Dick’s on the SOAPBOX

Soapbox maybe, but I enjoyed reading it.

Aloha Dick,

Very good job on the soapbox. What you stated is FACT not opinion.

I have recently been in contact with members of another RV group. I am VERY proud to say that the work produced here at HRVG has garnered ALOT of respect in other RV communities. Our teacher, Glenn Wheaton is a sticker for detail and accuracy. He always reminds us to stay grounded.

We are very proud of our method and our teacher, and do our best to make him proud of us.
Peace
Banshee

gee, I guess you are not going to run out and buy Cosmic Alien Buddies or Idiot’s Guide To The Galactic Federation.

Sounds like a good set of rules and there have been some extended discussions on multiple viewers of a target over the last year or two on PJ’s and Stargate.

Your examples don’t cover the situation where a majority of viewers may get "data set A" while one or two others get "data set B". Some experienced viewers claim that neither group is more likely to be correct than the other.

The following may not be popular but by extention of the soapbox rules the unsubstantiated claims of one person on any subject should also be suspect without validation by others.

Thats why I keep waiting for the closet door to open and produce more military RVers. The current Drudge headline is about unauthorized military expenditures

and perhaps this is part of it.

Rich,

You ask a lot of good questions.

Yes we have had instances where 3 viewers (MJ001) worked a target and one viewer got GREAT data, one viewer got so-so data and one viewer crapped out.

You can go look at MJ001 button- all the data and analysis of the Russian Revolution target. Valtra did one of the best sessions ever by any student. I did quite a forgettable job on that target. Some of her good data did not come thru the analysis, because it was not corroborated. That doesn’t mean we should change the analysis protocols. It means the viewers need step up and do a better job.

We are training hard and waiting for the day when our talents get to the point that all three viewers really hit it like Valtra did.

At that point, HRVG will be a force to be reckoned with.

TWO VIEWERS CORROBORATE ONE ASPECT OF A TARGET, ANALYSIS ACCEPTS THE EMBELLISHMENTS OF ONE VIEWER

etc etc.

Hello Dick.

I assume you are referring to the recent Jill Dando murder case analysis here. I operate on a differing theory of analyis and operations. In our operational methodology, we rate the data based on number of corroborating hits and by viewer ranking. If you closely look at our presentation, we label each section with who got what.

This particular case was clearly labeled as an exercise utilizing new and experienced viewers, and it was done at the request of a detective at New Scotland Yard, who understood that a variety of skill levels would be involved.

When we do analysis, we clearly mark which bit of data was corroborated amoung viewers, and which viewers those are. We also present uncorroborated data from viewers who have a track record in a particular area, and we inform the person who is requesting the data that those bits ARE uncorroborated, however, they may be important, it’s up to the recipient of the data to take it or leave it, and we clearly explain the difference and what that difference means. We also clearly inform the recipient of the data and analysis as to what exactly the ranking entails, over how many sessions, what the viewer(s) scores in terms of accuracy and consistency. We may not have as many years as Glenn in remote viewing, but several of us have thousands and thousands of sessions under our belts, and that does count for something, statistically and practically.

We are NOT writing a book, here, we are using the best of our combined abilities to solve a case where the police have few leads. In fact, it was several bits of those uncorroborated (but rated as possible due to the ranking of the viewer involved) data that have given the police new leads, and we have been informed that the case is cracking now.

Dick, we are not out to convert the world with that report, we are not out trying to "prove" that what we are doing is real. We are practicing our skills, and making intelligent decisions about our data and presentation style based on the circumstances. We may have a different theoretical base than you, but that does not give you license to point the judicial finger when our presentation style clearly labels everything. We are not taking leaps in faith, we are not expecting the audience to do that, either.

Frankly, I am getting tired of all of this US (HRVG) vs THEM mentality that I continually see from you, Dick. I would hope that you would give those of us working and practicing remote viewing without sensationalism the benefit of the doubt. Dick, did you even bother to address the analysis issue, since it apparently disgusted you so much, on the TDS bulletin board or in an email to me so that I could answer your questions and concerns as a colleague? No, you get on your high horse soapbox in your own sandbox and say that you are the biggest and baddest and strongest RVin’ clique in the playground. Well, it’s bullying tactics, and it’s not appreciated.

