How to read the session data!!!

Glenn,

Sorry for butting in but wouldn’t it be easy to just have a conclusion page added to the sessions. Especially the sessions that are posted. It seems a short explaination of what the viewer felt and "saw" or perceived would make everything so much easier for everyone.

J.P.

Hi JP: Glad to see you join our BB. How’s your RV going? Still "exercising" your pineal gland? I lost your email address so if you would email me again I will share an interesting experience.. and technique.

Also, I agree that a conclusion page would be a good addition to the posted sessions… Although, we are now into S6 Diarization, so a lot of what you are looking for will be found in that part of the session.

Aloha, Valtra

>

Glenn, Sorry for butting in but wouldn’t it be easy to just have a conclusion page added to the sessions. Especially the sessions that are posted. It seems a short explaination of what the viewer felt and "saw" or perceived would make everything so much easier for everyone.

J.P.

Valtra,

I’m still working on my pineal glad and third-eye, opps I mean frontal lobes. I’ll get those darn glands up and running yet. Seems like it’s taking longer than I expected. I have so many techniques I use to stimulate and "awaken" my dormant glands that they really keep me busy.

I’d like to hear your experiences and discoveries. I do have one technique where you ask the "masters" to help you insert an etheric glowing rod into your pineal gland to help wake it up. This is supposed to be a very safe and natural way to awaken yourself. Unfortunately you have to get yourself into a very deep state of meditation and it’s not easy to maintain this state. I’ve done this exercise at least 50 times in the past and I’ve only had slight stimulation so far. It would be cool to just do it a few time and hit "pay dirt" but that’s the way it goes for now anyway.

Also, my remote viewing is coming along slow. I try not to have to many expectations and just remote view. It’s so easy to get discouraged, so I’m still working on getting my sub to very nicely send me all the info I need about the target.

J.P.

TDS remote viewer

I would like to see the session on the Mexican UFO video analysed and reviewed. The last issue of CNI had an article about a UFO researcher that has concluded the video is a hoax along with his explanation. At least two other people in the past have concluded the video is fake.

I believe that Ed Dames claims that the object on the video is a "dimensional projection" or something….so here we go again…

What does the RV session show? Is there a conclusion? Can it be reconciled with both a hoax or a real event thereby indicating that further RVing is required?

In the case of a hoax, what information could be gotten from RVing the event?

Rich

Aloha Rich,

That is a pretty good request for me to work on this weekend! I will get on it. :)
Aloha Glenn

Hi Rich…

There’s a story about the Mexican UFO session. This was given as a class target. Now as a general rule we don’t do much UFO stuff. We’re trying to get a grip on remote viewing verifiable down to earth normal stuff.

But one evening, just to keep us on our toes, Glenn slipped us the Mexican UFO pic as a target. The viewer with the best data (Yaana) drew a very nice sketch of the object and buildings. She kept looking and kept seeing this UFO. Thinking she was off… she aborted the session! Got up and left the class thinking "well, I’ve got UFO’s on the mind and the target couldn’t possibly be a flying saucer." So she bailed on the session early.

Too bad. She was "on" that night and could have gotten good data had she continued. So our data is a bit sparse.

Interesting, but I wonder if she could have been getting the video itself rather than an actual object
especially if the film is a hoax. Also, I suppose she could have been getting data on the model used if that was the case.

I pretty much give zero credibility to RV of UFO/ET for

the very reason that it cannot be (or at least has not yet been) verified. After all, no one has found any ETs
under Mt Baldy or any other mountain yet….let alone
underground bases.

My pet theory is that what is actually RVed is someone’s models, stories, drawings movies or perceptions. Certain remote viewers have put the whole concept of RVing ETs/UFOs in the realm of fantasy

and huxterism. Unfortunate. That makes it even harder to come up with valid info or even determining if it
indeed is valid.

From all of the discussions on PJ’s e-mail group and the info provided by experienced RVers, there are so many ways/reasons to get other than valid target info that if a target is indeed not real, then virtually anything can be received as data…..from virtually any source.

As an example, my pet theory on Courtney Brown’s RV session predicting that the President will announce the

existence of ETs and that there is a significant woman at the event…..is nothing more than the RVing of the movie Contact because the event he predicts will not take place. It will not take place because there is nothing to announce.

