Displacement

Hello Dick;

In going towards a full spectrum remote viewing experience… "Psychical Displacement" during remote viewing have been reported from time to time in the early stages of most "RV BioLocation".

This "Psychical Displacement" can vary in nature depending on not only remote viewing… but also in te experience of "OOBE", "Astral Dynamics", and other associated Parapsychological experience.
In the case of Medical and/or Mental Illness… reports of "Psychical Displacement" has also been reported.
I hope this gives you additional support, in what you have posted.

As Always;

Al

Displacement could be another term for remote viewing, since when you remote view you DISPLACE a portion of your awareness to a location distant in time/space to obtain sensory data.

Aloha Dick

Hello Dick, Al, All –

I’ve always heard the term displacement used specifically in the context of Associative Remote Viewing (ARV) to describe what happens when it appears that you "correctly" view a target that has been pre-associated with the incorrect outcome.

For example, Target 1 (a parrot in a tree) is associated with the Red Sox and Target 2 (the Hope diamond on display in the Smithsonian) is associated with the Yankees. For your session, you get descriptors like natural, valuable, indoors, crystal-like, educational, large, encased, shiny, glistening. And you sketch what appears to be a faceted, crystalline structure. If your protocol involves self-judging, you’d be inclined to choose Target 2 – the Hope Diamond to be associated with the winning team. After the Red Sox win the game, you’re shown your feedback and it’s the parrot in the tree. You are convinced that your session really DID describe the Hope Diamond. The theory is that you have "displaced." (Of course in my scenario the RED SOX win! hee hee)

Why does this seem to happen? Some theorize that if people are shown the choices prior to the occurrence of the event that they will actually do a session for the target to which their subonscious is more attracted, in this case, the Hope Diamond. This is why it’s argued that self-judging should not be done and a viewer should NEVER be shown the alternative prior to the actual outcome. Instead, to be strictly in the proper protocol it’s argued that an independent judger should evaluate the session against the target outcomes and the viewer should be shown the actual feedback ONLY after the winning team wins (or the stock goes up or down OR the lotto number rolls out, and so on.)

When I was playing around with ARV, I self-judged and experienced a lot of this "displacement." So I stopped doing that and eventually ended up quitting ARV altogether, to do associative dowsing instead — Some like JFK and Grek K have put in a lot of time and effort with ARV and have been successful…I can’t recall if Greg K self-judges, but I know "JFK" does not.

Joanie

Hello Dick, Al, All –

I’ve always heard the term displacement used specifically in the context of Associative Remote Viewing (ARV) to describe what happens when it appears that you "correctly" view a target that has been pre-associated with the incorrect outcome.

For example, Target 1 (a parrot in a tree) is associated with the Red Sox and Target 2 (the Hope diamond on display in the Smithsonian) is associated with the Yankees. For your session, you get descriptors like natural, valuable, indoors, crystal-like, educational, large, encased, shiny, glistening. And you sketch what appears to be a faceted, crystalline structure. If your protocol involves self-judging, you’d be inclined to choose Target 2 – the Hope Diamond to be associated with the winning team. After the Red Sox win the game, you’re shown your feedback and it’s the parrot in the tree. You are convinced that your session really DID describe the Hope Diamond. The theory is that you have "displaced." (Of course in my scenario the RED SOX win! hee hee)

Why does this seem to happen? Some theorize that if people are shown the choices prior to the occurrence of the event that they will actually do a session for the target to which their subonscious is more attracted, in this case, the Hope Diamond. This is why it’s argued that self-judging should not be done and a viewer should NEVER be shown the alternative prior to the actual outcome. Instead, to be strictly in the proper protocol it’s argued that an independent judger should evaluate the session against the target outcomes and the viewer should be shown the actual feedback ONLY after the winning team wins (or the stock goes up or down OR the lotto number rolls out, and so on.)

When I was playing around with ARV, I self-judged and experienced a lot of this "displacement." So I stopped doing that and eventually ended up quitting ARV altogether, to do associative dowsing instead — Some like JFK and Grek K have put in a lot of time and effort with ARV and have been successful…I can’t recall if Greg K self-judges, but I know "JFK" does not.

Joanie

>

Hi all,

Oops, sorry about that previous post slipping before it was ready.

There is another form of displacement in RV. Some of us ( as a group) were given a blind target on a yahoo rv group. Unknown to us, this was a stage one target, something we hardly ever saw. When the feedback was shown, three of us had sketched a man in a straw hat. Now the target was a single rose.

I went back and ask the tasker–Now somewhere, there’s a man with a straw hat involved with this target….Would you help us figure this out? Bill thought about for awhile, and wrote back by email, that Jed had sent him the picture of the rose for a target, and had also enclosed a picture of herself, standing under a tree in a straw hat, in the same envelope as the target. In that picture, she had on what could be interputed as man’s clothes, and she resembled a man, as you couldn’t see her face or make out anything but the form in the picture, and of course, the straw hat.

I was told that this concept was called displacement. We were attracted to something more interesting at the target site, in this case, the displacement being " a man in a straw hat."

Barb

Hello Dick, Al, All –

I’ve always heard the term displacement used specifically in the context of Associative Remote Viewing (ARV) to describe what happens when it appears that you "correctly" view a target that has been pre-associated with the incorrect outcome.

For example, Target 1 (a parrot in a tree) is associated with the Red Sox and Target 2 (the Hope diamond on display in the Smithsonian) is associated with the Yankees. For your session, you get descriptors like natural, valuable, indoors, crystal-like, educational, large, encased, shiny, glistening. And you sketch what appears to be a faceted, crystalline structure. If your protocol involves self-judging, you’d be inclined to choose Target 2 – the Hope Diamond to be associated with the winning team. After the Red Sox win the game, you’re shown your feedback and it’s the parrot in the tree. You are convinced that your session really DID describe the Hope Diamond. The theory is that you have "displaced." (Of course in my scenario the RED SOX win! hee hee)

Why does this seem to happen? Some theorize that if people are shown the choices prior to the occurrence of the event that they will actually do a session for the target to which their subonscious is more attracted, in this case, the Hope Diamond. This is why it’s argued that self-judging should not be done and a viewer should NEVER be shown the alternative prior to the actual outcome. Instead, to be strictly in the proper protocol it’s argued that an independent judger should evaluate the session against the target outcomes and the viewer should be shown the actual feedback ONLY after the winning team wins (or the stock goes up or down OR the lotto number rolls out, and so on.)