I didn’t jump all over the HRVG when I saw your recent "Guardian Angel" workup, however, I would like to remind you that it is NOT remote viewing according to laboratory protocol (which you seem so interested in throwing in others faces) when there is no verifiable feedback to measure against the data received. So shut the heck up Dick unless you are willing to stand to the same level of accountability in a laboratory sense you are willing to spout at others.

"But, but, but" you say "but we said it wasn’t verifiable, we said it wasn’t for fun, we said, we said…."

yeah yeah yeah, Dick. And the viewer who got the stairs with you on them – was that corroborated by THREE viewers? Hell no. Apparently to Dick, it only matters to you if it’s NOT THE HRVG!!!!! You have continually lumped us in with other groups and tactics that do not correlate in any way to what we are doing. You have not taken the time to find out, Dick, you have not taken the time to establish a relationship between TDS viewers and yourself, so you are shooting yourself in the foot here. We are doing some different and interesting things, all based on a philosophical and scientific and rational understanding of what we want to accomplish.

I have nothing but respect for both the methodology and the actions of the HRVG students. I have enjoyed seeing your sessions and your projects, and have brought up questions on your board when I wondered about something. How about a little of that in kind.

Thanks,

Anthill steps down off the soapbox

UFOs are real. They are a global phenomenon. Most of them are just strange lights in the sky, but there are also a large number of sightings by credible witnesses of unknown types of aerial craft.
It has become quite a popular theory that these are products of all-American top secret (military) R&D. IMO this is highly unlikely considering e.g. that during the last 50+ years there hasn’t been indication of any kind of development in UFOs. (Also, keeping a secret that long.. even if it was somehow possible.. What would be the point?)
However, some form of intelligence must have built them. IMO it’s logical to conclude that there is a presence of at least one "alien" race on our planet. Galactic Federation, abductions etc. may sound far out, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t be very real.
I see RV as a tool that could be used to find out the truth(s). It just needs to be done properly. To the Farsight people especially: stories are fine (they may annoy some people but that’s their problem) but *evidence* is what is really needed. Couldn’t RV be used to dig it up?

BTW, great post Dick.

Athill you said:

"I assume you are referring to the recent Jill Dando murder case analysis here."

Personally I did not see anything that suggested that he was referring to the Jill Dando case or TDS in particular. He was more writing an editorial on RV and analytical theory in general. At least that is my interpretation of things.

Zoltan said: "We all know which organization we are talking about here."

Let me clarify this statement, we are talking about PSI-TECH here. Not TDS.

I think you guys did a heck of a job on the Jill Dando case and presented the material in a very professional manner. I wish you keep up the good work and I invite you back for more discussion since I believe there is going to be some good disussion following these posts.

Aloha,

Jim

While Dick is looking for his fire extinguisher and some asbestos undies I will jump in here for a few minutes.

Analytical method in Remote Viewing sessions at HRVG is standardized. Low level analysis for single session validation work and an analytical assessment for targets that go beyond a single session by a group. The top echelon of analysis in HRVG is Critical Analysis.

The analytical method employed in forensic work is a bit different. Judgement and assessment become valuable tools when providing data to a Police Dept or other agency. What is more important in Forensic Analysis is the proper grouping of reported data under caveats of assurance in relationship to that data being corroborated or stand alone. The Police or Agency must judge the value of elements of the RV sessions.

If 6 viewers worked a murder target and the S-2 phonics generated a list of 11 personal or proper names, but none of the names corroborated between viewers, do you withhold this data from the subscriber?

NO.

In a normal target these names would never sift past the process to be gleaned and reported. In investigative RV it is a different story. Your feedback on this data best comes from the Police or Agency. These clues are Blind and provide corroboration on occasion from collateral data already in the possession of the Dept. or Agency.

The Skilled Analyst knows how to present the collected data under caveats or status to the subscriber. You present the data and acquire the feedback. You must use the feedback from the dept or agency to target steer the next round of sessions.

There are things we know there are some things we think there are some things we believe there are some things we suspect.

MY point to Dick here is that you can’t break the case or assist an agency in breaking a case unless you give them some doors to open. Sometimes those doors come from a single moment of clarity from a single viewer.

