Close But No Cigar? (photo)

Here is a case that perfectly demonstrates the pitfalls of predictive remote viewing.

Yesterday Hawaii Remote Viewers’ Guild posted a prediction that a passenger jetliner, specifically an MD-80 (also formerly known as a DC-9) would have some type of explosive emergency in Hawaii. (see Things To Come? under library section)

Last night, less than 12 hours after this prediction was posted, an MD-80 jetliner crashed in Little Rock, Arkansas. You can see coverage of this on CNN or go to Yahoo for internet stories.

Was this what we remote viewed? What are the odds of us posting a presentation suggesting an MD-80 jet would crash in the near future, then having that exact jet go down within hours?

Our prediction involved an MD-80 in the Hawaiian Islands.

The actual event involved an MD-80 in Little Rock, Arkansas.

This incident is a good example of why you must avoid assumptions in remote viewing. Two pretty big mistakes were made by me in working this target.

1. I analyzed my own work (cardinal sin).
2. I made an assumption that the location was Hawaii.

The work on this target began with a stunning visual I experienced in theta while working with bio-feedback equipment. I saw a jet with high tail wings, and twin engines on the back, in distress. It was very quick but very sharp. I recognized it as an MD-80.

Here is the assumption that led us astray: When I saw the MD-80 aircraft I immediately associated it with Hawaiian Airlines. Hawaiian uses these jets exclusively for their interisland flights in Hawaii. You can see this type of jet taking off every 20 minutes and flying over Honolulu. I saw the signature of the jet, and jumped to the conclusion "Hawaii."

We need to go back and look over the data produced by 10 viewers on this target. (see data extraction, working notes, and images under the presentation Things To Come?) There is a lot of congruent data describing smoke, crashing sounds, spilled and burning fuel, screaming people. The theme of airline accident is throughout the work.

We are student viewers. We have not yet been trained to accurately identify a temporal locatator on the timeline. We have done some preliminary training on fixing target locations. We need more work, more training.

Using RV to predict the future is not easy.

We welcome your thoughts on the matter.

Dick,

Was on my lunch hour when one of the ladies asked if I heard about the airplane crash…

You are correct in stating that we have much to learn, but don’t discount the possibility that what may have just happened was not the airline disaster we saw…future predictions are fluid and will remain so unless we can harness the absolutes that establishes, the manifested thought form…Let us wait and see…you indicated near future…there is no set limit on the term "near future." Do not be hasty to reject the collective work, nor make the scenario fit that of Arkansas’s disaster….patience is truly a virtue. I would say, let us be silent and wait….

Aloha,

Sita

Another thought…it is said by those who have lived to study life long before us that "we create our future." All that is manifested is the product of an executed thought process…if this is so, then, as we have remote viewed a future event, do we then have some collective responsibility in the formation of the manifested event??? Just a thought…

> Another thought…it is said by those who have lived to study life long before us that "we create our future." All that is manifested is the product of an executed thought process…if this is so, then, as we have remote viewed a future event, do we then have some collective responsibility in the formation of the manifested event??? Just a thought…

Well said Sita. Another thought along those lines…while I was reviewing the data of this target with my wife last night, her immediate question was, "Knowing that this could possibly occur, isn’t there something we can do to prevent it from happening?"

My only thoughts on this relate to prophecies in general. Many people, myself included believe that prophecies are not occurrences that will always happen for sure, not "written in stone" so to speak. They are occurrences that will happen should we not make necessary changes in the way current events (at the time the prophecy was made) are unfolding that will lead up to said occurence. Otherwise, what is the use of prophecies other than to cause panic and doom or enslave the minds of men and women?
Namaste,
Grasshopper

Hi Dick! I agree with Sita..let us wait and see..from all the news reports, I would say that this is not the plane crash we viewed…The Little Rock plane actually did not explode in the air…it landed and failed to brake in the hailstorm and veared off to the side and crashed…..all of the viewers’ data indicated an explosion in the air….