When I was playing around with ARV, I self-judged and experienced a lot of this "displacement." So I stopped doing that and eventually ended up quitting ARV altogether, to do associative dowsing instead — Some like JFK and Grek K have put in a lot of time and effort with ARV and have been successful…I can’t recall if Greg K self-judges, but I know "JFK" does not.

Joanie

>

I went back and ask the tasker–Now somewhere, there’s a man with a straw hat involved with this target….Would you help us figure this out? Bill thought about for awhile, and wrote back by email, that Jed had sent him the picture of the rose for a target, and had also enclosed a picture of herself, standing under a tree in a straw hat, in the same envelope as the target. In that picture, she had on what could be interputed as man’s clothes, and she resembled a man, as you couldn’t see her face or make out anything but the form in the picture, and of course, the straw hat.

I was told that this concept was called displacement. We were attracted to something more interesting at the target site, in this case, the displacement being " a man in a straw hat."

Barb, that’s pretty much the same thing that Joanie described. When Bill gave you further information, it became part of your feedback — an alternative choice. Folks running ARV projects have to learn to be absolutely ruthless about feedback. Nothing except the target associated with the win should ever be shown to the viewers. Along this line also, the viewers in the project should not see each others sessions. It creates too much contamination.

Shelia

Along this line also, the viewers in the project should not see each others sessions. It creates too much contamination.

Shelia

Have too disagree my dear ;-)

As always, it Depends on the ability of the viewer
to overcome such barriers.

Regards,

Bill

Hello all,

Thought I would jump in on Ed’s thread here. In HRVG, the term displacement as we use it refers to the ability to move our awareness to a specific target. The effectiveness of this technique is gaged against our own innate ability and sometimes intellect in the process of displacing awareness to the target using the encrypted Target ID.

Someone mentioned the woman in a straw hat….in targeteering work, we are extremely careful not to put any potential target candidate images on top of each other to preclude morphing. Also, we try not to use images that are alike in a targeteering segment where more than one target is posted for viewing. For example (and because the targeteers do not know what the other targeteer is posting, we sometimes have crossovers of the same type of information passed)…anyway, for example, we try not to post two people targets together. Or two disaster related events.

In order to ensure a pure displacement, if that could be possible, a target must be completely sanitized from potential psychic overlay. This includes the ability to remain focused ONLY on the target we are encrypting. If for example, I am targeting a whale on a beach, and in the process, my mind wanders to a party at a disco, the viewer will pick up my thoughts on the party. (yep, experience speaking here:)) It is quite embarrassing to us as targeteers to see this happen and reflected in viewers’ work.

Aloha,

Sita

Hi Sita,

What is the difference between this and "Telepathic Overlay".

Gene

In order to ensure a pure displacement, if that could be possible, a target must be completely sanitized from potential psychic overlay. This includes the ability to remain focused ONLY on the target we are encrypting. If for example, I am targeting a whale on a beach, and in the process, my mind wanders to a party at a disco, the viewer will pick up my thoughts on the party. (yep, experience speaking here:)) It is quite embarrassing to us as targeteers to see this happen and reflected in viewers’ work.

Aloha, Sita

Hi Shelia,

I know that I forgot tell you, but the target I did was not ARV. That’s why I thought it was different. I am sorry if I led you to believe otherwise. It was just a regular RV target, where 2 pictures were sent by mail in the same envelope to the tasker, and a stage 1 target, a rose, was chosen, but the 3 of us went for the more interesting target, and more complicated, ( what was interputed as a man with a straw hat.) I know it was not the target chosen, and Bill’s rose was beautiful. Actually, it was funny, but like a puzzle that you want to solve. :-)

Anyway, the ‘morphing’ thing makes more sense to me in this case. It was back to back with the target picture in the same envelope. I’ll bet he pulled the one picture out right at target tasking time, and then the other one crossed his mind. :-) Hehehe I’ll have to ask him about that one. Yep, that would put 2 images in his mind, and qualify for morphing.( I think )

As to telepathic overlay?? I don’t know. A friend of mine use to task me frequently on different targets, just for practice. Sometimes, if he would task me on a target I had worked before, I would ‘sense’ this (What it was about) before I even started on the target. ( I was just writing the target ID down for future use.) It was like a familarity or sorts.

I don’t know if this was telepathic overlay or that the energy of the target was familiar? I tend to think the later, but I don’t know.

Barb

Barb, that’s pretty much the same thing that Joanie described. When Bill gave you further information, it became part of your feedback — an alternative choice. Folks running ARV projects have to learn to be absolutely ruthless about feedback. Nothing except the target associated with the win should ever be shown to the viewers. Along this line also, the viewers in the project should not see each others sessions. It creates too much contamination.

Shelia

Hi Shelia, Barb,

I agree with you displacement is going somewhere you don’t want to go! and it looked like displacement. But you can put 2 photos into an envelope back to back and task yourself with the side you want, in the same way its possible to remote view any number of targets and line the feedbacks up within seconds of each other without mixing them up.

I believe that when there is displacement, you should never look at it as a failure. It is simply an outward and visible sign of an inner condition or process taking place. It is also a window to let you see into the deeper problem.

the subconscious mind knows what you are wanting, just as well as the conscious mind does. When displacement occurs, and your mental system goes out of its way to describe the wrong target, or to only give you those things which are common to both or all targets, you need to realize that something deeper is going on. Often, it is a struggle between the conscious and subconscious minds for dominance, or simply for the clear establishment of each one’s role in the process.

