Dr Ed May

Aloha Rich,

I pulled my first response to this thread. It seems that if I say what I would like to I will have to be a bit more comprehensive. Certain things glare at you a bit from it, PJ’s and May’s disdain for Courtney Brown to May’s obvious problem with the use of RV in counter-narcotics by the Government. After reading it a remote viewer or prospective remote viewer should just give up. I mean what’s the use. Dr. May really said nothing of importance and certainly had an agenda. And of course PJ continues her Jihad against Dr. Brown. I need to sort it a bit and get some thoughts in the proper order to adequately respond. There are contradictions galore, PJ’s apology to May for bringing up Brown’s book because it wasn’t from someone in Science all the while moderating a group of non-science participants. May’s statement that he arranged to have all the research declassified while many of us know that this was never completely done. May does not know how or why remote viewing works which clearly speaks to the lack of Subject Matter Academics in the remote viewing field. They simply do not know and it doesn’t matter if the PhD is in Physics or Veterinary Science it is not field specific to their areas of expertise. The clincher for me was when he said those posting on the net should submit their work for peer review and criticism. Lol that certainly sounds fair. Going to ponder this for a bit.

Glenn

Dr. May’s chat contains at least one glaring contradiction. Didn’t anyone else notice this? Early on he was asked about training, specifically the CRV style alert-state method taught by Ingo. Here is what Dr. May said:

Ed May: Ingo’s method produced no useful data in STARGATE! The truth be told.. I have a great love and respect for Ingo (he got me the job) .. he is very smart, but his training was a bust.

Then later in the chat Rich asked him about the alert state method and he said it was the best method:

RichK: Have you found any difference between the ERV type process vs. the wide awake process?

Ed May: What is ERV?
PJ: A term Ingo’s trainees made up to describe what Joe was doing that wasn’t CRV. Altered State, like Ganzfield without the eye-stuff, lying down.. vs. CRV-type sitting up at a desk more alert.
Ed May: Yes, wide awake is much better.

If wide-awake is much better, then why did this produce –in his words- “no useful data in STARGATE?” (I also found it incredible that someone regarded as one of the leaders in the RV world had no idea what ERV stands for!)

And finally this statement:

Ed May: Although I wish it were different, we have NO evidence at all that training of any kind works for RV.

We have mountains of evidence in the HRVG files and published on the HRVG website to refute this statement. You can see for yourself the evolution of viewers, from making very basic and limited target contact as they are first exposed to the methodology, and then with training and practice you can see them go on to produce amazing projects like Erminmink, Kapitan Man, The Disappearance of Simon Owen, “Promise Kept”- the Capt. Scot Spiecher Case, on and on and on.

Aloha All,

Almost done pondering the very interesting moderated chat done by TKR with Dr. May. Some of the issues raised deserve comment. Early in the chat participant "Morgan" asks if the nervous system function mean that information could be obtained from someone against their will. Dr. May doesn’t really answer this question but does say "No" that only about 40% of those tested respond. The logical follow up question would be "Ok if 40% of those tested respond then from that 40% could information be collected against their will?" The answer to that question is a logical and resounding yes.

Shortly after that perhaps Barfly asked the most import question. Barfly questions if the lack of appropriate methodologies affect Sciences ability to study TK and RI. May agrees that that could be said. He goes on to say that there are major problems with the definitions of those terms. I am reminded of the infamous Clinton dodge over the definition of certain terms. The follow up here is to define for him in simple terms the meaning of Telekinesis and Remote Influencing and repose the question. These dodge tactics are so exhausting. All the participant wants is an answer and any knowledgeable, willing special guest should answer clearly and not redirect to a definition dilemma, which the moderator fails to clear. Moderators must be keen on flushing out these areas to get the best possible answer for the participant.

A bit further participant "Morgan" asks if he has any advice in regards to RV training. This is the blockbuster bubble buster response. May states that they have no evidence at all that any training works for RV. Keep in mind that at this point and continuing on May references no study, published work, or paper. Implications of this answer are fairly widespread. It in fact nullifies the existence of RV. RV becomes a negligible term in lieu of the Psi term, which is what you would have in the absence of RV. It becomes tacit recognition of Psi and not RV. It is obvious by now that May believes in Psi and in fact RV may not be a function of Psi. The fact is that he does not know. What we do know is that formal repetitive mental exercises such as RV do promote and create neural pathway to support that mental effort. Those of us that train can track viewer performance as they overcome obstacle and milestone to become a remote viewer. It is a performance progression that is evidenced in the work they produce.