Coincidence? Definitely…is this the crash we viewed? Let us take a closer look at the sessions and compare it to the details of the Little Rock event and make our judgements then..

.Let me know how I can help…Aloha, Mana

Dick,

I tend to agree with Sita on the "wait and see". It is my feeling too many of us saw Hawaii, for the most recent crash to be the one we viewed.
I do not believe remote viewing has gained enough respect, in most arenas, for us to say, approach an airline and say "Look, we viewed this disaster, please check all your flights" and have them listen to us without the FAA or FBI come knocking on our door and suspect us of terroristic threatening/action.
By viewing this we have, in no way, the power to create such an event, that is why they are called acts of God.
Our prayers go out to all those who suffered loss in the recent disaster.
Peace
Banshee

peace

Here is a case that perfectly demonstrates the pitfalls of predictive remote viewing.

Yesterday Hawaii Remote Viewers’ Guild posted a prediction that a passenger jetliner, specifically an MD-80 (also formerly known as a DC-9) would have some type of explosive emergency in Hawaii. (see Things To Come? under library section)

Last night, less than 12 hours after this prediction was posted, an MD-80 jetliner crashed in Little Rock, Arkansas. You can see coverage of this on CNN or go to Yahoo for internet stories.

Was this what we remote viewed? What are the odds of us posting a presentation suggesting an MD-80 jet would crash in the near future, then having that exact jet go down within hours?

Our prediction involved an MD-80 in the Hawaiian Islands. The actual event involved an MD-80 in Little Rock, Arkansas.

This incident is a good example of why you must avoid assumptions in remote viewing. Two pretty big mistakes were made by me in working this target. 1. I analyzed my own work (cardinal sin). 2. I made an assumption that the location was Hawaii.

The work on this target began with a stunning visual I experienced in theta while working with bio-feedback equipment. I saw a jet with high tail wings, and twin engines on the back, in distress. It was very quick but very sharp. I recognized it as an MD-80.

Here is the assumption that led us astray: When I saw the MD-80 aircraft I immediately associated it with Hawaiian Airlines. Hawaiian uses these jets exclusively for their interisland flights in Hawaii. You can see this type of jet taking off every 20 minutes and flying over Honolulu. I saw the signature of the jet, and jumped to the conclusion "Hawaii."

We need to go back and look over the data produced by 10 viewers on this target. (see data extraction, working notes, and images under the presentation Things To Come?) There is a lot of congruent data describing smoke, crashing sounds, spilled and burning fuel, screaming people. The theme of airline accident is throughout the work.

We are student viewers. We have not yet been trained to accurately identify a temporal locatator on the timeline. We have done some preliminary training on fixing target locations. We need more work, more training.

Using RV to predict the future is not easy.

We welcome your thoughts on the matter.

Dick-sensei,

Are you saying you cued this target AFTER you had the visual? Were you doing another target at the time? Open search?

Dan

Here is a case that perfectly demonstrates the pitfalls of predictive remote viewing.

Yesterday Hawaii Remote Viewers’ Guild posted a prediction that a passenger jetliner, specifically an MD-80 (also formerly known as a DC-9) would have some type of explosive emergency in Hawaii. (see Things To Come? under library section)

Last night, less than 12 hours after this prediction was posted, an MD-80 jetliner crashed in Little Rock, Arkansas. You can see coverage of this on CNN or go to Yahoo for internet stories.

Was this what we remote viewed? What are the odds of us posting a presentation suggesting an MD-80 jet would crash in the near future, then having that exact jet go down within hours?

Our prediction involved an MD-80 in the Hawaiian Islands. The actual event involved an MD-80 in Little Rock, Arkansas.

This incident is a good example of why you must avoid assumptions in remote viewing. Two pretty big mistakes were made by me in working this target. 1. I analyzed my own work (cardinal sin). 2. I made an assumption that the location was Hawaii.

The work on this target began with a stunning visual I experienced in theta while working with bio-feedback equipment. I saw a jet with high tail wings, and twin engines on the back, in distress. It was very quick but very sharp. I recognized it as an MD-80.