This is the only instance where uncorroborated data is processed by the Analyst. If the dept or agency said that one of the names on your list say "Lee" is on our list too then you have some room to play. The playground just doubled in size. You go back to the mission manager and put "Lee" under the RV microscope.

This methodology does not require any different actions by the Viewers. It requires the Analyst to present the data properly and then work the feedback into the system for clarity.

Miss Pru I do not know if Dick was commenting on your specific report, he can clarify that for himself. (drop Dick…roll Dick)It was my assumption he was referring to the Stephanie Condon case and the fiasco of reporting done by others, which I have used to drive home many points to the Guild. I believe I made several posts on the Radioman’s’ site in regards to that specific bit of tragic reporting. Here is an excerpt of one of my posts there:

——————————————————
Miss Melanie,

I would ask you to consider the harm that could arise from what Joni did. Three different types of males were

being accused of the abduction. A UPS driver, A campground employee and a meatcutter. Not only did they
implicate them but gave the area that they worked, and in three cases named the place of employment. Any
wacko with a gun may have decided to get some instant justice on any employees of these places. This is a job for the authorities not mob rules. If my daughter was abducted and I became aware of her location I know what I would do authorities or not. These people feel the same way I am sure.

Wacko’s and Heroes will be checking out the UPS Drivers, the Campground employees and the meatcutters.

Something stupid is sure to occur.

That is how the world is these days.

If you embark to do this type of work it must be done with strict confidence. As a father I understand how grave the situation is. As a Viewer I wince because this could wind up a real tragedy especially if an innocent person is hurt also.

As to Psi-Tech, They have not demonstrated any ability to do this type of work; they have no track record of any success in this area. I have seen the predictions on everything from pregnant Martians to the Armageddon but no solid forensic RV work.

I apologize if my post offended you. But the ethics of what I have said I believe are correct.

———————————————–

Aloha Glenn

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your positive comments. Here is what Zoltan is referring to (I cut and paste directly from the Dando report, and Zoltan practically quotes it word for word):

"All data presented are corroborated by at least two viewers with the following exceptions:

Portions of Ant Hill’s data will be presented without corroboration. This viewer has a successful record of assisting law enforcement in similar forensic work."

This methodology does not require any different actions by the Viewers. It requires the Analyst to present the data properly and then work the feedback into the system for clarity.

Glenn,

I am in agreement with your discussion on analytic method. This is what we do, we call things by different names, but it is essentially the same manner underneath.

Gracias,

Anthill

I apologize for the ranting portion of my post, though the intent is still valid.

We all want remote viewing to succeed. We all want remote viewing schools of thought to get along. So we all need to make sure that we truly understand the motivations involved in other’s work before we make grand pronouncements about it.

A little cross pollination would do everyone some good. So please, I invite everyone to look at what the Larger U is doing, perhaps to participate in some of our bulletin board taskings and post your results. The more we do this, the more we will understand each other’s methods and the more we will have to feel good about.

Let’s not make it anymore US vs THEM in our thinking. Let’s really work on spreading rational thought. I propose that we each look over what other RV schools/groups are doing and get involved in interacting – by posting your true thoughts on others boards, and getting into some decent dialogue. If you want accountability, Dick, then please take up your true concerns with those involved. If you are concerned with me or my group, then please post in my public forum. You’ll get a real dialogue from me, and it will be good for all involved.

In true peace,

Prudence

Zoltan said: "We all know which organization we are talking about here."

Let me clarify this statement, we are talking about PSI-TECH here. Not TDS.

I thought it was a tossup between psitech and farsight….or a dead heat. When it comes to aliens……its a tough call.

Rich:

I do recall reading about that very kind of thing. Was that in one of Joe McMoneagle’s books? … or Dale Graff’s?

-John

Lucid:

I honestly don’t know if I believe in UFO’s or not. However, I think the point that dick was making (not to speak for Dick… Dick, please jump in if this if off) was that RV should not as a *rule* be used for plumbing the depths of targets about which "ground truth" is unlikely to ever be available.

If the RV community had taken up a fetish of doing endless "feedbackless" sessions on a topic like "Migration of early mammals circa 2,000,000 B.C."… it would be that topic that would be being decried as an excess.

As it is, UFO’s happens to be the area that many in the RV community have settled on.

