Dick’s Erminmink discussion on Stargate.

I’m being told over on the Stargate list that of course visual data is part of CRV. And then I am told it is not possible to see the target when you remote view. It is apparently a bit of a tricky issue in the CRV community.

I’m being told over on the Stargate list that of course visual data is part of CRV. And then I am told it is not possible to see the target when you remote view. It is apparently a bit of a tricky issue in the CRV community.

Dick, The validity of being able to ‘see’ when remote viewing goes back years now. There are plenty of well documented cases where strict controls have been implemented, and yet the viewer experiences visual contact. IF ONE CARES TO LOOK, they’ll find several cases where this has occurred. From what I understand, it’s merely the approach/methodology implemented that directly affects the format of the results. I think it’s more a case of CRV and TRV being geared in their programming to ‘perceive the idea’ rather than ‘experience’ data. And again, IF ONE CARES TO LOOK, you’ll clearly notice the approach/methods utilized to extract data in a desired way. And when that data can be validated with consistency time and time again using strict controls, the logical conclusion is that it works. It’s pretty clear HRVG uses specific methods to extract data in a specific way–and it obviously works. CRV, TRV, etc use their own specific methods to acquire data in a specific way–and unfortunately it does not include ‘experiencing a visual’.

I’m being told over on the Stargate list that of course visual data is part of CRV. And then I am told it is not possible to see the target when you remote view. It is apparently a bit of a tricky issue in the CRV community.

Dick:

Not to get argumentative about this, but I think there’s been some miscommunication. Paul Smith said on Stargate that the physical eyes of the viewer (retina, rods, cones, etc.) are not involved in the RV process, but that rather the visuals (however vivid) reach the awareness of the viewer by different means.

Your posting basically said he was mistaken, and should look at some posted examples here on HRVG as proof. The parting comment was:

"It is possible for the signal line to manifest in your conscious mind as a visual image. But not if you don’t try :-)"

No-one was questioning the ability of HRVG viewers to "see" the target or even on occasion to bi-locate! It’s just that it simply is not a function of the persons *physical* eyes…and that is true whether you are an HRVGer, CRVer or (shudder) TRVer.

It’s a little frustrating that this whole exchange is now being held up on this BB as "yet another example of the intolerance of Stargate members toward non-CRV methods".

For the record, I know of none of the Stargate/CRV set who have claimed that HRVGers *don’t* get visuals, or who even have denied visuals as a part of their own method. Both Lyn and Paul corrected this misrepresentation some time ago.

-John C.

So far that has been the best explanation I have heard about the visuals problem. My question next would be what does the instructor pass on to the student? Is the acquisition of visual data being realized as a visual and not a concept part of doctrine or is that part of an advanced instruction after it manifests in the viewer?

Aloha Glenn

>

Ed Wrote:

"CRV, TRV, etc use their own specific methods to acquire data in a specific way–and unfortunately it does not include ‘experiencing a visual’."

Ed-

This is fundamentally wrong. This was suggested by HRVG members on the Stargate list a couple of months ago, and was promptly corrected by those on that list who were involved in the original military project. CRV and ERV as systematized by Ingo Swann and as practised by those at SRI and Ft. Meade have *always* treated bi-location and pristine visuals as the "holy grail" of RV experience. It has always been the goal. The fact that clear visuals do not typically appear until later in CRV sessions than they do in HRVG sessions is irrelevant. It is a matter of style.

There is a reason that it has for the last nearly 30 years been called "remote VIEWING"!

-John C.

Ed..

I think you hit the nail on the head quite nicely. I agree with your post completely.
Dick

Hi John…

I don’t consider your posts argumentative, and I hope mine have not been… we’re just discussing this :-)
I find this very interesting.

It is my understanding (from what our instructor says) that the physical mechanism of sight is actually triggered by the signal line.