Here is the assumption that led us astray: When I saw the MD-80 aircraft I immediately associated it with Hawaiian Airlines. Hawaiian uses these jets exclusively for their interisland flights in Hawaii. You can see this type of jet taking off every 20 minutes and flying over Honolulu. I saw the signature of the jet, and jumped to the conclusion "Hawaii."

We need to go back and look over the data produced by 10 viewers on this target. (see data extraction, working notes, and images under the presentation Things To Come?) There is a lot of congruent data describing smoke, crashing sounds, spilled and burning fuel, screaming people. The theme of airline accident is throughout the work.

We are student viewers. We have not yet been trained to accurately identify a temporal locatator on the timeline. We have done some preliminary training on fixing target locations. We need more work, more training.

Using RV to predict the future is not easy.

We welcome your thoughts on the matter.

I spoke with the boss several times on the phone today.

He feels it is just too much of a coincidence that we put up a plane crash prediction… with a drawing of a specific type of aircraft (MD-80) and then such a plane crashes within hours.

He chided me for attaching labels to things, rather than hanging with what we can say for sure. This just shows how difficult it is to try to Remote View future events, and predict them accurately.

Another issue comes up here. If you go to the collective looking for the next passsenger airline emergency, and you use the geographical qualifier "Hawaii" maybe your sub just latches on to the next big event, despite the geographical cue.

If there is another incident involving an MD-80 or DC-9 in the next 90 days, in Hawaii I will be amazed. Hey, it was a learning experience. How many other folks even mentioned a plane crash anywhere hours prior to the event?

Let’s look at the basics.

We said a plane was going to crash soon. We drew a sketch of the specific type of plane.

A plane did crash. It was the exact type sketched prior to the event.

We got the location wrong. Some of the details were off. Water was prominent in our sessions- the jet came to rest next to the Arkansas River.

We need to address what we did right and what we did wrong- how we got off track- and go from there.

Good plan, Dickster! :) Mana

>

Well said Sita. Another thought along those lines…while I was reviewing the data of this target with my wife last night, her immediate question was, "Knowing that this could possibly occur, isn’t there something we can do to prevent it from happening?"

Continuing my post, my wife and I just watched the 10:00pm news (sorry Dick, tuned in too late to catch Channel 4 News!) about the plane crash and realized a possible connection as to why we were so personally concerned with somehow helping to prevent this if possible. Fred Agag, one of the survivors is a personal friend of ours. We lived with the Agags for 3 months, sharing a room in their home on Luapele Drive when we first moved to Hawaii. It was very close to home for us and to our hearts to learn that Fred survived and is doing well.
Peace, love & light,
Grasshopper aka Fred

My wife and I just watched the 10:00pm news (sorry Dick,tuned in too late to catch Channel 4 News!) about the plane crash and realized a possible connection as to why we were so personally concerned with somehow helping to prevent this if possible. Fred Agag, one of the survivors is a personal friend of ours. We lived with the Agags for 3 months, sharing a room in their home on Luapele Drive when we first moved to Hawaii. It was very close to home for us and to our hearts to learn that Fred survived and is doing well.

Peace, love & light,
Grasshopper aka Fred

Dick,

It is clear to me from the descriptions prior to cueing the target that you were intent on finding the source of the impressive personal experience you had.

It is intent that governs target cueing, not the details of the wording. The wording of the target cue gives us the intellectual validation that we are looking for after the fact. This isn’t an activity that depends on the analytical abilities of the viewer OR the targeteer. It is all about our subconscious intent to indicate the target of interest, then go there.

I think everyone did a great job and that this is clearly the Arkansas crash with some morphing because of your analytical overlay of the original experience with the label "Hawaiian".

Here is a case that perfectly demonstrates the pitfalls of predictive remote viewing.