It’s not, in my opinion, the subject matter, so much as the technical problem of the impossibility of feedback.

-John

I agree that UFO’s exist… and more down to earth research is needed, but the approach of using "RV" in this case is speculative and far less scientific. It is in my opinion a backward way to use "RV".

Yes… many of us would like to solve the UFO question, and "RV" seems to some to be a useful tool or an excuse to exploit this subject. The problem is not "RV" but a fine line that can cross from "Remote Viewing" to "Remote Voodoo".

Dis-information already in the "Collective" is a pollution factor that distorts the effort of clear "RVing" not only externally… but also internally.

If the "RVer" wants so much to "RV" a UFO… chances are they will. The effort may be real, but the end result can become a "Remote Distortion" giving the "RVer" a Non-real result.

It’s like that saying… "Is it real, or is it Memorex"? Without the proper scientific understanding of the "RV" protocols, "RVing" UFO’s, Aliens, and other questionable subjects are risky… You can get caught up in the notion and lose your perspective and objectivity. I don’t want to put words in Dick’s mouth… but I think this is one of the things he might have been bringing across? This is a POV that is shared not only by him, but also by Glenn (I Think) as well as me.

I don’t think Ingo, myself, and the other 14% got involved in "RV" originally back in the beginning to watch it deteriorate into a "Control Issue" where scientific reasoning was/is to be replaced by shotty exploitation that has no verifiable and/or factual substance.

With Good Intentions;

Al

UFOs are real. They are a global phenomenon. Most of them are just strange lights in the sky, but there are also a large number of sightings by credible witnesses of unknown types of aerial craft. It has become quite a popular theory that these are products of all-American top secret (military) R&D. IMO this is highly unlikely considering e.g. that during the last 50+ years there hasn’t been indication of any kind of development in UFOs. (Also, keeping a secret that long.. even if it was somehow possible.. What would be the point?) However, some form of intelligence must have built them. IMO it’s logical to conclude that there is a presence of at least one "alien" race on our planet. Galactic Federation, abductions etc. may sound far out, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t be very real. I see RV as a tool that could be used to find out the truth(s). It just needs to be done properly. To the Farsight people especially: stories are fine (they may annoy some people but that’s their problem) but *evidence* is what is really needed. Couldn’t RV be used to dig it up?

BTW, great post Dick.

>

Aloha Prudence,

Sometimes postings and misunderstandings have a way of clearing the air plus bringing a lot of information out that was left out. The thread was most interesting plus I think it brought some clarity with it:)
Things left unsaid leave us all a bit in the dark. It seems to be a part of the process.
You give us cause to pause and think.
Aloha Glenn

I agree that UFO’s exist… and more down to earth research is needed, but the approach of using "RV" in this case is speculative and far less scientific. It is in my opinion a backward way to use "RV".

Thus far the approach has sucked, yes.

RV alone is not enough.. it can’t replace field research & data collection.

But it could be used as a tool to help with these?

I’m talking about predicting UFO events and locating evidence, for example.

It’s a h*ll of a lot of work though — might not leave time for writing a book :)

Rich: I do recall reading about that very kind of thing. Was that in one of Joe McMoneagle’s books? … or Dale Graff’s?

-John

i remember it from RV e-mail discussion groups. Lyn Buchanan has expressed it. I believe that others from the Stargate group (including Joe) agreed. I’m not sure if it is in Joe’s boos or Graff’s. I do not remember anyone disagreeing with the theory.

Thus far the UFO community is keeping FAR away from incorporating RVers into UFO research. The only exceptions I can think of are Whitley Streiber who recently took a CRV course and the SYFLITSRV taught by Steven Greer.

I do not count Courtney Brown as part of the UFO community nor Ed Dames as they have done nothing outside of RV in the way of UFO investigation (at least publicly).

There are at least three problems:

One is that there are not enough new RVers with a track record that provides consistent usable data.

Two is that those who may be "good" at it are laying low and if they are doing UFO work they are as anonymous as all the UFO anonymous "insiders".

Three is that the "pros" , except for Dames, studiously avoid the subject, again, at least publicly. Some may have first hand knowledge through their government work but do not pursue it. Lyn Buchanan has stated that he has seen the remains of an ET UFO in government custody, been questioned by government agents about them and has also experienced an abduction by ETs.