May goes on to state that not only was Ingo Swann’s training a bust but also his method produced no useful data in the Stargate program. This is a significant statement. Implications of this statement would seem to fly in the face of those who were in the Stargate program. This specifically addresses the CRV methodology and those that teach and use it. Is it all a fake, an illusion, a mental placebo to eek out the Psi in some artificially difficult way that is implicitly ineffective? More than likely this is not the case. May’s agenda seems to be to dispatch formal civilian training and trainers and keep research properly titled as Psi in a lab somewhere being puzzled over by PhD’s who can quote neither source or origin. Still waiting for a proffer of any supporting study, paper, document, notes on toilet paper, well ummm anything at all to support such a CRV Killshot. The moderator must be afk to let this one slide without pressing for at least something from the CSL. Surely preparation to cut the legs from the largest RV proliferator would include evidence beyond just a say so.

May a bit further in states that no single training method works for all students, this is just a scant few minutes after he has stated that no training methods seem to work at all. You are either Psi capable or not. I am beginning to suspect that something is very wrong with May’s attitude about RV and is probably the reason it is seldom looked at anymore. Inability to identify origin, source, cause or reason has driven their efforts to focus on autonomic response testing which is easier to quantify statistically. But he seems to be willing to ride the RV wave a bit further even though he does not recognize the community as being viable. He also assumes the guys in the pickle suits (Army) involved him in (all off) the Ops evaluations (really lol).

Moving on a series of events unfolded that I found fairly reprehensible. The moderator brings in to the chat subject matter one each Dr. Courtney Brown. While doing so she highlights that his PhD is in Political Science. This is a degradation of Dr. Brown’s position within the Science community. What makes Dr. Brown less capable to research an area that is blatantly out of field for both May and Brown? LET ME SAY THIS ONE MORE TIME… SCIENCE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THAT REMOTE VIEWING, PSYCHIC FUNCTION, TELEPATHY, TELEKINISIS ETC… IS REAL. You guys understand that yet? How can May bring Brown to task on an issue of science when science doesn’t recognize the topic or subject matter. All should take note that I do not agree with many things from many researchers and trainers, this includes Dr. Courtney Brown. I will say that you would have to read his book. It would be logical to agree at points and to disagree at points. That is the way of research. May’s call for peer review is muted by the fact that there is little tolerance within science to endure that which there is no credible proof for. Brown’s book is just that… a BOOK! It was not a paper, it was not a formal study to be presented to science, and it was a publication to the public to let them know where his research was leading him. Where were the screams for peer review within science for any book published by anyone in this community? Jesus, Joseph, Mary and the Saints give the guy his book and get off the podium about the guy not being "In Science". His PhD carries as much weight as any PhD out there looking at RV. PERIOD.

This community must de-conflict itself or it will die. It will drive those that can, to recluse, and the ivory towers will begin to disappear one by one. It will be overrun by the hucksters and snake oillers and you will be a small voice indeed adrift in a den of calamitous causality. If you are a leader lose the attitude, let the hate go and know that you can excel without dragging your competition or peers to the dungeon.

I’m done with this topic.

Glenn

There is an aspect to the controversey of whether training can improve one’s RV ability that I think is not addressed sufficiently. I started to get into it in the chat but got sidetracked. I suggested that "practice/training" can lead to increased data, wrong or right.

Joe McMoneagle agrees with May’s view on training. Joe says his level of accuracy has remained the same throughout his RV career.

I think what they are saying is that training cannot improve whatever level of natural talent you have.

Let me try this analogy.

Say the various "sports" are the equivalent of the various RV methodologies. Say that "winning" in any of these sports is equivalent to RV accuracy.

Each sport has its own set of requirements for success.

Some require strength, some endurance, some great intelligence or strategy, with a common denominator being the physical capability to perform against the physical requirements…or mental vs mental and resulting in a "win".

Whatever sport or psi method you choose to play in, you will get the basics pretty quickly and settle in to a level of talent. You may be a great pool player (dowser) but not too good at road racing (XRV).

You can learn the nuances, the tricks of the trade, and learn to avoid common pitfalls to improve your results
but your talent level has a natural limit. Generally speaking, a .250 hitter in baseball will always be a 250 hitter. He may have a hot streat one year and a slump the next. He may have hit 300 in the minors but now his "taskings" are "operational".

And the often reported beginner effect fits right in.

Usually a first time experience is a guided, simplified event….. "all you gotta do is…."
You don’t take your first flying lessons in an F14.

If I understood Joe Mc Moneagle correctly at his Seminar at the Rhine, all a methodology does is to provide a comfort level, a tool to reach a goal.

If hrvg is uncomfortable, try CRV. If CRV is uncomfortable, try a free form method.

If RV seems a dead end, try dowsing or scrying…..

or tea leaves.