Yesterday Hawaii Remote Viewers’ Guild posted a prediction that a passenger jetliner, specifically an MD-80 (also formerly known as a DC-9) would have some type of explosive emergency in Hawaii. (see Things To Come? under library section)

Last night, less than 12 hours after this prediction was posted, an MD-80 jetliner crashed in Little Rock, Arkansas. You can see coverage of this on CNN or go to Yahoo for internet stories.

Was this what we remote viewed? What are the odds of us posting a presentation suggesting an MD-80 jet would crash in the near future, then having that exact jet go down within hours?

Our prediction involved an MD-80 in the Hawaiian Islands. The actual event involved an MD-80 in Little Rock, Arkansas.

This incident is a good example of why you must avoid assumptions in remote viewing. Two pretty big mistakes were made by me in working this target. 1. I analyzed my own work (cardinal sin). 2. I made an assumption that the location was Hawaii.

The work on this target began with a stunning visual I experienced in theta while working with bio-feedback equipment. I saw a jet with high tail wings, and twin engines on the back, in distress. It was very quick but very sharp. I recognized it as an MD-80.

Here is the assumption that led us astray: When I saw the MD-80 aircraft I immediately associated it with Hawaiian Airlines. Hawaiian uses these jets exclusively for their interisland flights in Hawaii. You can see this type of jet taking off every 20 minutes and flying over Honolulu. I saw the signature of the jet, and jumped to the conclusion "Hawaii."

We need to go back and look over the data produced by 10 viewers on this target. (see data extraction, working notes, and images under the presentation Things To Come?) There is a lot of congruent data describing smoke, crashing sounds, spilled and burning fuel, screaming people. The theme of airline accident is throughout the work.

We are student viewers. We have not yet been trained to accurately identify a temporal locatator on the timeline. We have done some preliminary training on fixing target locations. We need more work, more training.

Using RV to predict the future is not easy.

We welcome your thoughts on the matter.

Hello Dick;

Your success is the RVing of a future jet air crash. The failure (really no fault of yours) is the additional needed details of the event.

The state of the future is in a variable flux. In an event like this, it is important not to focus too long on the obvious… but to collect as much detail on the "Ulterior" aspect of the event that you can. This is a challenge for even the most experienced RVer.

In most cases like this… there is a "Footprint". When RVing… try to find or locate the footprint or focalpoint. This may be as simple as the Jets individual FAA ID number on the side, or the daily newspaper sitting on a passenger seat showing the headline or date of the paper.

Once a "Footprint" is found. In some cases… a flood and/or burst of RV information comes to you. In such "RH" (Remote Hearing) have been reported. What you may not "Visuallize" you begin to hear it and/or see it as sound. Also "RS" (Remote Sensi) can also happen. Where you began to "Sense" the event.

All in all it’s part of the RV experience.

Good job Dick.

AL

Here is a case that perfectly demonstrates the pitfalls of predictive remote viewing.

Yesterday Hawaii Remote Viewers’ Guild posted a prediction that a passenger jetliner, specifically an MD-80 (also formerly known as a DC-9) would have some type of explosive emergency in Hawaii. (see Things To Come? under library section)

Last night, less than 12 hours after this prediction was posted, an MD-80 jetliner crashed in Little Rock, Arkansas. You can see coverage of this on CNN or go to Yahoo for internet stories.

Was this what we remote viewed? What are the odds of us posting a presentation suggesting an MD-80 jet would crash in the near future, then having that exact jet go down within hours?

Our prediction involved an MD-80 in the Hawaiian Islands. The actual event involved an MD-80 in Little Rock, Arkansas.

This incident is a good example of why you must avoid assumptions in remote viewing. Two pretty big mistakes were made by me in working this target. 1. I analyzed my own work (cardinal sin). 2. I made an assumption that the location was Hawaii.

The work on this target began with a stunning visual I experienced in theta while working with bio-feedback equipment. I saw a jet with high tail wings, and twin engines on the back, in distress. It was very quick but very sharp. I recognized it as an MD-80.