A good illustration of displacement, which may be in the HRVG archives somewhere is to look at what happened at the attempted Randi challenge a while back, a good RV method will address the displacement issue directly with a view by placing the viewer in charge.

Steve

Barb, that’s pretty much the same thing that Joanie described. When Bill gave you further information, it became part of your feedback — an alternative choice. Folks running ARV projects have to learn to be absolutely ruthless about feedback. Nothing except the target associated with the win should ever be shown to the viewers. Along this line also, the viewers in the project should not see each others sessions. It creates too much contamination.

Shelia

Aloha,

Telepathic overlay simply does not exist. The targeteering process is one in which there is an effort expended to avoid associations of the Target ID to any other image, condition, or environment besides the intended target. It is very easy to associate a Target ID to other elements if the targeteering is shoddy. This should not be confused with the ruse of telepathic overlay.

Displacement is not a term often used in HRVG. More often the term Displace is used in the Guild to identify what a viewer does when they view. They displace a portion of their awareness to the intended target. It would seem a misunderstanding of the word Displacement, which is seldom heard in the Guild. To simply miss the intended target doesn’t necessarily imply some Displacement has occurred. It has more to do with the intellect and mentality of the viewer. Discipline of mind comes from learning and experience.

There is no real evidence that telepathic overlay exists as many die-hards would like others to believe. The remote viewer needs an arsenal of tools to collect data not an arsenal of excuses why the data may be less than pristine.

Glenn

Hi Glenn,

So, if Sita cues a target and while doing so her mind wanders then a viewer who subsequently works that cue will or can pick up on the specifics of those mind wanderings in the course of that session.

Yet if Sita is sitting in the same room, watching a viewer working a target that she cued, it is impossible for that viewer to pick up on what Sita’s opinions, or beliefs are about that cued target?

Thank you,

Gene

Glenn, I have not studied targeteering yet so I’ve some questons. You wrote:

"The targeteering process is one in which

there is an effort expended to avoid associations
of the Target ID to any other image, condition,
or environment besides the intended target.
It is very easy to associate a Target ID
to other elements if the targeteering is
shoddy."

Since effort must be expended and mistakes are easy with the targeteering process I must ask: Have you seen students do better with using a photo in an envelope or using a beacon person?

This avoids the problem of the targeteer having a bad day.

I’ve had plenty of positive results with envelopes with photos, handmade drawings, words, pictures from magazines. Also, I recall that Sita had a truly great direct hit with her viewing a beacon person at a lighthouse.

It seems that keeping it simple with less to go wrong argues for the envelope or the beacon.

What are the strengths of the target ID method? Do you think students just starting would get better results with the picture in the envelope or a beacon person?

Thanks. Chris

Glenn, I have not studied targeteering yet so I’ve some questons. You wrote:

"The targeteering process is one in which there is an effort expended to avoid associations of the Target ID to any other image, condition, or environment besides the intended target. It is very easy to associate a Target ID to other elements if the targeteering is shoddy."

Since effort must be expended and mistakes are easy with the targeteering process I must ask: Have you seen students do better with using a photo in an envelope or using a beacon person?

This avoids the problem of the targeteer having a bad day.

I’ll give some anecdotal data here. Last week we started a new class. I’m busy working on a graphics heavy presentation for the upcoming RV Conference in Las Vegas. The night before the new class I realized I needed some targets for the students to work.

I took a few out of my personal files, and then I went on the internet and pulled a few images, things that would be good for introducing Visual Ideogram.

I selected a rocket launch, a sheep (in the news recently) with a lot of wool, and (that favorite of RVers) The great pyramid. I cued these up, bang, bang, bang one after another- without the proper amount of focus and no time in between.

So in class last week I pulled out a target- the sheep with the big fluffy coat of wool- and tasked the new students. One student drew the sheep in front of a pyramid. Another drew a rocket launch.

That’s how it works.

Aloha

Dick

Yes Dick, thats how the river flows and a microcosm of that is TO. Seen it with my own eyes, whole gestalts that do not fit the description of regular RV perceptions which IMO are small and incomplete requiring analysis to disentangle.

If I drew a whole gestalt that resembled the target, I would throw it out, have done in fact. I rest my case ;-)

Best regards, Steve

I’ll give some anecdotal data here. Last week we started a new class. I’m busy working on a graphics heavy presentation for the upcoming RV Conference in Las Vegas. The night before the new class I realized I needed some targets for the students to work.

I took a few out of my personal files, and then I went on the internet and pulled a few images, things that would be good for introducing Visual Ideogram.

I selected a rocket launch, a sheep (in the news recently) with a lot of wool, and (that favorite of RVers) The great pyramid. I cued these up, bang, bang, bang one after another- without the proper amount of focus and no time in between.

So in class last week I pulled out a target- the sheep with the big fluffy coat of wool- and tasked the new students. One student drew the sheep in front of a pyramid. Another drew a rocket launch.

That’s how it works.

Aloha

Dick

Gene,

One must be careful not to confuse an issue of associating a target identifier with a target (or targets) and the ability to (by means of telepathy) influence the mental operations of another. It would presume the presence of super powers that would cross the barrier from the passive to the active whether intentional or not. Remote viewing is a passive activity. It is listening across a spectrum of sensories.

One may listen to anything or anyone. Examples elsewhere on this site demonstrate the ability to listen with remote viewing. Given that premise on could divert their focused attention from the target identifier to another person in the room and indeed collect data. The data may or may not be relevant but nevertheless would not constitute telepathic overlay just a poorly disciplined viewer.

Aloha

Hi Glenn,

I do appreciate you discussing this once again and honestly think we are close to being on the same page; one of us just doesn’t know it yet… By Telepathic Overlay I am not, and I believe most others who have broached the subject here for years, likewise were not referring to some type of active directed mind control. So to make sure we are talking about the same thing let me quote a paragraph defining it from Ingo Swann’s article titled “Remote Viewing Versus Telepathic Overlay” which can be found at www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/RVVsTelepathicOverlay.html

“Within the remote viewing contexts, TELEPATHIC OVERLAY would consist of picking up on information from someone else’s head and mistaking that information for the "signal." The SIGNAL, of course, would consist of information pertinent to the distant location or "target." Picking up on "signals" from someone else’s head and accepting them for the RV signals can be called telepathic overlay.”