What he suggested was really a simple methodology. There were no "phases", just …..write…..sketch….no particulat order.

There are really two aspects to RV/psi…..data and usefull data. Guessing the value of a card in a deck

is data. Determining the winning lotto numbers is usefull data.

Gotta go…..thanks for the comments.

Rich

>And the often reported beginner effect fits right in.

Usually a first time experience is a guided, simplified event….. "all you gotta do is…."

Sorry Rich, non comprendo. You explanation for beginners luck (found in just about all sports and RV) is?

I was also there at Rhine and had some more discussion on that question privately. I gathered that Joe meant his ability to "connect" with a target did not improve statistically, but that over time and training, his ability to garner more detail when he "connected" did in fact change. Of course, that is my conclusion, which may be a bit off from what he meant specifically.

Rich

There is an aspect to the controversey of whether training can improve one’s RV ability that I think is not addressed sufficiently. I started to get into it in the chat but got sidetracked. I suggested that "practice/training" can lead to increased data, wrong or right.

Joe McMoneagle agrees with May’s view on training. Joe says his level of accuracy has remained the same throughout his RV career.

I think what they are saying is that training cannot improve whatever level of natural talent you have.

Let me try this analogy.

Say the various "sports" are the equivalent of the various RV methodologies. Say that "winning" in any of these sports is equivalent to RV accuracy.

Each sport has its own set of requirements for success. Some require strength, some endurance, some great intelligence or strategy, with a common denominator being the physical capability to perform against the physical requirements…or mental vs mental and resulting in a "win".

Whatever sport or psi method you choose to play in, you will get the basics pretty quickly and settle in to a level of talent. You may be a great pool player (dowser) but not too good at road racing (XRV). You can learn the nuances, the tricks of the trade, and learn to avoid common pitfalls to improve your results but your talent level has a natural limit. Generally speaking, a .250 hitter in baseball will always be a 250 hitter. He may have a hot streat one year and a slump the next. He may have hit 300 in the minors but now his "taskings" are "operational".

And the often reported beginner effect fits right in. Usually a first time experience is a guided, simplified event….. "all you gotta do is…." You don’t take your first flying lessons in an F14.

If I understood Joe Mc Moneagle correctly at his Seminar at the Rhine, all a methodology does is to provide a comfort level, a tool to reach a goal. If hrvg is uncomfortable, try CRV. If CRV is uncomfortable, try a free form method.

If RV seems a dead end, try dowsing or scrying….. or tea leaves.

What he suggested was really a simple methodology. There were no "phases", just …..write…..sketch….no particulat order.

There are really two aspects to RV/psi…..data and usefull data. Guessing the value of a card in a deck is data. Determining the winning lotto numbers is usefull data.

Gotta go…..thanks for the comments.

Rich

>

Whatever sport or psi method you choose to play in, you will get the basics pretty quickly and settle in to a level of talent.

Rich,

I don’t know what sport you ever played, or what RV method you ever spent hundreds or thousands of hours trying to master, but your analogy is piss poor.

I was a champion swimmer in high school and college. The first time I dove in the water and tried to swim up and down the pool I came in DEAD LAST, gasping for air, looking like an uncoordinated idiot. I spent hours, days, months, years swimming my tired ass up and down the pool learning to swim, with coaches giving me instruction on how to kick, how to turn, how to stroke. I became a state champion and later a top Western Athletic Conference finalist. It was hard work and training that allowed me to do this.

You allude to baseball. I’m a baseball fan. Young players with enormous talent have little chance in the big leagues. They usually spend years learning the basics, being coached on the nuances of the game, and then finally earn their way to the majors.

Football. Any sports fan knows of the legendary Heisman Trophy Winners who looked like naturals in college, but never made it in the pros.

I was lucky to be part of a group of remote viewers – some with natural talent- who got to train with Glenn Wheaton. When he first had us write down a target ID and attempt to remote view, anyone who got any shape, minor description, ANYTHING VAGUELY RESEMBLING THE TARGET was thrilled and amazed. Later as we progressed our early work seemed sophomoric.

To say that training doesn’t develop remote viewers is ridiculous. Everything that has been achieved and demonstrated by HRVG over the past nine years disproves that. We have seen the development and success of viewers due mostly to the training method, and more importantly their own hard work.

Aloha,

Dick

>

Rich,

I don’t know what sport you ever played, or what RV method you ever spent hundreds or thousands of hours trying to master, but your analogy is piss poor.

LOL, that bad, eh? Guess I need analogy training.