Rich

Aloha Rich,

I too am a great UFO skeptic, but when there is some hard evidence as in the mexico footage, or the STS-48 or 80 videos, that is another issue to address. What the viewer see’s is in fact limited by their ability.

In the case of STS-48, look at the video itself, basically this is a NASA camera, NASA film, on NASA platform in space. There is enough evidence to say something was there, something was flying, something got a near miss from an earth generated projectile and then left in a very big hurry.

I didn’t say ALIENS, or the like. I merely accept that something Unidentified was in fact captured on film that was, or seemed to be under controlled flight.

That is enough to make the incident a hard target. The data collected needs in-depth analysis to determine more information. At our level of viewing here in the Guild we can approach viewing this type of target on an amateur level. Give us some time to improve and hone our skills. By no means is this target a piece of cake, but it is accessible.

The Mexico footage is very interesting, I would like to see any proof as to it being a hoax. The footage itself is impressive and seems untampered. I would ask, surely this was in the Mexico Press?? Anyone have any info on this?

ALoha … Glenn

According to Mexican journalist Jaime Maussan there were a number of witnesses on the ground who saw the object.

You have to think about that. If you are saying the video tape was a hoax (I work at a TV station with some pretty slick equipment and I don’t know anyone here who could insert a fake object into video like that) then the witnesses on the ground have to be lying.

The CNI article dealt with 400 hours of analysis by Jeff Saino a long time MUFON member and a professional video analyst.

CNI does not allow copying without permission but a summary should be OK.

The gist of the arguements are that there is smearing of the background images but not of the UFO itself. In a hand held video everything should have been smeared.

Another section of the video shows the scene rotating at a small angle …. everything but the UFO. He suspects that with some painstaking effort the film could be duplicated with image software available on the internet (Paintshop Pro possibly) and using a "paste on lighter " command.

His detailed analysis will be published in a fuure edition of the MUFON jounal.

The question of apparent witnesses remains open.

www.cninews.com/CNI_New.html

I have downloaded the STS videos and do find them interesting. They sure would make a good project especially since the press apparently has no interest in pursuing it and NASA is ignoring it in public.

Regarding the Mexican video, I have posted some info below but forgot to mention that a few weeks after the

video was made available I saw articles on the internet from two other people who came to similar conclusions
about the video being a fake. If I can find them I will
post them here.

Personally, I always suspect material presented by anonymous sources. It usually gets proven as bunk.

If indeed it is a fake then it is very unfortunate that such stuff uses up so much time that could be better spent on real happenings.

Hi Rich… There’s a story about the Mexican UFO session. This was given as a class target. Now as a general rule we don’t do much UFO stuff. We’re trying to get a grip on remote viewing verifiable down to earth normal stuff.

But one evening, just to keep us on our toes, Glenn slipped us the Mexican UFO pic as a target. The viewer with the best data (Yaana) drew a very nice sketch of the object and buildings. She kept looking and kept seeing this UFO……

The data on this target was not all published, but interesting. Unlike the Phoenix Lights target, in this session (Jimmy I think) drew a man in uniform at

an complicated control panel, I would have to look at all the work again, but I believe that was cooperated by others in the class. In the Phoenix Lights target, which was admittedly done in an earlier stage of our training, the life forms had decidedly large heads in relationship to the size of their bodies and no military references.

The scope on the Mexico City sked was larger than just in the city, much of my data related to military mobilization in an open area near the city in response

to the craft.

Both of these targets warrant further investigation given the data produced. The introductory sessions produced enough data to validate a real event, but

not to define it’s origin, scope or purpose. these would be good candidates for projects.

Aloha Yaana

Hi Rich…

You’ve read more about the Mexico footage than I have. I’ve only seen the video clip on the internet and read a couple of things about it.

I know its pretty easy to paste an image into a still photo. How does one go about pasting a moving image into a home video format?

(Not arguing… just trying to learn something.)

Aloha

Dick

Hi Rich… You’ve read more about the Mexico footage than I have. I’ve only seen the video clip on the internet and read a couple of things about it.

I know its pretty easy to paste an image into a still photo. How does one go about pasting a moving image into a home video format?

(Not arguing… just trying to learn something.)

Aloha Dick

LOL

details…details….

I dont know the science of special effects either. I am just passing along the explanation given. As noted, the details are to be published in a MUFON newsletter which alas I do not subscribe to.

Rich