If you train your sub to provide visual data, if you quiet your primary awareness and learn to tune into the signal line, if you shut off the stimuli to the viewer’s retina, then the signal line will actually stimulate the optic nerve and form an image. This image can be vivid,

full color, and in motion. It does bypass the retina.

Even though I’m a medical reporter by profession, my knowledge of the anatomy of vision is a bit lacking. Glenn has mentioned something about viewers actually being kept literally in the dark for 24 hours prior to working a target. The purpose I would assume was to shut down the images coming thru the rods and cones via the retina, to give the optic nerve a "clean slate" so to speak, enabling the signal line to manifest better on the optic nerve.

Don’t we all really want to SEE the target? I do! The visuals I have experienced have been really mind blowing. Its about a thousand times more intense, more data rich, more interesting, more believable than sitting at a desk with paper and pen and probing for concepts and ideas about the target.

I would make one last point. Where in the CRV protocols does the viewer look at target?

Hey, its an interesting thread. And I think an issue that ought to be aired out in the RV community.

I think the discussion has been pretty civil so far.

Aloha
Dick

So far that has been the best explanation I have heard about the visuals problem. My question next would be what does the instructor pass on to the student? Is the acquisition of visual data being realized as a visual and not a concept part of doctrine or is that part of an advanced instruction after it manifests in the viewer? Aloha GlennHi Glenn, It would seem to me that if acquisition of a visual was the primary objective and a protocol is in place to successfully obtain that, then that’s what you’re going to get. If method dictates the acquisition of ‘the ideas’ connected with your target, then the viewer sketches and describes accordingly. I think any visual data (whether specifically induced or spontaneous) needs to be managed in protocol according to the RV method employed and the results will reflect accordingly. Ed

Ed Wrote:

"CRV, TRV, etc use their own specific methods to acquire data in a specific way–and unfortunately it does not include ‘experiencing a visual’."

Ed- This is fundamentally wrong. This was suggested by HRVG members on the Stargate list a couple of months ago, and was promptly corrected by those on that list who were involved in the original military project. CRV and ERV as systematized by Ingo Swann and as practised by those at SRI and Ft. Meade have *always* treated bi-location and pristine visuals as the "holy grail" of RV experience. It has always been the goal. The fact that clear visuals do not typically appear until later in CRV sessions than they do in HRVG sessions is irrelevant. It is a matter of style.

There is a reason that it has for the last nearly 30 years been called "remote VIEWING"!

-John C. John, I will endeavor to be more clear and precise with my future observations. What was meant, is that to my understanding, I’m not aware of any specific procedure in CRV/TRV to induce pristine visuals during a session–please correct If I’m in error here. Ed

If you train your sub to provide visual data, if you quiet your primary awareness and learn to tune into the signal line, if you shut off the stimuli to the viewer’s retina, then the signal line will actually stimulate the optic nerve and form an image. This image can be vivid, full color, and in motion. It does bypass the retina.

This is interesting. Do you mean that the visuals are produced in the same way that a very vivid memory is sometimes conjured up in the mind’s eye?

Don’t we all really want to SEE the target? I do! The visuals I have experienced have been really mind blowing. Its about a thousand times more intense, more data rich, more interesting, more believable than sitting at a desk with paper and pen and probing for concepts and ideas about the target.

But by the same token, I am sure that there are many times when these extremely vivid visuals are completely wrong. It’s called "analytic overlay" in CRV parlance. I babble on about it below…

I would make one last point. Where in the CRV protocols does the viewer look at target?

I’ll summaries the structure super-briefly, by stages.

S1: Viewer gets & probes ideograms.

S2: Viewer gets basic sensories
S3: Viewer does initial diagrams of target. This is the first point that visuals are actively pursued.
S4: A data matrix, but sometimes contains some visuals.
S5: "Cognitron Emanations"… probing words & ideas.
S6: Typically this involves further diagramming, and even the use of modelling clay to create 3-D representations of the target in proper perspective, etc.
S?: I reckon there’s more, but that’s all I know.

