Could the Trauma of a Future Event Impact a Current RV Session?
by Sita Seery
In my previous article, I identified some anomalies associated with our Guild’s remote viewing session on the night of September 10, 2001. My remote viewing group was given a simple validation target to work and at the end of the session, several of us felt that we were totally off target. What we failed to realize was the astounding congruency of data that seemed to point toward another possible target, one that occurred several hours later on the other side of the continental United States causing a significant fracture in the peak emotional structure of the collective consciousness. This is an area in which we as remote viewers should recognize as we move toward better understanding of remote viewing and other forms of interrelationships with our subconscious awareness.
In the previous article, I indicated that the target worked that evening was Timothy Leary with a flotation tank. The viewer may want to refer to that article located on the HRVG website under sessions titled Article: “Migrations into the Future Present.” Almost all of the viewers who worked the class target on September 10, 2001 received data related to the tragedy of the World Trade Center and Pentagon. However, mixed in with that “contaminated” data, was aspects of data related to the actual Timothy Leary Target. The target ID was IBKU-THLU.
All of the viewers who worked that target had identified a triangular shaped object.
For example, these first two pictograms are Jimmy’s and Valtra’s depiction of a perceived triangular shaped object.
Both Pame and James produced interlaced triangles. In Pame’s work above, her subconscious communicated to her that a human element is located to the right of the triangles. In the actual photograph, there are several humans standing to the right of the flotation tank with Timothy Leary. When analyzing viewers’ sessions, details like these are significant to us, especially when conducting analysis on external client targets.
Note the wavy energy or water gestalt in front of the triangle. This is symbolically important because the target was a container for liquid. The HRVG analyst is trained to recognize these symbols in the viewer’s work. While some of the data may be subjective in nature according to the proven qualifications and data collection experience of the analyst, some of the symbols stand out as obvious gestalts representing key resources that the analyst will use in his/her work.
One of the most important lessons we learned about targeteering and remote viewing is that we must be extremely careful when selecting and viewing a target. Contamination of data is easy to do, even now, after we have collectively and individually viewed over a thousand targets since the inception of our Guild. The physical, psychical and mental noise levels in a remote viewing session are always a challenge to any viewer. The targeteer must remain clear in purpose and intention and carefully convey this process from target selection to feedback. Targets are carefully segregated and placed on neutral surfaces in the targeteering process to avoid contamination. We learned that our subconscious is so sensitive to psychic vibration that sometimes even a subtle change of energy or data in the target selection process can cause some viewers to overshoot the intended target.
We had previously worked several sessions where a targeteer would select a target and then later decide on another target. When a targeteer selects a target from a multiple source of potential candidates, and the viewer ingresses in on that selection process, their work is sometimes overshadowed as a result of their intrusion in the target review process. The confusion is further exacerbated by their inability or inexperience in maintaining proper target contact. This is one of the reasons HRVG members are challenged to continue doing homework and validation type targets. The more targets we work, the more attuned we will be to sustaining viable contact with the target.
Some of the viewers’ work on the September 10, 2001 target reflected a tunnel-like structure with corresponding perceptuals. I initially ascribed these illustrations to analytical overlays (AOL) and simply thought that perhaps some of the viewers had some type of electromagnetic signal crossovers due to the similarity of their work. However, the targeteer revealed that he had considered another target for the class.
While screening similar targets, the targeteer initially reviewed the above photograph as a potential target candidate for class work on the evening of September 10, 2001. The subconscious awareness of some of the more sensitive viewers actually depicted his screening process in their work:
Both of the viewers above are naturally more intuitive than others in our class. They both display keen visual and perceptual acuity in most of their work. Both women are excellent viewers in the Guild.
In Stage 1 Playfair , Valtra saw a tunnel-like archway with water. Her work in this galley produced data congruent to her visual data. Kathy’s work in S2 Playfair was almost an exact mirror, sans the tunnel-like archway in this segment of her work. Note the similarity and direction of the zig zag drawing in both Kathy and Valtra’s visuals.
Here is Barton’s graphic illustration of an arched structure.
Kathy also reflected an arched structure in her Playfair and Land graphic in S4 Cascade.
Other interesting data from the same target worked by viewers on the Monday night class included this distortion of data. Looking at the Timothy Leary target, I was amazed to learn that both Dick and I had very similar data depicting a human element and our metaphor for “flying” or “floating” through space:
Both Dick and I drew a human moving through the air. Dick’s work portrays a human being “lifted” through the air, suspended from above. I also drew a human suspended in the air floating on a hang glider. Dick’s sub took him to the front of the human seated in his lift. My sub took me behind the human as he sat gliding through space.
Both of our subs correctly identified a human element to this target and ironically, we both interpreted the data perceived as a human being “moving or floating” through space. Metaphorically, the data may be relative to the “floatation” tank of Mr. Leary. Our sub captured that data and used symbols that our primary awareness could understand.