He immediately goes on to say:

“Accessing the target information is the goal of remote viewing. Accessing any other kind of information is "noise," in the sense of being contamination which distorts the clear reception of actual signals.

Accessing telepathic overlay information is therefore noise — and, as it might easily be understood, would be quite deadly to the remote viewing faculties, processes, and results of RV.
Please see my essay regarding the Signal-to Noise Ratio.”

Gene Smith

Gene,

One must be careful not to confuse an issue of associating a target identifier with a target (or targets) and the ability to (by means of telepathy) influence the mental operations of another. It would presume the presence of super powers that would cross the barrier from the passive to the active whether intentional or not. Remote viewing is a passive activity. It is listening across a spectrum of sensories.

One may listen to anything or anyone. Examples elsewhere on this site demonstrate the ability to listen with remote viewing. Given that premise on could divert their focused attention from the target identifier to another person in the room and indeed collect data. The data may or may not be relevant but nevertheless would not constitute telepathic overlay just a poorly disciplined viewer.

Aloha

Ah, it is nice to see Ingo’s definition of this term.

Can we all agree that ‘Telepathic Overlay’ is not a very good descriptor of the phenomena.

‘Information Overlay’, ‘Extra-Sensory Overlay’ or ‘Signal Overlay’

…would be better, but that’s just my opinion :-)

Telepathy usually does infer some sort of active "pushing" of information to a "receiver". Here is one definition.

Te*lep"a*thy, n. [Gr. ? far off + ?, ?, to suffer.] The sympathetic affection of one mind by the thoughts, feelings, or emotions of another at a distance, without communication through the ordinary channels of sensation. — Tel`e*path"ic, a. — Te*lep"a*thist, n.

Source: Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Hi Glenn,

I do appreciate you discussing this once again and honestly think we are close to being on the same page; one of us just doesn’t know it yet… By Telepathic Overlay I am not, and I believe most others who have broached the subject here for years, likewise were not referring to some type of active directed mind control. So to make sure we are talking about the same thing let me quote a paragraph defining it from Ingo Swann’s article titled “Remote Viewing Versus Telepathic Overlay” which can be found at www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/RVVsTelepathicOverlay.html

“Within the remote viewing contexts, TELEPATHIC OVERLAY would consist of picking up on information from someone else’s head and mistaking that information for the "signal." The SIGNAL, of course, would consist of information pertinent to the distant location or "target." Picking up on "signals" from someone else’s head and accepting them for the RV signals can be called telepathic overlay.”

He immediately goes on to say:

“Accessing the target information is the goal of remote viewing. Accessing any other kind of information is "noise," in the sense of being contamination which distorts the clear reception of actual signals. Accessing telepathic overlay information is therefore noise — and, as it might easily be understood, would be quite deadly to the remote viewing faculties, processes, and results of RV. Please see my essay regarding the Signal-to Noise Ratio.”

Gene Smith

Gene,

It actually is pretty boggling to consider all the different types of error possible when dealing with the mental machinations required in remote viewing. Telepathic overlay is not even on my list of Notorious Error that plagues many viewers. It simply does not exist as any degree of a threat to the remote viewing process. We have worked many years to make the case for remote viewing here at HRVG and we have published more material than anyone else. I have never seen anyone make a case that even had any evidence, or proffer or proof, or circumstantial evidence to point a finger at telepathic overlay as a threat to the process. A process we know very well.

Telepathic overlay is an Extraordinary Claim made by some in the CRV community that simply has no proof whatsoever of its existence, viability, or threat possibility to the RV process.

In a very clear, and loud voice I would ask you to offer us here at HRVG some evidence that telepathic overlay is real, evidence that would lead the normal logical mind to telepathic overlay as the culprit to contamination of an RV session beyond a reasonable doubt.

Aloha

Yes Dick, thats how the river flows and a microcosm of that is TO. Seen it with my own eyes, whole gestalts that do not fit the description of regular RV perceptions which IMO are small and incomplete requiring analysis to disentangle.

If I drew a whole gestalt that resembled the target, I would throw it out, have done in fact. I rest my case ;-)

Best regards, Steve

Have to agree with steve,

Dick has just described TELEPATHIC OVERLAY in all its glory ;-)

Warmly

Bill

Hi Glenn,

Well I’m not sure that I am capable of producing evidence on the matter that would be considered “beyond a reasonable doubt” by you. To some degree for the same reason that neither you nor anyone else have been able to prove to The Amazing Randi and his ilk, “beyond a reasonable doubt” that remote viewing is a real phenomenon. I would further submit there are a myriad of things taught by you, the HRVG, and most every institution in existence that are not provable “beyond a reasonable doubt” to even reasonably open minds.

But I can offer in a not too loud but clear voice why I suspect it to be a real phenomenon. Firstly every single person from the original military remote viewing program that I have seen broach the subject has averred its existence as fact. Specifically I would mention Ingo Swann, Hal Putoff, Ed Dames, and Paul Smith. So when you say, “Telepathic overlay is an Extraordinary Claim made by some in the CRV community” I would ask who in the CRV community doesn’t believe it.

Ingo Swann in his detailed article, www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/RVVsTelepathicOverlay.html, on the matter states:

“Telepathic overlay was identified by myself and Dr. H.E. Puthoff in about 1975, and together we worked to determine its causes, its relationship to remote viewing, and how to avoid or eradicate it.

We were quite concerned that the viewer was picking up information from the minds of those associated with the viewings rather than from the distant site itself.

This was also a problem which worried the sponsors very much, and for reasons which should be obvious.
If telepathic overlay was the case, then we didn’t have remote viewing at all. We had some format of telepathy.