The difference in CRV (from what I’ve seen discussed about HRV) is that CRV very deliberately limits the "level" of data that is "allowed" to be reported at various stages. Ingo Swann believed that there was something analagous to an "aperture" that opened during the course of a session. At the beginning, only basic data should be pursued (the ideogrammatic gestalts, etc.), followed by basic sensories, and then, at a key point, the aperture was open wide enough (metaphorically) to allow a more immersive experience. This is S3, where the viewer starts drawing. By S6, target contact is supposed to be immersive enough that the whole target can be modelled in 3D.

According to Ingo (and so therefore according to his students, who now teach CRV) visuals & high-level data obtained too early in the process are highly susceptible to being just AOLs (Analytic Overlays)… Basically meaning that the image may contain a seed of truth about the target, but it’s likely been seriously messed with by your conscious mind. This is why CRV typically forbids certain types of data until the correct stage for it.

-John Cook

The difference in CRV (from what I’ve seen discussed about HRV) is that CRV very deliberately limits the "level" of data that is "allowed" to be reported at various stages. Ingo Swann believed that there was something analagous to an "aperture" that opened during the course of a session. At the beginning, only basic data should be pursued (the ideogrammatic gestalts, etc.), followed by basic sensories, and then, at a key point, the aperture was open wide enough (metaphorically) to allow a more immersive experience. This is S3, where the viewer starts drawing. By S6, target contact is supposed to be immersive enough that the whole target can be modelled in 3D.

The VISIDS in the early stages of the HRVG-Protocols are meant to be low-level gestalts also. And I find it much easier to put those simple shapes to paper than other perceptions.

I can draw them without naming. Describing sounds or smells sometimes really throws me off, for example when there is a sound perception that is somewhat like a big ship horn – wham, there is that ship in my mind. I have much less of that problem with my visuals.

To me visuals are much more lower-level gestalt than any other perceptions (well except for temperature).

What I determined back when I was on the Stargate list was that there is an in-tolerance to outsiders (non-CRV’rs) and there is little chance of any level of acceptance of your work there. Erminmink has been up awhile and has generated a lot of traffic but no responses from viewers outside the Guild or people interested in the work here. It is the primary reason I will not publish the Amelia Earhart project until it can have some value for what it is. It means more validation work needs to be done to re-enforce the viability of the platform at HRVG.

The one thing to keep in mind is that your group is

the only one publishing large quantities of current work that is available to the public….great, good, bad, ugly, indifferent. You are the easiest target or
source of information for skeptics and believers.

Courtney Brown has also started to publish work but

there seems to be very little interest, which I believe
is due to the baggage of the pastnot to mention two books which present data that no way represents what could have come from any of the kind of results that farsight has ever published.

One thing I do agree with from Stargate comments is the

need for extensive work on verifiable targets. That is basic before any others….the foundations.

Hi Rich!

The emphasis at HRVG is definitely on doing masses of verifiable targets…in fact, we are all tasked to work no less than three to four validation targets a week..of course, not everyone’s schedule allows for this volume of sessions..but over the past two and half years, we have worked hundreds of rock-solid, verifiable targets that comprise the bulk of our training. Some of them are posted on this site…there are many, many more that are filed away in our archives. These sessions form the foundation from which we can gauge the results of the non-verifiable targets…they offer a baseline of performance for each of the viewers, if you will..Based on the history of performance of the viewers, we propose that the data collected and corroborated amongst two or more viewers propose a plausible scenerio concerning the non-verifiable target. Time will unfold the feedback!

For every non-verifiable target that we work, we work anywhere from 20 and more validation targets. The feedback to the subconscious is what trains us to see what is actually at a target….and tracks our cycles of contact, tendancies for overlays, how we interpret sensory data, etc….It is an ongoing check and balance system for tracking the viewers’ performance and refining our skills.

Aloha, Mana