I was a champion swimmer in high school and college. The first time I dove in the water and tried to swim up and down the pool I came in DEAD LAST, gasping for air, looking like an uncoordinated idiot. I spent hours, days, months, years swimming my tired ass up and down the pool learning to swim, with coaches giving me instruction on how to kick, how to turn, how to stroke. I became a state champion and later a top Western Athletic Conference finalist. It was hard work and training that allowed me to do this.

Yes. you got the basics, didnt drown and came in last.

Then, with coaching, your natural talent was developed
and you became the best (RVer=swimmer) in your conference. What about those that tried but didnt qualify? Are you saying that if they put in the time and determination that you did they would all be equally as good?

You allude to baseball. I’m a baseball fan. Young players with enormous talent have little chance in the big leagues. They usually spend years learning the basics, being coached on the nuances of the game, and then finally earn their way to the majors.

Same as above. It’s all relative. You can’t be coached/trained into a big league player/RV wonder if you don’t have the equipment/psi connection.

Football. Any sports fan knows of the legendary Heisman Trophy Winners who looked like naturals in college, but never made it in the pros.

Yeah, lots of target contact but no usable info…..

great on colors and textures…..good hitter but cant field.

By the way, I’m sure it was discussed somewhere along the line over the years but I don’t recall any specifics. What is hrvg’s experience with an individuals specific talents or specialties regarding

different aspects of RV data? Colors vs shapes vs people vs inanimate vs etc????

I was lucky to be part of a group of remote viewers – some with natural talent- who got to train with Glenn Wheaton. When he first had us write down a target ID and attempt to remote view, anyone who got any shape, minor description, ANYTHING VAGUELY RESEMBLING THE TARGET was thrilled and amazed. Later as we progressed our early work seemed sophomoric.

Absolutely, I think we learn how to increase the production of data, good or bad but not necessarily

rate of accuracy. I recall a frequent graphical presentation that starts out with a high spike, the first time effect, then degrades for a while, levels
off, then makes a discrete jump and levels off again.
I don’t think it improves forever.

To say that training doesn’t develop remote viewers is ridiculous. Everything that has been achieved and demonstrated by HRVG over the past nine years disproves that. We have seen the development and success of viewers due mostly to the training method, and more importantly their own hard work.

I think there is some semantics involved in this debate and would like to pursue it with McMonagle and May.

Are you of the opinion that certain methodologies are better than others? Significantly better?

Rich

I agree with your interpretation.

Hi Rich,

FIrst of all, I should apologize for using the term "piss poor" it was a piss poor choice of words on my part. I had a hard week at work and I was quite irritable. Sorry.

Here’s the point I wanted to make. Dr. Ed May stated that training doesn’t improve remote viewers. This is just absolutely wrong. His statement has been disproved by the 8 1/2 year history of the HRVG. Our work demonstrates that the training method used here works.

Of course some people have more natural talent than others. Of course there are some who are just not aware enough or intelligent enough to get any kind of decent RV data. Life is full of bell curves.

Joe McMoneagle is an anomaly. He is such a natural talent, he never needed "training." I will never be anywhere near as good as Joe McMoneagle. I suppose I have some tiny bit of natural talent. But I can look back at my early work- work that blew my socks off at the time- and see it now as not really that good. I probably worked harder than anyone in HRVG and maybe as hard as anyone in the civilian RV community. I listened to Glenn, I accepted his knowledge, I did all the homework, I worked targets on my own, and I have had some success. I could never had produced all the "hits" I have published if I had just sat down and WAGed (Wild Assed Guess) it.

I’m a certified instructor and I have taught many students here in Hawaii and around the world. I have seen the training take hold- those who listen and practice and follow the methodology excell.

Remote viewing is a natural communication skill. The technique developed by Glenn and the Special Forces Intel team trains you to develop the neural pathways to achieve what many see as something miraculous. I’m sorry Dr. May is so ignorant of what is possible in this field.

Aloha,

Dick

Usually a first time experience is a guided, simplified event….. "all you gotta do is…."

Sorry Rich, non comprendo. You explanation for beginners luck (found in just about all sports and RV) is?

One theory is that the subconscious is caught unawares.

Once it realizes what the process is about, it tries to take over. I’m not too hot on this one, but I don’t know anything beyond layman ideas about the theory of the subconscious.

I think beginner’s luck has more to do with a lack of

knowledge of pitfalls and evaluations and judgements
and an undeveloped fear of failure and maybe a "soft" approach by the tasker…..lobbing underhanded…
no curve balls. A dozen adjectives, a couple phrases, a couple doodles may produce a few matches. Next time,
you want to be more accurate….try too hard to produce a logical setting…..now its time to learn the pitfalls and maybe but not necessarily improve your ability.