The incident of viewers moving to the selection process of the targeteering event and defining a target from the pool of similar targets in lieu of the actual selected target is not an isolated case. Several months ago, our chief instructor Glenn Wheaton, posted an operational target, N3V7-O6A6. The cue was “Sugar Grove Facility/Sugar Grove, West Virginia/June 1. 1973. Nine viewers worked this target. The preponderance of data from most of the viewers alluded to a facility with several structures, some underground, machine noise and lots of vehicles. Watercraft may possibly operate in the vicinity according to their sessions.
However, in perusing the target selections for class that evening, Glenn pulled up one of a Moonshine Still and declared that “this is NOT the target selected for this evening.” There is always that 2% who doesn’t always get the word, or perhaps they just don’t listen very well. I wonder if this is also true of their sub awareness. Such was the case with Dick and myself. In fact, Dick’s sub took him to the actual area where the Moonshine was being manufactured.
Like Dick, I also drew a still with people working around it.
Why did Dick and I go to the target which Glenn intentionally and deliberately stated was not the class target for that evening? What made that target more appealing to us than the Sugar Grove target? Why did some viewers choose to identify the domed floatation tank which was clearly not the intended target, instead of the actual one cued? Is this perhaps a cueing error, or did we subconsciously and deliberately cause our own confusion? What mechanism is in place in the study of remote viewing that can help viewers to deflect this type of noise distraction in the sub realm? I hope to discover the answers to these perplexing issues as we progress along with our studies and applications of remote viewing. Although many books and entire research programs have been dedicated to the study of consciousness, I sincerely believe that we still have to tred a lot more asphalt on this highway of discovery.
The following drawing made by Dick was interesting in that it reflected the aftermath of the attack on the Pentagon. I inadvertently left this drawing out of the first essay and include it now because of its relevance to the events.
These illustrations were completed by two different viewers sitting at opposite ends of our classroom. I initially posted Jimmy’s work in my previous essay. In reviewing all the work, I inadvertently left out Barton’s work. Note the similarity in both viewers’ work. I was amazed when I saw the resemblance of their work. Truly astounding!
On the other side of the world in the country of Germany, one of our truly “remote” viewers sat to work this homework target on Sep 10, 2001: (Target was posted on our website in the main target board)
Jan is a dedicated viewer, formerly of our On-Line Training Program. Jan worked this target on September 10. Like other viewers in the Guild, Jan’s work reflected events of the trauma of September 11, 2001.
Jan’s work was so interesting and the level of congruency to the terrorist attack at the World Trade Center that I have included his entire Playfair data. Note the last cell in his visual. He actually wrote the word “cockpit” as an AOL.
This is Jan’s site sketch (Stage 3). The data he collected depicts the attacks on the World Trade Center. Note the metaphor of the twin structures combined with people. Much like Barton’s work reflected in my previous article, the structure at the center of the paper also identifies a moving or vibrating orb above the structure.
In Stage 4 Cascade, Jan perceived the human trauma unfolded that fateful day:
In his blackboard rush during his work in S4 Cascade, he perceived the twin structures with his unique metaphor for something moving on both structures (the buildings are capped by two distinct orbs). In his earlier work, he also identified a structure with a moving or vibrating orb above it:
Again, in his Land Rush, Jan identified twin structures with pointed objects on the top.
Jan’s work, combined with the sessions posted in my previous article attests to the powerful drama that unfolded on September 11, 2001. Had we stopped to conduct even a cursory analysis immediately after working the target, we would have discovered the interesting correlation of an event with definitive trauma and significant high drama.
Jan’s work would not have been captured at that time; however, the fact remains that further study of consciousness and the events that impact on the collective during this peak impression signature is warranted.
A significant element that we at the Hawaii Remote Viewers’ Guild have proven to be highly effective for us in remote viewing sessions is the accuracy obtained when a target is worked close to local sidereal time. However, on September 10, 2001, the viewers worked the target at 5 hours and 16 minutes past the local sidereal peak which occurred at 13:30 hours LST. I only mention this because of the monumental impact the events and its aftermath had on humanity’s psyche, even at this writing, well over a month after the trauma.
With each work researched and selected sessions analyzed, we begin to understand ourselves better. We can look back at all our data output and identify critical potentialities that may generate significant information on a future event, as well as those events, places, situations and people that attract our sub awareness. We may one day be able to find other venues for the study of consciousness and its relativity to time. Perhaps some of us who have other belief systems in other dimensional realities and existences may find another portal into our past that will help to shape our future, or provide answers to the enigmas that seem to be intrinsically bound to and perhaps even formulated by conditions of our present environment and personalities.
In this narrative, I have merely highlighted some of the work our viewers have produced with interesting and significant relevance to the disasters experienced on September 11, 2001. It is unfortunate that our progress in the study and understanding of psi phenomena is slow to gain acceptance in the scientific community, although great strides have been realized compared to this type of studies 30-50 years ago. We hope that our work in providing data such as that which has been correlated for these types of dissertations will provide some useful information for researchers of remote viewing and others engaged in the study of non-local consciousness. We encourage feedback and the sharing of information that may prove useful to those of us who are compelled to study remote viewing with professional scrutiny.