At first we felt that the sources or causes must be quite complicated. But in the end we discovered that a single situation was the source of most telepathic overlay. When that situation was cured, telepathic overlay tended to vanish.”

Regretfully Ingo doesn’t give the details of the evidence, or observations that brought he, Hal Puthoff, the sponsors, and I think a number of other involved parties could be safely presumed here, to all to come to the conclusion that Telepathic Overlay was a real and identifiable phenomenon. But the fact that they all did come to this conclusion does in and of itself carry some weight to the argument that there was evidence. The fact, as Ingo later describes in the article, their being able to identify when and why it happens and hence address and solve the problem using the Telepathic Overlay hypothesis or theory would also speak to it’s credibility.

Now let me go to some HRVG in house examples. Plugging in the word “tagging” into the HRVG archive search function will bring up a goodly number of threads wherein Dick’s describes his own tagging abilities at some length. These abilities are described by Dick as: “not really remote viewing however, it is TAGGING. It is a side skill that comes after plenty of RV training, when you have opened the communication pathway between your sub and your primary awareness”.

Using “tagging” Dick has described knowing what students were remote viewing and sketching it on a chalk board in the classroom real-time, without benefit of caller I.D. knowing when his wife was calling him, knowing what the scale she was standing on read, sensing he was going to loose a rented parking space, knowing a strangers name or that they were having a bad day, even that the guy sitting next to him at a red light had just found out his girlfriend was pregnant. I don’t question the reality of these happenings at all, as most if not all people have experienced something along the same lines, to one degree or another at some point in their life. And while a common experience there are people such as The Amazing Randi who demand in loud and clear voices that they be shown any evidence for the phenomenon and in his case goes so far as to offer anyone a million dollars doing do “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Well back to my primary point. If Dick can know the mind of a total stranger or “tag” a student doing a session and know what it is they are picturing in their mind real-time why is it so preposterous to think that Dick working a target, cued by a person standing right there in the room with him, might not pick up information directly from the mind of that person.

Let me draw an additional HRVG example. The other day Sita mentioned that while cueing a target she had allowed her mind to wander, with the result being the viewer(s) subsequently picked up on the specifics of her reverie in their session(s). In a following post in response to a question I had about this phenomenon you (Glenn) stated that: “It is very easy to associate a Target ID to other elements if the targeteering is shoddy. This should not be confused with the ruse of telepathic overlay.”

Now if I were to ask you in a loud and clear voice to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what the viewer(s) of Sita’s cued target experienced was a result of shoddy targeting as opposed to telepathic overlay could you do so? Or more specifically why is it absolutely beyond the realm of possibility that a viewer, with the “tagging” skills of Dick as an example, could pick up the biases, beliefs or thoughts that a cuer has on a target; especially if that cuer is someone he has a relationship with and is standing in the very room with him while he is doing his session.

Lastly whenever this subject comes up you have invariably brought up the straw man argument that Telepathic Overlay is nothing but an excuse for some in the CRV community use to explain away poor results. For myself and every authority that I’ve seen seriously discuss the matter in this field nothing could be further from the truth. Much of the point of Ingo’s article was in fact how to deal with the phenomenon so it would NOT affect ones sessions, as allowing it to happen was unnaceptable. Paul Smith recently mentioned a case of a, to date unverifiable viewing that he did wherein the results were suspect due to the possibility of “telepathic overlay”. It was not an excuse or anything resembling it, just a data point to be considered in this particular instance.

And that in conclusion is the point of all this and the reason for my doggedness on the subject over time. There IS a body of evidence in existence to suggest that it may be a real phenomenon. And while not enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to everyone, including myself it is an absolute unassailable fact; I do believe there is more than enough evidence to question the flat out dogmatic statements and claims of finality that it is simply a ruse and does NOT exist.

Lastly I want to once again thank you for the privilege of posting on this board. I know that I have and continue to be pointed at times, even rude; your patience does not go unnoticed.

Sincerely,

Gene Smith

Hi Gene,

I’ll jump in here briefly. This is a good discussion, and we appreciate your detailed observations. We can be "pointed" and still be friends, so no offense taken.

You write:

>Firstly every single person from the original military remote viewing program that I have seen broach the subject has averred its existence as fact. Specifically I would mention Ingo Swann, Hal Putoff, Ed Dames, and Paul Smith.

If you look at all the students trained by Ingo, Paul Smith, Lyn Buchanan, Ed Dames, etc… there must be thousands and thousands of sessions produced where "telepathic overlay" would have manifested in some of the work. If telepathic overlay is such an impediment to remote viewing why haven’t they run some tests and published some data? Can anyone show a single instance where it is documented in some session work, produced under CRV protocol?

It seems to me that is more a case of "Ingo said it, and INGO IS THE FATHER OF REMOTE VIEWING, so it must be so."

By the way I once interviewed Paul Smith on the subject and he said an example of telepathic overlay would be several viewers working the same target- one viewer going off on an imaginary tangent- and the other viewers following that bad data telepathically. We have never seen this happen at HRVG. We have a room full of large filing cabinets with literally thousands of sessions done over the past 7 years under good chain of custody blind protocol. Anyone is free to come comb the files and find telepathic overlay. If it were as common as Ingo would have you think, then it would manifest in the work of the hundreds of trained viewers here.

Now let me go to some HRVG in house examples. Plugging in the word “tagging” into the HRVG archive search function will bring up a goodly number of threads wherein Dick’s describes his own tagging abilities at some length. These abilities are described by Dick as: “not really remote viewing however, it is TAGGING. It is a side skill that comes after plenty of RV training, when you have opened the communication pathway between your sub and your primary awareness”.

When I "tagged" the images of viewers in the next room while they worked a session, they were not telepathically transmitting images to me. I was actively displacing my subconscious awareness to pick up the images they were producing. There was conscious intent involved on my part, not telepathic overlay.