From what I recall reading, the old standard card or dice type guessing tests produced decreasing accuracy as the tests were repeated and this was blamed on boredom. The parameters are very simple. Perhaps the complexity of RV has an opposite effect. It takes longer to sort things out and not necessarily get better at getting accurate data but get better at reporting it.

You probably keep better records than most, certainly me.

A while back you had sent me quite a few of your sessions. Looking back, can you come up with a number for accuracy and a definition of it?
Is a very short session with little but accurate data equally a "hit" as a longer session with say 33% matching data, the rest either not feedbackable or definately off base?
What is the definition of improvement? I think that is esential to the evaluation of the effects of training.
I will try to get May’s definition also.

I’m really trying not to be biased on this. I think that in an informal sense it’s is easy to "see" that training and practice can or seems to improve the quality/accuracy/usefellness of RV. It may be in a purely scientic definition that this somehow factors out. I guess this needs to be pursued with the scientists.

Rich

Rich

Aloha Rich,

I will give you my thoughts on this aspect of performance but please keep in mind that no one really knows. And you are just as likely to be correct as anyone else. To my knowledge there is nothing published that is authoritative in regards to the topic of ability and methodology. My thoughts on ability deal primarily with the identified term "Ability to Remote View". So I am not talking bout how psychic someone is or is not, but whether they can remote view. I will say that the stock human is not a fixed posture of ability, latent or otherwise. The human is an array of potentials upon a base core of body and mind. From birth to death it is a growth of these potentials that place us along the measuring line of consciousness. Ability to remote view can be measured by the mental exercise flexed within a methodology. The quality of that methodology is critical to expansion/growth of ones potential to remote view. Repetitive mental training such as in remote viewing sets into motion the creation of thought pattern specific neural pathway to support this exercise of mind. New pathway within the brain is actually formed that was not there before.

Potential to remote view is serviced by many factors, some factors of mentality, some of intellect. In addition bio-chemical health of the brain and body becomes more important as the remote viewer exercises the link between viewer and target. Discipline becomes a key ingredient to the mix. There are many factors that can affect performance that aren’t linked to ability but can affect potential. Mentality is prime to be the culprit of failure when results are less than sterling. I am always quick to point out not to accept the limitations of others as it is a bit of a contagion that will lower your potential. In the fit human the potential to remote view should be unrestricted. If the mentality and intellect of the remote viewer is developed then more of the potential can be realized.

I am trying to think of any practice or task that is not improved by education and training. None come to mind.

Glenn

The diff between training and practice is that training teaches structure. Practice will only compound an error or something that is misunderstood making it very difficult to un-learn.

I’m not talking about RV necessarily here but it seems to me that Dr May appears to have stated that practice is not likely to improve ability for the specific area that is being addressed. e.g cheap shots, 6 foot puts or keeping the head down during the swing. Dr May was not against training as far as I am aware. Steve.

One theory is that the subconscious is caught unawares. Once it realizes what the process is about, it tries to take over. I’m not too hot on this one, but I don’t know anything beyond layman ideas about the theory of the subconscious.

I think beginner’s luck has more to do with a lack of knowledge of pitfalls and evaluations and judgements and an undeveloped fear of failure and maybe a "soft" approach by the tasker…..lobbing underhanded… no curve balls. A dozen adjectives, a couple phrases, a couple doodles may produce a few matches. Next time, you want to be more accurate….try too hard to produce a logical setting…..now its time to learn the pitfalls and maybe but not necessarily improve your ability.

From what I recall reading, the old standard card or dice type guessing tests produced decreasing accuracy as the tests were repeated and this was blamed on boredom. The parameters are very simple. Perhaps the complexity of RV has an opposite effect. It takes longer to sort things out and not necessarily get better at getting accurate data but get better at reporting it.

>

Aloha,

I am also disappointed to see that Prof. Lotfi A. Zadeh’s Fuzzy Set Logic/Theory/Analysis UC Berkeley 1965 accomplishments were being wrongly attributed to Dr. May. This is no small matter in itself.

Glenn

I read an interview with a Tibetan monk once where someone asked him how much one has to meditate in order to get anywhere with it.

His answer was very simple, one hour a day will do you some good, but it is not enough to get better.

Two hours a day is enough to keep you from getting stuck in the same state all the time, but not enough for you to get better at it.

At a minimum, 3 hours a day is absolutely necessary in order to improve your skill.

Who out there in the civilian community is remote viewing more than 3 hours per day?

Aloha,

Jim K.

Who out there in the civilian community is remote viewing more than 3 hours per day?

Aloha, Jim K.

Jim,

You are absolutely right. I remember when we were producing the good stuff- Erminmink, Kapitan Man, predictions, etc. we were often working three hours a day. We were doing validation targets every day, and when we did projects- I recall one night I did an hour session on an op target, then you reviewed the work and said I had to go to S-5 monitored and we did another 2 1/ 2 hour session that same night.

