne's ideas you are referring to? It could
definitely apply to me, physically at least ;-) ...but not to Dunne I feel;
although he formulated his theory pre 1927 of course, so it is a bit long in the
tooth I guess. Old does not necessarily mean wrong however :-).
Regards,
Glyn
Reply | Forward
#3601
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:10 pm
Subject: Re: Pat Prices correct viewings that weren't fed back to him ever. docsavagebill
Hi Glyns,
In that URL that Liz posted were two situations where
Pat Price viewed targets in great detail..and the
results were not even known until after he died. I
can't find the URL now..but maybe Liz can repost it.
Quite interesting, and would seem to end the idea that
feedback is essential. BTW I certainly was not saying
you were senescenct! I was referring to a hypothesis
like "feedback is necessary" that starts to require so
many conditions and extensions to make it believable
that it becomes untestable. Such as requiring not even
a "smidgeon of a gestalt" of feedback. I'm sorry I'm
not aiming this at you at all Glyn. I just feel the
idea that psi manifests only by future feedback is the
wrong direction, and is slowing development of newer
ideas..
Best Wishes,
Bill
Reply | Forward
#3603
From: "Elizabeth Hambrook"
Date: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:54 pm
Subject: Re: Pat Prices correct viewings that weren't fed back to him ever. ozblueriver
> ..but maybe Liz can repost it.
Hi Bill,
here is the URL for that article about Pat Price and an excert from the
article.
cheers Liz
http://www.p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue21/Intuition_21.htm
Although we were happy to receive this confirmation, unfortunately, Pat Price
had already died two years earlier. So, from the point of view of the
experiment, he made his perception of the sixty-foot spheres and "gores" without
any feedback at all. Price's drawing of the sections of a sphere he psychically
saw are shown in Figure 6. This shows that Price's remarkable perception was a
direct experience of the site. He was not reading the mind of the sponsor,
because no one in the United States knew of the spheres. Nor could Pat have
been precognitively looking at his feedback from the future, because he received
none.
Reply | Forward
#3608
From: "Glyn"
Date: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am
Subject: RE: Pat Prices correct viewings that weren't fed back to him ever. glynis5799
OK, rub it in guys ;-).
LOL! Glyn
> Nor could Pat have been precognitively looking at his
> feedback from the future, because he received none.
Reply | Forward
#3605
From: "Glyn"
Date: Tue Dec 23, 2003 1:52 am
Subject: RE: Pat Prices correct viewings that weren't fed back to him ever. glynis5799
Hi Bill,
> BTW I certainly was not saying
> you were senescenct!
I know you weren't Bill, no problem :-). I do understand what you mean,
honestly. I don't think FM theory requires anymore conditions and extensions in
thinking than the very modern multiple dimensional thinking of some quantum
theorists. LOL!! It's ironic that Dunne's theory of Serial Time is, believe it
or not, very similar ;-).
I think a part (a very big part) of the problem is because I cannot explain what
I mean very well. Face to face I may be able to, but by email it is so
difficult. If one day we meet then we can have a good discussion over a drink or
three. :-)
Our memories are not made necessarily of direct feedback, they can be the result
of logical deduction based perhaps on 'smidgeons' of this and that over a
lifetime. I guess the word 'feedback' is putting you off..just think memory.
Still, you are right Bill, I will back off a bit. I am not closed minded or in a
cul-de-sac, it just fits for me, Pat Price et al, but I'll cease rambling on
about it..for a while. LOL!!
All the best Bill, and a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,
Big Grins from,
Glyn
Reply | Forward
#3651
From: "Glyn"
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:31 pm
Subject: RE: Pat Prices correct viewings that weren't fed back to him ever. glynis5799
Hi all,
Phew that was a long Christmas break...so many emails to read so little time.
Poor Kristen was ill over Christmas (hope you are OK now Kristen :-), and so
were we....me, my husband, and the dog too. We all went down with different
things on Boxing Day, and have only just got our energy levels up; fortunately
none of us needed a vet ;-). No it wasn't my cooking either. :-)
(BTW I've just posted up the feedback photo re Retro-tasking Experiment #10)
Bill, there was a past mail which I didn't reply to properly....
>
> I just feel the
> idea that psi manifests only by future feedback is the
> wrong direction, and is slowing development of newer
> ideas..
What new ideas Bill? Serious question. How can discussion of FM theory (and
let's face it I am one of very few that admit to giving it any credence anyway),
slow down development of new ideas? Hopefully such discussion stimulates
thinking; especially by those who disagree? :-) Let's face it, FM and Serial
Time theory is just someone's idea of how what we call precognition may work.
If there is another theory, a model, out there that goes as far towards trying
to explain psi (and that doesn't just mention 'precognition' without trying to
go further), then I would genuinely really love to hear about it. I would
especially like to hear about one that can attempt to jump that 'hurdle'
presented by Pat Price, and others over the ages, who had, well documented,
highly accurate fore-knowledge of events which would occur only after their
death.