Gene, if you’re going to the RV conference we can sit down and have a good robust discussion over a beer in the bar at Texas Station.

Alola,

Dick

Have to agree with steve, Dick has just described TELEPATHIC OVERLAY in all its glory ;-)

Not telepathic overlay… just unsanitary targeteering and what we call "morphing." When the targeteer has 2 targets in mind during the tasking and puts an ID on one of them- both of them become connected to the target ID.

Aloha

Dick

Hello Dick,

I sincerely appreciate the offer to set down together, and while I came close to going to the conference this year, in the end I had to choose not to but will take a rain check.

Let me quote some of the salient points you made, as I do believe there is an answer or at least another point to consider on each, you wrote:

“If you look at all the students trained by Ingo, Paul Smith, Lyn Buchanan, Ed Dames, etc… there must be thousands and thousands of sessions produced where "telepathic overlay" would have manifested in some of the work. If telepathic overlay is such an impediment to remote viewing why haven’t they run some tests and published some data? Can anyone show a single instance where it is documented in some session work, produced under CRV protocol?

It seems to me that is more a case of "Ingo said it, and INGO IS THE FATHER OF REMOTE VIEWING, so it must be so.”

I have not seen any of these people, Ingo or otherwise claim this was some all-encompassing impediment to a CRV style of remote viewing that happened all the time. In fact Ingo in his article mentions that once they identified the source and cause of it, it virtually disappeared. Assuming his students were taught what he knew about it and were able to maintain the proper controls I would expect that it likewise was something kept similarly at bay.

The fact that there is not published work, which you have seen does not mean the documentation isn’t there or that the events in question didn’t happen. Now I do understand that you could reasonably say something like: “Well I’m not going to believe it till I see it myself.” But when every CRV teacher that I’ve seen, and yes especially Ingo himself, aver that the phenomenon does in fact exist as they have personally seen it; that does carry some weight I believe. Again that might well not be enough for you to reverse your mind set on the matter, but I do believe it should be enough to cause you to realize that your unequivocal claim that it doesn’t exist is simply untenable.

In regards to everyone just falling in line and assuming that because Ingo said it, then it must be so just doesn’t fit with most the personalities and interaction I’ve observed in this field. I can’t think of a single noted person of stature in this clan that has shown themselves to be too shy or afraid to say something like, “I am right and the rest of you are wrong”; well excepting MY trainer of course ;-0…

Later you wrote:

“By the way I once interviewed Paul Smith on the subject and he said an example of telepathic overlay would be several viewers working the same target- one viewer going off on an imaginary tangent- and the other viewers following that bad data telepathically. We have never seen this happen at HRVG. We have a room full of large filing cabinets with literally thousands of sessions done over the past 7 years under good chain of custody blind protocol. Anyone is free to come comb the files and find telepathic overlay. If it were as common as Ingo would have you think, then it would manifest in the work of the hundreds of trained viewers here.”

Again Ingo nowhere claimed it to be all that all pervading common or without solution. But you do raise an interesting question, why has this never happened at HRVG. Is Telepathic Overlay only something that happens to CRV students, is every major teacher of CRV who has personally witnessed it simply mistaken, do the protocol/methods used at HRVG preclude it or what. Well one of the ways that I learned to test theories is to assume they are true and see where the end result of that takes you, so that’s what I’m going to try here. Make the hypothetical assumption the theory is true and see where it takes us.

So assume with me for just a bit that Telepathic Overlay as described by Ingo is a real phenomenon. Then add to that HRVG as a whole being so profoundly unbelieving in it being even remotely possible that they didn’t implement any protocol or method, such as those suggested by Ingo, to address it or to prevent it’s occurrence. And lastly trained their students over time to operate in this environment. If so, what would one expect to see?

Firstly for Telepathic Overlay to persist requires something that Ingo speaks about at length. And while I will attempt to condense his thoughts to a few sentences here, I would adamantly proffer that a full reading of the article is necessary to totally appreciate the ramifications of what he puts forth, to wit: www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/RVVsTelepathicOverlay.html Namely that a relationship of power exists with one individual exerting power over another. This phenomenon, however subtle or blatant is one often witnessed between teacher and student, Doctor and patient, hypnotist and subject, etc. To briefly quote Ingo “the formula of who was to have power over whom was subtly present, even if no one involved consciously thought about implementing it.” With someone especially charismatic or strong willed in the top role the problem could easily manifest itself so powerfully as to produce astounding results. The problem would arise if one were to wrongfully assume the source of those results to be solely based on an interaction between viewer and target, while dogmatically ignoring the possible contamination that could come from the resonance between the individuals themselves.

Secondly if the viewer, even consciously unaware of it themselves, were collecting data about the target from the cuer as opposed to or as an adjunct to getting data directly from the target site itself, what would one reasonably expect to see as evidence in the matter? One would be the viewer clearly picking up on the passing thoughts or reveries the cuer had whilst cueing the target, or picking up on what the cuer believed or knew the target to be. This last item could manifest itself over time with superior sessions being produced especially wherein the cued target was a static item, such as a calibration targets as opposed to one where the cuer had no expectation or knowledge of what the expected result should be. It would not be improbable over time, with group dynamics and the desire for reward, to see these static type targets become the preferred target of choice for reasons going subtly beyond the obvious need for them as training tools.

Lastly, and here I reach my furthest climb out onto our hypothetical limb is the matter of the results themselves. If the data collection system’s methodology was such that it actually encouraged and was in fact dependent upon Telepathic Overlay what would be the likely results when comparing data gotten to that from more traditional and scientifically examined systems such as CRV. It would be my expectation that the data derived from such a methodology would come in a manner more akin or typical of mind-to-mind or telepathic contact. That generally being large data dumps or instantaneous pictures and knowings coming as a whole, not unlike your (Dick’s) instantaneous knowing that the guy sitting next to you at that red light had just found out his girlfriend was pregnant. Wherein the data coming in from CRV is gathered in a rather slow and somewhat laborious processes at a very controlled and metered pace. Going from the very vague to the specific piecemeal as the session progresses. This difference is probably nowhere better evidenced or highlighted as when comparing the production of the initial ideograms from both systems. CRV nowhere that I’ve seen ever acceptably produces ideograms resembling sketches evidencing a clear mental picture of what is the exact site or complete scenario in question. In fact a clear visual picture of the site such that a detailed sketch could be drawn coming in the first seconds of a CRV session would be cause to abort the session if one were not able to set it aside.