The right methodology helps too, but civilians need to invest a lot to get anywhere. It is why the RV field is withering.

Aloha,

Dick

Two hours a day is enough to keep you from getting stuck in the same state all the time, but not enough for you to get better at it.

Hey Jim,

I’ve been thinking about this. Can anyone name any human endeavor -anything in the world humans ever do- that do they do perfectly the first time? Is there anything we do that doesn’t get better with practice and training?

Does a nursing mother not have to coax her baby to take the teat? Is there a person who stood up and walked without a parent guiding them? Did anyone ever sit down and play a musical instrument flawlessly at the first attempt? You don’t think Beethoven studied music before he composed? Do you believe Michelangelo hacked out David with no training, and then picked up some brushes and painted the Sistine Chapel -with no formal art training-on his first try?

Somebody post something, ANYTHING ever done by humans that is not enhanced by training and practice.

Aloha,

Dick

Good question Dick and the first thing that came to mind was that a "savant" doesn’t have to practice and gets it right the first time, everytime. But of course, they do pay the price of having to go through life mostly handicaped with this ability and in turn have huge disabilities in other areas.

Which makes me think… I wonder if there are any savants out there with the particular ability to RV?

J.P.

>

Hey Jim,

I’ve been thinking about this. Can anyone name any human endeavor -anything in the world humans ever do- that do they do perfectly the first time? Is there anything we do that doesn’t get better with practice and training?

Does a nursing mother not have to coax her baby to take the teat? Is there a person who stood up and walked without a parent guiding them? Did anyone ever sit down and play a musical instrument flawlessly at the first attempt? You don’t think Beethoven studied music before he composed? Do you believe Michelangelo hacked out David with no training, and then picked up some brushes and painted the Sistine Chapel -with no formal art training-on his first try?

Somebody post something, ANYTHING ever done by humans that is not enhanced by training and practice.

Aloha,

Dick

Good question Dick and the first thing that came to mind was that a "savant" doesn’t have to practice and gets it right the first time, everytime.

Hi JP,

Good point. I thought for quite a while about what any human ever did "perfect" without being taught and working at it, and I didn’t come up with "savant." You are right….but not many of us are that.

It would be interesting to see how a savant would perform. I bet it has been tried. The folks Glenn worked for apparently tried everything.

Aloha,

Dick

Several of my first attempts at RV like things were so good that I’ve not surpassed them inspite of working at some for 1000’s of hours. How about Dick’s first RV where he saw that guy walking through the store and described his coat etc. Have you surpassed that first RV attempt yet Dick?

>

Hey Jim,

I’ve been thinking about this. Can anyone name any human endeavor -anything in the world humans ever do- that do they do perfectly the first time? Is there anything we do that doesn’t get better with practice and training?

Does a nursing mother not have to coax her baby to take the teat? Is there a person who stood up and walked without a parent guiding them? Did anyone ever sit down and play a musical instrument flawlessly at the first attempt? You don’t think Beethoven studied music before he composed? Do you believe Michelangelo hacked out David with no training, and then picked up some brushes and painted the Sistine Chapel -with no formal art training-on his first try?

Somebody post something, ANYTHING ever done by humans that is not enhanced by training and practice.

Aloha,

Dick

Several of my first attempts at RV like things were so good that I’ve not surpassed them inspite of working at some for 1000’s of hours. How about Dick’s first RV where he saw that guy walking through the store and described his coat etc. Have you surpassed that first RV attempt yet Dick?

My first attempts at RV were pretty poor. I have my complete booklet of all my first week’s work at Farsight Institute. It demonstrates some target contact but nothing that would get published here (or there).

The bilocation experience where I saw the guy walking through the department store was not even close to my first RV attempt. I had been studying with Glenn for over a year and this was the result of perfectly executing an advanced stage of our methodology known as "Edging" – the gateway to S-5.

It took hundreds of hours of instruction and thousands of hours of practice to have that experience. I NEVER would have figured that out on my own.

Aloha,

Dick

Aloha Dick ET All,

A lot has been said about the First Time Effect but I am a bit doubtful that it actually exists. Perhaps because you are intentionally striving to remote view you notice or take notice of that which you are looking for. Initially when viewer’s attempt to view it is prior to any considerable amount of training and what is gleaned is limited by the knowledge at the level the collection is being attempted. It is my opinion that the ability to remote view is best demonstrated once training is complete or enough training has been conducted so that the viewer knows what they are doing beyond mimicry and shuffling templates. Any such beginner’s effect would have to be considered anecdotal until someone took the time to research it out. I am sure a case could be made that because you have less knowledge to deal with initially you do not have to wrestle with the bulk of the tools we learn to employ. Simple efforts with simple tools have constructed wondrous things. It takes a lot of intellect to wield all the tools we play with and of course all the psychology that comes with knowledge.