Now, if anyone IS providing RV data to UFO researchers, it obviously has not been fruitful.

Al Moch writes:

"I don’t think Ingo, myself, and the other 14% got involved in "RV" originally back in the beginning to watch it deteriorate into a "Control Issue" where scientific reasoning was/is to be replaced by shotty exploitation that has no verifiable and/or factual substance. "

On the contrary, Ingo has just published a book that deals exclusively with ETs and UFOs and describes what I consider the "Mother Of All UFO ncounters" ….unfriendly fire…. in the company of government personel who brought him there.

He also writes of finding a sexy alien in a supermarket as well as bases on the moon. But, funny thing, all this happened years ago and he says he has no interest in pursuing any of it. So, if there is anyone who can use RV to investigate UFOs and the government’s involvement, there are, by their accounts, at least two people who have the RV ability as well as first hand knowledge.

You will also note that not one UFO researcher has staked out Santa Fe Baldy !!!!

Dear Rich:

Thank you for the update. With Ingo jumping on the UFO/Alien bandwagon, it would seem in my opinion that Ingo’s objectivity just went out the window. What is his direction in the here and now seems to verify his promoting of "Remote Voodoo".

What Ingo and I did in early "RV" back in the beginning had realistic scientific checks and balances. Most of Ingo’s data almost from the start has always been "Suspect". Not that his data was wrong… but because of his unpredictable direction. Ingo admitted on his website, in his notes that he was "Getting Bored" with the early ASPR RV(OOBE) protocols and began to have problems with the ASPR staff. He felt that the research had stalled, and he was not going anywhere with it?

If it wasn’t for the CIA’s suggestion in 1973 to expand the early research, and the calling for additional participants. Remote Viewing would have been a thing of the past?

I and the others(14% Club)that broke though verified not only our data… but Ingo’s as well? I don’t really want to say… But what I am observing here and read that Ingo always had a "Control Issue" dealing with his involvement with "RV"?
I don’t honestly know why? But I am now questioning after all these years that perhaps in his data, Ingo’s success and failure in "RV" had always been known by the CIA due to his "Control Problems", and what might had been manipulated by him and passed down to the military "RVers" end.

Meanwhile… in reality, the CIA got the additional "RV" data, information, and varification they wanted thru our involvement and the "Combined Models" that would be called "Remote Viewing".

With Good Intentions;

Al

Thus far the UFO community is keeping FAR away from incorporating RVers into UFO research. The only exceptions I can think of are Whitley Streiber who recently took a CRV course and the SYFLITSRV taught by Steven Greer.

I do not count Courtney Brown as part of the UFO community nor Ed Dames as they have done nothing outside of RV in the way of UFO investigation (at least publicly).

There are at least three problems:

One is that there are not enough new RVers with a track record that provides consistent usable data.

Two is that those who may be "good" at it are laying low and if they are doing UFO work they are as anonymous as all the UFO anonymous "insiders".

Three is that the "pros" , except for Dames, studiously avoid the subject, again, at least publicly. Some may have first hand knowledge through their government work but do not pursue it. Lyn Buchanan has stated that he has seen the remains of an ET UFO in government custody, been questioned by government agents about them and has also experienced an abduction by ETs.

Now, if anyone IS providing RV data to UFO researchers, it obviously has not been fruitful.

Al Moch writes: "I don’t think Ingo, myself, and the other 14% got involved in "RV" originally back in the beginning to watch it deteriorate into a "Control Issue" where scientific reasoning was/is to be replaced by shotty exploitation that has no verifiable and/or factual substance. "

On the contrary, Ingo has just published a book that deals exclusively with ETs and UFOs and describes what I consider the "Mother Of All UFO ncounters" ….unfriendly fire…. in the company of government personel who brought him there.

He also writes of finding a sexy alien in a supermarket as well as bases on the moon. But, funny thing, all this happened years ago and he says he has no interest in pursuing any of it. So, if there is anyone who can use RV to investigate UFOs and the government’s involvement, there are, by their accounts, at least two people who have the RV ability as well as first hand knowledge.

You will also note that not one UFO researcher has staked out Santa Fe Baldy !!!!

>