Now has HRVG developed a system wherein students are routinely able to access a clear, accurate and oft times complete mental picture of the target within seconds of beginning their session; it would appear that way. This of course does beg the question, why doesn’t it come with that same rapidity and clarity when using CRV and if it does it is considered suspect and usually discarded. The scientists and researchers that developed CRV were surely intelligent enough to have preferred to get an accurate sketch of things on the first page I’d think. Yet if the data came in that way they, over time came to the educated conclusion that the data or vision was so suspect that discarding it was the preferred option and method taught.

I am not trying to pull some gotcha question here and the answers to the above do carry with them huge ramifications. But it just continues to strike me oddly that you guys are so seemingly rabid at the very mention of the words Telepathic Overlay, much less being willing to actually examine the possibility that it might be real.

That said let me use this opportunity to leave the direct subject of HRVG and casually present a couple of perhaps pertinent anecdotes that I had personal and direct knowledge of. The first was a situation wherein my teacher doing in person training took a enveloped target from a stack of pre prepared targets in use that day and handed it to a student to work while she sat at the same table as a teacher guide solely to keep the person on track structurally. Meaning no direction was given other than with things like, “you forgot smells”, or “a Stage 3 Sketch is next”, etc. Now my teacher in this case was convinced she knew exactly the target contained in the envelope, though apparently had not doubled checked it prior to handing to the student was to work blind. The upshot is, the target in the envelope turned out to be different than what the teacher thought. The student clearly and I mean clearly got primarily the target the teacher had in her mind, with a smaller amount of morphed data on the actual target in the envelope. This morphing and or producing data on the wrong target did not happen the remainder of the training sessions that day or the ones following. Not complete proof in and of itself, but surely a data point to consider in the matter.

The second anecdote that I wanted to mention has to do with a fellow I met and came to know early in my training at Psitech. I’m sure Glenn himself sat in the chat room with this fellow for more than just a couple of hours as he was there most every night and went by the nick of Observer. He turned out to be a great encouragement to me and over time I came to know him fairly well and learned over time that he was an empath. This was something that fascinated me in that I had never even heard of such a thing prior to talking with him, and had really come into this field a novice with virtually no exposure or experience with such things. In his case it had become almost debilitating resulting in his being unable to go to a movie as just one example as he would begin to simultaneously pick up on and even personally experience the emotions of everyone in the place. More seriously he had also spent time in Vietnam where he had to handle the fears of everyone else on the battlefield flooding in while trying to manage his own. In short he was as real and complete an empath as I’ve ever come to know. We had a training target of the week that most the students would work. He found that he had to do this target early on, before anyone else could get to it else he would morph all the differing data the other students had gotten along with his own, with no real way to tell while in session what was coming from the target itself and what was coming from his affliction that apparently allowed him to pick up on what the other students had gotten in session on the same target. This brings to mind the late Bev Jaegers (sp) who on her site had a story given wherein it was found that an artifact, from a crime scene as I recall had been initially handled by a psychic who used the same manner of touching the object or psychometry that Bev did to jump start his downloading the requested information. In this particular instance he apparently proceeded to give out some incorrect information, incorrect information that was subsequently mimicked by everyone following him that used the same object as their starting point on the case. I did not know Bev Jaegers and can not speak to the story’s accuracy, so take it for what you will.

Lastly I will mention a story that I and a number of people were witness to, fairly early in my training. Again this involved a target of the week. It was cued and placed into a manila folder in the very specific manner they taught and practiced there. Several people, myself included did sessions and posted them fairly early in the process and we all had gotten similar themes and sketches of oil derricks, refineries, and a peculiar but somewhat familiar looking little logo thingy; this all in addition to apparent football activity. Well the teacher came into the chat room as we were there discussing our results and speculating on what the combined data said, as none of us knew what the cue was at that point, and immediately shared with us the following tale. That while traveling her Chevron bill had apparently fallen or worked it’s way down into the folder that contained the cue for that week’s target, which was the upcoming winner of the Superbowl and she had not discovered it until a few minutes earlier when her search for the bill turned up it’s ultimate location. Now there is a reason I bring this anecdote up here, not the least of which is it brings me back to the mainstream of my overall point.

We as viewers clearly picked up on this item that had fallen into the target folder, wherein the cuer herself had absolutely no knowledge or intent of it being there. The reason was that we as viewers had been trained to go to our assigned target and download the data based solely on what was the literal written cue along with any reference material placed into the target folder. Now think about that for a moment, cause it raises a question, would such an error or event result in an HRVG viewer downloading data on it as it was not in the mind of the cuer? Your cueing process seems dependent upon a focused link being made by the cuer in their mind to produce correct results; and that does raise some legitimate questions in regards to the subject at hand.

And with that I should close what I would expect to be the longest post I will ever make.

Best regards,

Gene Smith

Hi Gene,

That WAS a long post. Thanks for your time and effort in posting it. Again, I find this an interesting topic.

I think the anecdotal examples you have cited point to poor or sloppy targeteering. At HRVG we have done actual experiments where the targeteer (or tasker) has intentionally and consciously contemplated two different targets while assigning the target ID. The viewers in these experiments produce data congruent to both targets. This doesn’t prove telepathic overlay. It shows that the targeteer (tasker) has to be focused and clear in his or her intent while cueing a target.

We would never claim that our methodology allows every viewer to obtain clear concise access to the target (signal line) in a matter of seconds every time they remote view. Certainly at HRVG we often have student viewers, trained viewers, operational viewers, viewers of all skill levels produce poor data.