Glenn

From my experience, the “First Time Effect” is very real. We have a term in our language called “Beginner’s Luck”, that in itself is fairly good evidence of the existence of something very similar. “Off the top of my head” I can think of a lot of extreme odds events that all seem to validate this effect.

Because here at HRVG the term RV means more than what it meant when I was first exposed to it, I’m going to coin a new term just for this little post; PV or Psychic Viewing (close your eyes and take what comes). Also most of the odds that I mention here are calculated, not guessed at.

1. In our first attempt at associative PV for Keno numbers a friend of mine got 13 out of 14 his first day. See: http://home.earthlink.net/~psifeedback/kenoarv.htm That’s over 19 million to 1. We attempted to do this again for many months produced almost no significant results.
2. On my first attempt to PV colors with a little device (eight colored beads on a chain), I missed two then got five in a row. The odds of getting 5 out of seven is over 1900 to 1.
3. The first time I attempted to do series* PV (as opposed to parallel PV or RV) we got four out of five lottery numbers spanning two drawings. This is maybe 1000 to one.
4. My first file’s worth of data with the Magic Mind Analyzer program (http://home.earthlink.net/~psifeedback) produced a score that was high at over 7,000 to 1. I did not exceed this during at least 5000 more attempts.
5. The first time I had an extreme emotional reaction while using the program, I produced a result that was high at over 600,000 to 1. This reaction lasted for about 15 seconds. I tried many times to reproduce this with essentially no results.
6. The first time I was strongly distracted, (for about 3 minutes) I produced a result that was high at over 400,000 to with the MMA program.
7. The first time I used the program with a Monroe “Hemi-sync” tape I produced a result that was high at about 80,000 to 1
8. The first time I attempted to “Be the high graph” in my mind I got a result that was low at about 5,000,000 to 1. (Why was it low? I don’t know.)
9. The first two times a friend of mine used the Magic Mind Analyzer after a month long vacation out of the country, she produced two extremely low results. Together these results should be considered to be about 1,000,000 to1
10. The first time I used the program while slightly drunk, I produced a result of about 5,000 to 1.
11. The first time I tried smoking a pipe and being slightly drunk (Someone said that this was a good PSI combo) I produced a 3-hour session that the odds are so long that I don’t know how to calculate them properly. My crude guesstimate is about 1 billion to one. I did not produce any more strong results while attempting this again about 10 times.
12. From reading the HRVG BBS, I got the impression that unusually good results came when the lights were turned down during an RV class. The BBS posts seemed to indicate that people were attributing it to the low lights rather than as I did to the “First Time Effect.”

If I thought longer I’m sure I could come up with more examples. I think you can see why “The First Time Effect” or beginners luck is a very real thing to me.

* Series RV or PV is where one person takes up where another person leaves off, combining the results of both so that if one person is on target the final results will be on target. Like series or parallel connections in electricity. The analysis that I’ve seen HRVG do is parallel, e.g. looking for similar data across multiple viewers.

Aloha Dick ET All,

A lot has been said about the First Time Effect but I am a bit doubtful that it actually exists. Perhaps because you are intentionally striving to remote view you notice or take notice of that which you are looking for. Initially when viewer’s attempt to view it is prior to any considerable amount of training and what is gleaned is limited by the knowledge at the level the collection is being attempted. It is my opinion that the ability to remote view is best demonstrated once training is complete or enough training has been conducted so that the viewer knows what they are doing beyond mimicry and shuffling templates. Any such beginner’s effect would have to be considered anecdotal until someone took the time to research it out. I am sure a case could be made that because you have less knowledge to deal with initially you do not have to wrestle with the bulk of the tools we learn to employ. Simple efforts with simple tools have constructed wondrous things. It takes a lot of intellect to wield all the tools we play with and of course all the psychology that comes with knowledge.

Glenn

Aloha George,

Evidence of a first time effect can be anecdotal but shouldn’t be considered without consideration of all other possible variables. Some variables may be totally psychological while others may just be a probability of chance. Surely a 13 out of 14 Keno pull, which has yet to reoccur, is commensurate with probable odds and has little or no determined psychic value. While we don’t subscribe to the belief of the psychic being the main driving component in remote viewing it does play its part. We see this with Tagging and other anomalous insights our member’s experience. One could not suppose to separate the natural level of Psi possessed by someone from just about any endeavor they pursue.

