LAW ONE- Some Proof

That was the sound of my jaw hitting the desktop.

Good work Jim!

I take it from the alpha-numeric target ID that this was an operational or validation target for colt work?

A b s o l u t e l y A m a z i n g , Jim K!

You can imagine the thud of my jaw dropping when I saw the feedback photo :)

I actually spent a lot of time working this target, about 1 1/2 hour to work the target through cascade and then I spent about an hour pushing blackboard until I fell asleep. Then when I woke up I sat down and observed blackboard and tried to recall what I had seen and started to sketch frantically.

I produced a lot more data on this target which describes the interior of the complex, and I am currently looking around for photos or descriptions of the interior of the plant.

This was a moment of clarity of the kind that I have been striving for, but now the pressure is on to maintain a similar degree of quality in my future work, which may be hard to live up to.

I never thought I would be able to remote view when I started little over a year ago and it has been a long and hard road with many slumps and disappointments along the way, but if I can do it, I believe that anyone can do it if they receive the proper training and apply themselves.

I hope I will do as good on the sceptic’s test, perhaps then we can prove to the world that there really is something to remote viewing and that it can be used to gather solid information about targets.

Aloha,

Jim

The student work produced by VIEWERs at HRVG continues to improve.

Here is a good example of some great target contact and good visual clarity on target. The work was submitted by Jim K.

I personally cued this target. I told no one about it. The target photo was sealed in an envelope, the only thing given out was the target ID (D9P6-N5W4). Compare Jim’s S-6 sketch to the target photo. Reminds me of work done by Joe McMoneagle and Ingo Swann.

Jim was a SKEPTIC when he began training at HRVG! He didn’t believe this remote viewing stuff could actually work as advertised. But he is a really smart guy (fluent in Swedish, English, Japanese and learning Sanskrit) and he applies himself to the protocols with diligence and precision. It is interesting to watch Jim work (I monitor him from time to time). He is methodical and exacting. That’s how you have to do it.

There has been a lot of misinformation and disinformation flung around the internet about remote viewing and about Glenn Wheaton. The truth is in our work.

Look at that sketch by Jim, and then look at the target photo. Do you think he produced that by sitting in a desk in Beta state getting "ideas" and "perceptions" about the target? As yourself why someone would tell you remote viewing is not seeing. Either they don’t know how to do it, or they don’t want you to know how to do it. (I believe the former.)

Remote viewing is what you hoped it could be when you first heard about Ingo Swann and Joe McMoneagle and David Moorehouse. It IS being able to see the target as a full color reality.

I just can’t thank Glenn enough for his time and patience and support. Its a hard thing to learn! For civilians doing this as a part time hobby it takes a couple of years just to get thru the basic protocols to S-7.

But as you can see, it is paying off.

t.

There has been a lot of misinformation and disinformation flung around the internet about remote viewing and about Glenn Wheaton. The truth is in our work.

Do you think he produced that by sitting in a desk in Beta state getting "ideas" and "perceptions" about the target? As yourself why someone would tell you remote viewing is not seeing. Either they don’t know how to do it, or they don’t want you to know how to do it. (I believe the former.)

Remote viewing is what you hoped it could be when you first heard about Ingo Swann and Joe McMoneagle and David Moorehouse. It IS being able to see the target as a full color reality.

That is why I had all the questions about how it was (is)applied in the military and how much training was required, etc, etc.

You are making it sound like there is indeed a subterfuge going on and that perhaps the other methods of perception only are a part of it. If that is the case then there is a lot of work to be done in areas other than learning the subject matter.

As for David Moorehouse, it is my impression from varied sources that his claims are pretty much BS….

kinda a Dames wannabe.

Jim K

Bravo!…Your work is the quality I strive for!! Awesome job. Bahoot accha kam he!
Namaste
Rose

Pictures are worth a thousand words, as they say….What a sked, Jim…speaks of the quality of your being :)! You have my prmission to marry my daughter anytime! :) LOL! Proud to be your Colt mate! Mana

Aloha Rich,

Interesting comments. As to Maj. Moorehouse, it was my understanding that Then Capt Dames and Maj Moorehouse worked on the draft of the book together. It was also Major Moorehouse that submitted the Award reccomendations for Capt Dames. At some point they broke ranks and Maj Moorehouse went on to publish the book.

It’s an interesting bit of history.
Aloha Glenn

If you believe Ed Dames, then David Moorehouse must be a fake and a fraud. There is no other possibility. Both Dames and Moorehouse can’t be right.

Then it follows that if you believe Ed Dames all the other remote viewers are also liars, fakes and frauds.

If what Dames says is so, then Joe McMoneagle is not telling the truth, Lynn Buchanan must be a phony, and Glenn Wheaton picked up much of his knowledge from Psi Tech chat. (Actually Psi Tech’s Vice President made that last charge, not Ed.)

Someone is a phony. Its either Ed Dames, or all the other remote viewers.

I read Moorehouse’s book not too long ago. I have no idea whether he is a first rate remote viewer or not, but his book reads as if it were written by a professional ghost writer. Lots of cliches, a heavy dose of sentimentalism and not a little new age-ish fantasy. Perhaps it’s true that one can talk to one’s deceased friends during a session (of a past event, mind you) but I came away fairly certain the book was written for the bottom line.

Dan

If you believe Ed Dames, then David Moorehouse must be a fake and a fraud. There is no other possibility. Both Dames and Moorehouse can’t be right.

Then it follows that if you believe Ed Dames all the other remote viewers are also liars, fakes and frauds. If what Dames says is so, then Joe McMoneagle is not telling the truth, Lynn Buchanan must be a phony, and Glenn Wheaton picked up much of his knowledge from Psi Tech chat. (Actually Psi Tech’s Vice President made that last charge, not Ed.)

Someone is a phony. Its either Ed Dames, or all the other remote viewers.

>

I got some good advice from a friend last night.
I had been showing him some of our work on the sessions pages. Then I clicked over to this thread and started to explain some of the infighting and bickering.

He shook his head and said, "I have absolutely NO INTEREST in any of that. I couldn’t care less about it.

Just post your work and shut up. The work speaks for itself."