Kind Regards,
Glyn
Reply | Forward
#3653
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:01 am
Subject: RE: Pat Prices correct viewings that weren't fed back to him ever. docsavagebill
Hi Glyn,
Well I've heard people of the high scientific caliber
such as Dean Radin trying to explain all psi activity
in terms of future feedback model, and it just stuck
in my craw as a real reach. I think the attraction is
that it is a testable and logical model, but just
doesn't pan out as a causal model. Also it attempts to
explain away interesting psi phenomenae ( such as
ghosts, and entities) as mere misinterpretation of
future feedack. I've heard other models..multiple
universe models, models based on tachyon-like
propagation of information backwards thru time,
Quantum models. But unfortunately none I know of that
lead to a testable conclusions yet. So don't let me
discourage you from adhering to FM....G
Reply | Forward
#3662
From: "Glyn"
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 4:40 pm
Subject: RE: Pat Prices correct viewings that weren't fed back to him ever. glynis5799
Hi Bill,
> Bill Pendragon wrote:
> Also it attempts to
> explain away interesting psi phenomenae ( such as
> ghosts, and entities) as mere misinterpretation of
> future feedack.
I have never seen a ghost , or anything odd, outside a lucid dream or OBE-type
experience (which may be different types of the same thing), but when I entered
my mother's bedroom just after she had died, after they had taken away her body
(this was back in 1988), I strongly 'felt' that my mother was still there.
There was a strong smell of burning in the room ( apparently it is quite
common to smell burning or perfume when having this type of clairvoyant
experience, or so I have read). I then felt something softly brush up and down
my right forearm, like a hand . Then I remembered something Mum had told me
happened when my first husband had died, 12 years before . She thought he had
come to say goodbye to her. She said she was in her bedroom (300 miles away),
and had suddenly, out of the blue, felt his presence. She had described to me
how she felt a 'ghostly' hand stroking her arm, and just *knew* that it was him
(she and he had been very fond of each other). Well I was not thinking about
that at all when I entered her bedroom ... but it would have been just like
her to do the same thing to me, just to demonstrate that she was still aware.
I may have told you this before Bill, but it is just my way of saying that FM
theory, future feedback , and indeed precognition itself, does not go any way
towards explaining that sort of thing IMO, and many people have had similar
experiences. Some would say it was imagination on my part of course, based on a
subconscious memory of a past event, and need. But I don't think so. I don't
think it was anything to do with electromagnetism, memories held in walls,
ultra-sound, infra-sound, or whatever sound. Dammit, I think it may even have
been what it appeared to be. :-).
I actually I think we may agree on this one ;-).
Kind regards,
Glyn
Reply | Forward
#3665
From: Bill Pendragon
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 2:02 am
Subject: RE: Is the Bible code a form of retrotasking? docsavagebill
Hi Glyn and All,
I just watched the History channel show on the the
Bible Code. I realize that there is much scienfitic
skepticism about many claims, and for instance other
researchers find similiar patterns in Moby Dick.
However, I wonder if something similiar to
RetroTasking may not occur in the Bible and other
works? If we assume the composers of various Bible
texts were in a state similiar to Psychic Viewing a
session. Now direct reading of the text thru history
has long ago fixed what could be put there by direct
reading of the Hebrew by millions of people. But only
recently could computers be used to look for these
subtle ESL's "equal spaced letter codes". So the
first ones to search for these may actually be able to
reach backwards and connect with the composer 1000's
of years ago and instill subtle changes in text by
retrotasking??
IN support of this I note that this would presumably
install correctly only events known to the retrotasker
on the composer. Future predictions from retrotasked
"ESL" codes would be subject to the same limitations
as any future RV project and subject to many fanciful
belief errors. As seems to be the case. Or I guess we
will know how fanciful in 2012 when the Bible code
advocates see a prediction of a comet hitting earth.
Best REgards,
Bill
Reply | Forward
#3668
From: "Nita Hickok"
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 12:09 pm
Subject: RE: Is the Bible code a form of retrotasking? nitahickok
Hello Bill
I know of a bible scholar who found what is mentioned in the
Kabbalah as the hidden code. She posts regularly upon Robert Bruces
website Astral Pulse and her name is Beth.
She has posted some of the exerpts and her work is brilliant
unfortunately it will cause major fights among the religions. She has
a doctorate and works out of an Eastern American University that is
really well known.
Anyone interested in this should read Beth's posts.
Nita
> I just watched the History channel show on the the
> Bible Code. I realize that there is much scienfitic
> skepticism about many claims, and for instance other
> researchers find similiar patterns in Moby Dick.
Reply | Forward
#3596
From: "Elizabeth Hambrook"
Date: Sat Dec 20, 2003 8:12 pm
Subject: Re: FW: Retro-tasking experiment #7 -
Part 1 ozblueriver
> LOL...When a model needs this kind of interpretation
> to stay believable..maybe its getting senescent...
> C'mon an "itty bitty smideon of gestalt". Now how
> could that produce a good session unless the mind had
> other ways to get it..G.
As I said to Glyn via PEM I have no problem at all with not being given
feedback, but I'm going to bug the heck out of Glyn once we're both dead until
she tells me. LOL
Glyn is it possible to at least share your findings on that session with the
others? Via PEM of course so I still never know. I don't mind if you all know
something I don't.......much. ;) Just get them all to sign a statement never to
reveal the feedback to me......in blood naturally. :)
cheers
Liz
|