Beginner’s luck or the so-called 1st time effect is not a proven event(s) but a suspicion by others who observe the performance of newly introduced players into the mix of some gamble, game, or any number of events. In some the initial performance may give an idea of the potential of a person or again it may not. What we do know is that you can introduce someone to something and observe. That is all we know for sure. To presume more would be less than could be proven. Since science would not accept your data as evidence for more than your own belief, it could be said that perhaps "Belief" is a foundation variable in performance. What if initial performance was the culmination of various physiological and psychological assessments in an active phase and nothing more?

Glenn

Hmm, I’m not understanding your response. Do we have different definitions of "First Time Effect"? Does not the first time effect refer to very strong PSI or RV on the first attempt then extreme difficulty in reproducing the same kind of results? Surely my info shows that in a very strong way. I’m not saying that I understand the effect and why it happens, but it clearly does happen.

If you are saying that my info does not mean anything because it does not have scientific controls? I can easily put it out in affidavit form where it can serve as legal evidence.

Aloha George,

Evidence of a first time effect can be anecdotal but shouldn’t be considered without consideration of all other possible variables. Some variables may be totally psychological while others may just be a probability of chance. Surely a 13 out of 14 Keno pull, which has yet to reoccur, is commensurate with probable odds and has little or no determined psychic value. While we don’t subscribe to the belief of the psychic being the main driving component in remote viewing it does play its part. We see this with Tagging and other anomalous insights our member’s experience. One could not suppose to separate the natural level of Psi possessed by someone from just about any endeavor they pursue.

Beginner’s luck or the so-called 1st time effect is not a proven event(s) but a suspicion by others who observe the performance of newly introduced players into the mix of some gamble, game, or any number of events. In some the initial performance may give an idea of the potential of a person or again it may not. What we do know is that you can introduce someone to something and observe. That is all we know for sure. To presume more would be less than could be proven. Since science would not accept your data as evidence for more than your own belief, it could be said that perhaps "Belief" is a foundation variable in performance. What if initial performance was the culmination of various physiological and psychological assessments in an active phase and nothing more?

Glenn

Aloha George,

You and I may well be on the same side of "Belief", but we would be on the opposite side of the fence to what "Science" would believe. My points have all been that something that we observe and have labeled as a first time effect may in-fact be something else. Until evidence is collected specifically to identify that the first time effect is real we only have a belief. Now there is nothing wrong with belief in the meantime so don’t think I’m bagging on you. In my experience those that demonstrate a first time effect are few enough in the many students that I have taught that it is easier for me to believe that these few may well be more psychically enabled than others. It by no means that the others won’t or can’t catch up to them. It just means they were first out of the gate.

Glenn

Ah, now I get what you are saying. Yes, the "First Time Effect" is very likely to be just part of the picture. I quite agree.

It might well be something like an attitude that happens a lot the first time one does something new. It seems that an innocence is part of the effect. I’ve noticed that the effect will go until it’s noticed and reacted to.

There is a child like innocence that stops along with the "First Time Effect." Many times I noticed the effect and said to myself "Oh! I doing something." and it stops right then.

There was even a time when the effect "played peek a boo" with me. It stopped when I noticed and came back when I "gave up" and disapeared when I noticed again twice. See: http://home.earthlink.net/~psifeedback/rollercoaster.htm

Aloha George,

You and I may well be on the same side of "Belief", but we would be on the opposite side of the fence to what "Science" would believe. My points have all been that something that we observe and have labeled as a first time effect may in-fact be something else. Until evidence is collected specifically to identify that the first time effect is real we only have a belief. Now there is nothing wrong with belief in the meantime so don’t think I’m bagging on you. In my experience those that demonstrate a first time effect are few enough in the many students that I have taught that it is easier for me to believe that these few may well be more psychically enabled than others. It by no means that the others won’t or can’t catch up to them. It just means they were first out of the gate.

Glenn

>

And I want to be careful here because I run the risk of offending many in the RV community.

But… perhaps some who sit down and psychically WAG (Wild Ass Guess) the target may do as well out of the box as they do after training because the methodology they are taught is little more than a WAG.

Aloha,

Dick

Aloha Dick,

I am sure Ed May would agree with you lol. One of the interesting things about the community is that is has endured a great deal of criticism of individuals but seldom is methodology even discussed. The merits of one methodology compared to another seem to be a taboo subject. The push from the outside has always been to get the abandonment of methodology accepted so the psychic crowd could gain acceptance as remote viewers and ride the coattails of remote viewing in through the doors of science. The constant ingress of the UFO fanatics and all the conspiracy nuts into our field don’t make it any easier to launch a productive discussion about remote viewing methods or applications.

Glenn