But we don’t blame any of this poor data on telepathic overlay. We assert that the viewer is responsible for the data he or she produces, be it good data, bad data, or contamination.

If this sounds elitist or condescending I apologize, but our views on remote viewing are based on a rather large volume of published data. Ingo’s essay on the theory of telepathic overlay is interesting, but needs some data to support it before it can be accepted.

Speaking of offering up actual RV data to support theories of remote viewing….For those of you thinking about attending the upcoming IRVA conference, I will be giving a presentation on low level consensus analysis. I invite you all to come and see the data. If you would care to challenge our theories there will be a Q & A following the presentation.

Aloha

Dick

Aloha,

Intuition is such a unique skill that it is seldom recognized as just exactly what it is. When the human thinks it is in patterns (learned) and by design (communications pathway). The thought process is so well insulated from external manipulation that the possibility of telepathic overlay is remote at best, and barring the proffer of any evidence to the contrary it is not even worth considering as any threat to the processes of remote viewing. It seems that no matter how many times I stress this it is for naught.

The viewer is solely responsible for the collection of data relevant to the tasked target. Any deviation from that target constitutes, deviation, error, and omissions. It is a failure on the part of the viewer to create and maintain contact with the target. It is not the nebulous manipulation of the witting or unwitting minds of others. The process of collection almost always consists of good data, bad data, and contamination. Bad data and contamination are considered viewer fault. There is no reason whatsoever to think that telepathic overlay exists. The statement has been made many times here but I will yet again make it one more time. Science has indeed looked but has found no evidence that telepathy exists. This is a fact that they are very adamant about.

There is no reason to believe that the remote viewing process is telepathy based and as such does not include telepathy in its collection of good data, bad data, or contamination.

A rumor of telepathic overlay does more damage to the viewer wrestling with success and failure in the remote viewing process than a viewer what hasn’t been told about the lions, tigers, and bears. It gives a false buff to the viewer who reconciles their failure to remote view but their success at telepathy. It is a helgian complexity at best. The collection of data using remote viewing is indeed a skill of listening to and in the environment. You cannot give an error on the part of the viewer a name or condition and explain failure away as some inclemency the viewer is not responsible for.

Targeteering is a complex process and multiple data sets can be associated to the same identifier. This also is not a process of telepathy but one of an action done on the part of the targeteer. Like any other action it leaves its footprint in the environment. It is merely the connected/associated gateway for the viewer to follow. It is not magic or special but must be as sanitized a process as possible to ensure successful transitions by the viewers.

Unless there is some evidence, or proof of the existence of telepathic overly as a threat to the process it is just another monster under the bed. A windmill dragon for some viewer whose mind is not right, whose confidence is low, whose resolve about the intent of their own mind is unstable.

My advice on this is to give it no mind at all. Observe the double blind protocol and work enough targets to garner the requisite experience to get your own mind right.

Glenn

Unless there is some evidence, or proof of the existence of telepathic overly as a threat to the process it is just another monster under the bed. A windmill dragon for some viewer whose mind is not right, whose confidence is low, whose resolve about the intent of their own mind is unstable.

Hi Glenn –

Good discussion despite different belief systems here!

There’s a very easy way for viewers to develop confidence about the potential monster under the bed of telepathic overlay. That is, instead of just discarding it and saying flat out it doesn’t exist so don’t worry about it. A viewer gains confidence in one’s own abiities by working on unique rather than group-tasked targets as part of one’s training. Then discovers quite literally for oneself how one’s OWN perceptions match to feedback and the target site. In this way, one needn’t have any worries and when a group tasking comes along, the viewer already has a track record established for how strong their actual psi is.

I’m not going to debate the existence of telepathy with you as I am one that believes beyond a measure of a doubt that telepathy exists. I’ve experienced it directly and know others that have. So science doesn’t have to prove to me that it exists, though I appreciate Rupert Sheldrake’s work especially with animals. I have witnessed telepathic overlay occur – not in CRV, but in a dowsing experiment I did with my family in which my sister (blindly) got the numbers my father wanted to win and not the actual winning lotto numbers. This demonstrated to me that Ingo’s theory of the social "power" dynamics are also at play in tele-empathy.

Still I don’t find that most CRVers wring their hands or worry about telepathic overlay…if anything "castle building" seems more of a problem. CRV tasking helps to eliminate any potential telepathic overlay problems (whether real or imagined!) during training as viewers work singly on many unique targets. And because of this confidence established, most viewers don’t seem too concerned or worried about the validity of their data when doing group-tasked targets, like outbounders for example. At least I don’t notice much worry. I don’t find it to be a huge monster.

Joanie

What is a "helgian complexity?"

Do they teach words like that to Sergeants in the army?

Dick

Aloha Dick,

Yes the Army education system is very good lol.

It is the creation of a threat (which does not exist) and the proffer of a solution more than likely for money.

In this case it is a complexity, for something that is neither viable nor provable, but based in a "Belief". There is virtually nothing that can be done to sway that belief due to the nature of the threat. It is believable to those who are amazed enough by the RV process, to accept Telepathy as just as real.

I think that Telepathy or mind to mind would be an extraordinay gift and not one found so easily in this world that it poses a threat enmasse to the RV community.

Glenn

I think that Telepathy or mind to mind would be an extraordinay gift and not one found so easily in this world that it poses a threat enmasse to the RV community. Glenn

Especially when it’s Ingo Swann who is telepathically communicating with you :-)))))).

oooOOOOOooooo

Well he WAS compared to the power of the "bomb" on the cover of Time magazine.

(I think telepathy is a lot more subtle and our "minds" are often communicating with each other at subtle levels. In dreamwork, Robbie Bosnak calls it "symbiotic communication." None of you have EVER telepathically communicated in a dream, for example??? – I find it to be blatantly apparent and common in dream states. I guess those of us who’ve experienced it directly have "the gift.")

Ok…ok…I’ll go back into my tent now…

Joanie