Here is the assumption that led us astray: When I saw the MD-80 aircraft I immediately associated it with Hawaiian Airlines. Hawaiian uses these jets exclusively for their interisland flights in Hawaii. You can see this type of jet taking off every 20 minutes and flying over Honolulu. I saw the signature of the jet, and jumped to the conclusion "Hawaii."

We need to go back and look over the data produced by 10 viewers on this target. (see data extraction, working notes, and images under the presentation Things To Come?) There is a lot of congruent data describing smoke, crashing sounds, spilled and burning fuel, screaming people. The theme of airline accident is throughout the work.

We are student viewers. We have not yet been trained to accurately identify a temporal locatator on the timeline. We have done some preliminary training on fixing target locations. We need more work, more training.

Using RV to predict the future is not easy.

We welcome your thoughts on the matter.

Al,

Thanks for your kind words. They mean a lot to me.

By "footprint" do you a sensory "hook" that pulls you into the target? For example, I worked a target a while back where I was struck by the smell of syrupy pineapple. (This is a very distinct smell here in Hawaii) I was floundering in basic sensory data collection mode (which we call Playfair.) All of a sudden this smell came to me. Locking on to that, I was able to develope the target into a visual of people in an open field, walking in rows.

The target turned out to be pineapple workers, working in a field of ripe pineapples. The smell was my doorway to the target.

About the aircraft incident. Its our understanding that reading words and numbers is very difficult, that the act of reading pulls too much primary awareness into the act, and you lose the signal line. However, for the record, one of our viewers (who is psychic) named Rose aka Banshee provided almost the exact flight number of the crashed American Airlines flight in her data.

Aloha

Dick

Yes… a "Footprint" can be the Stumili that "Hooks" you. It can path you toward the threshold point/the entrance into "Ent" (thought-memory process) which is very important in a successful "Full Spectrum" RV experience. Glenn is advising you well eh.

Al, Thanks for your kind words. They mean a lot to me.

By "footprint" do you a sensory "hook" that pulls you into the target? For example, I worked a target a while back where I was struck by the smell of syrupy pineapple. (This is a very distinct smell here in Hawaii) I was floundering in basic sensory data collection mode (which we call Playfair.) All of a sudden this smell came to me. Locking on to that, I was able to develope the target into a visual of people in an open field, walking in rows.

The target turned out to be pineapple workers, working in a field of ripe pineapples. The smell was my doorway to the target.

About the aircraft incident. Its our understanding that reading words and numbers is very difficult, that the act of reading pulls too much primary awareness into the act, and you lose the signal line. However, for the record, one of our viewers (who is psychic) named Rose aka Banshee provided almost the exact flight number of the crashed American Airlines flight in her data.

Aloha Dick

Hi Fred,
Didn’t see your post til now..I know SGT Agag from Guard…small world..and the other injured soldier…SFC Ko…

You know…I would like to address your post about "preventive" measures…how would we as remote viewers determine the validity of a future event until after it happened? We could assume that this will occur; but the probability factor in future viewing can change from second to second…and could conceivably invalidate the viewing of that particular moment.

I thought of something else..and this is somewhat esoteric, so I beg your indulgence for a moment…

It is said is many religious texts…"as you sow, so shall you reap." What goes around, comes around…we go round and round until we come full circle to find that where we are is no farther, no nearer than where we began…if an event is to take place along the cosmic time table (I am speaking in terms of universal consciousness..the collective whole)…and we do something to interrupt it…perhaps, let us say theoretically that we can prevent a disaster from happening…would that upset the flow of the life force that worked to make this event happen? I believe..though I cannot prove this, that we have some effect on a future event…by changing an aspect of our selves..our actions, thoughts, etc…however, there are certain events, that, through the universal law of sowing and reaping, that we cannot control. If we try to stop an event from taking place..one that must happen according to the cosmic time table, the event will simply be "delayed"..yet..it WILL occur….is this true? I do not know…it is something I think about often and ponder…I am wading into murky territory by stating this..however..I find this interesting…and one day..perhaps…remote viewing may answer some of these enigmas…

Aloha,

Sita