Mars- Where Is Everybody?

Dick,
Interesting sketches you made of what you perceived to be a human. It’s also interesting that in one sketch you got something like a pre-historic human. Makes you wonder if this is a miltarry operation or perhaps a human-alien/hybrid thing…. or both.

Also, you sketch of what you perceived to be a human having an inspiration, or maybe something like an NDE (as you called it). Almost sounds like a new species being birthed.

Have you ever thought try to go back to this target on your own and just see what else you could squeeze out it?

JP

P.S.
Overall, very interesting target and I’m not completely surprized Farsight decided to go there in light of it’s past endevors. Makes you wonder if those are the “martians” CB saw as reported in his first book.

Remote viewing will change your world and your worldview so completely. Dick, do you remember the first target I ever worked for you? It was the mask of Tanner Dam which was actually a stock market prediction.

I am so math impaired that if I had the slightest idea that it was a financial target in nature, I would never have submitted anything at all. Then you and I might never have met. At the time, I was considering starting up with Lyn under his training program. It is only as a result of that target that I started working with HRVG.

Now, it appears that you guys have done it again with this target. Even years and years ago I was never impressed with the idea of Out of Body experiences. I can’t figure out why people are so enthralled with such an experience. It probably is also at the root of why I don’t remember my dreams, but I digress.

I don’t like the idea of being so *far away*. There are guided meditations that use silver cords and other methods to keep you anchored/tied to your physical body, but I never liked those either. When open source information first came out about Star Gate, there were the remote viewings of Jupiter that were cited. And I remember thinking that I would just never be comfortable doing a remote viewing in outer space.

So, I am spending more time reflecting on the successful remote viewing that I had on this target. The word “bastards” keeps coming to mind, but it is followed by a laugh and is not really meant in any real sense other than I have been pushed past my own limitations with this target.

As far as the target itself, my own background is negligent. I have no background to verify that the photo is even indeed of Mars. Further, credentials do me no good at all, as I have not had an interest in Mars, or outer space in general through the years. You could put any name or organization in there and I would not know whether or not they were credible.

Luckily, I think this actually supports the findings instead of denegrating them. I had no prior belief systems – except a determined desire not to go there.

It is not up to us as viewers to analyze the target, only to deliver the information.

Hello Dick:

Uncanny!:eek:

Most of the viewers (HRVG, TRV, SRV and CRV) seem to zero in with similar

descriptions; Dick indicates a changing of/to new body and

Sita drawing pictures of NDE or OBE experience/out of body.

Viewers seem to gravitate toward high energy scenarios with phase shifts:

liquid/gaseous/solids/ and back; lots of volcanism as well but not

necessarily lava; something more on the order of underground water seem

present in the form of “spray”. I think that’s interesting as there is so much talk among

the science community about underground water being present on Mars.

I’m also struck by the use of the words “spray” and “nozzle.” that appears to

shows up in the sessions and lots of people/living beings doing “on hands experimental work.”

The sessions seemed so similar I have to wonder how much telepathic

overlay may have played a role in the project. That alone would be remarkable.

I would love to be around to see hard feedback someday but I don’t think I will be around to see it anytime in the future.(:-)

With just the photos as very limited feedback I’d say the viewers were spot on in that they seemed to have “viewed” the photos. The rest of their

remarks remain problematic but interesting.

Robert

they seemed to have “viewed” the photos.
Robert

But are we viewing the target or the photograph. This has always been an illusive point for me. When we are operational, is a photograph required or could we just say go the US/Mexican border and view the situational problems there in real time. As long as we are not told it is the US/Mexican border I don’t see how it could be contstrued as a front loaded target.

The famous Pat Price who viewed for H.Putoff and R.Targ at SRI did a remarkable session where he not only viewed the target in the “present” but the past as well; he described buildings no longer at the target site. It is possible that the “Farsight special project” remote viewer’s also slipped into the future and described events that WILL take place. We will never know until we get there and I suspect I will not be around when space explorer’s DO get there; even if I were I doubt we would be told much.

Robert

My wife, Pat, on an Martian target tasked by David Morehouse remote viewed a subterranean location in which a group of tall humanoids were gathered around some sort of waterworks. She got the distinct impression that her presence was not wanted there.

Joe McMoneagle remote viewed an ancient civilization on Mars populated by tall humanoids.

The problem is twofold.

feedback – there is not enough to verify 90% of the viewers data.

secondly ‘overlay’. As the tasker and analyst were both Courtney then we could just be expressing his beliefs about the Mars targets especially as the tasking shows a bias in a man made scenario direction from him form the start.

without allot more feedback we will never know.

Michele – the target should always be the actual location unless its expressly specified that the target is an image[photo. Images are used primarily as feedback and the viewer should be viewing the actual location. Unless specified differently.

All the best…

Daz

Robert,

What is “telepathic overlay”?

the target should always be the actual location unless its expressly specified that the target is an image[photo. Images are used primarily as feedback and the viewer should be viewing the actual location. Unless specified differently.

But if the target is an image/photo, it still represents or may represent the target. So how is that any different from not using an image/photo? I don’t understand this.

Many people are good at viewing the “feed back picture,” and that itself is nothing to scoff at. In most remote viewing sessions the tasker is looking for MORE than that. Information ABOUT the target is being sought after.

Its nice when you can connect to the target and describe it; now tell us about it.

When you have a number of people in a room doing the same target it is possible that in their “sympathetic state” of mind, they also connect with each other in the room, picking up and sharing on a subconscious level information along with everything else, including the AOL’s (analytical overlay).

In this case the viewers were NOT in the same room but scattered all over the place. There may or may not have been any telepathic overlay.

Here is an answer from Lyn Buchanan with a slightly different twist, but relevant.

www.crviewer.com/Faqs/training/faq003.asp

Lyn Buchanan FAQ:

Does Telepathy Figure Into Group Training?

Question:

I just recently read (of a comment you made) that training in groups has its benefits in that the students seem to learn faster. Might you think that the “learning” may be telepathic overlay of the group rather than the individual student creating the connection between conscious and unconscious?

Answer:

I think that’s a large part of it, but with a very interesting twist:

The students are all working on different targets, not the same target.

If one considers the role of telepathic overlay in this situation, then what is getting shared between minds is not information about a target, but actual remote viewing skills. That is, as each person connects with his/her subconscious, the actual process of learning how to do so is shared. That’s neat!

I know that skills can be passed from one person to another telepathically, just the same as information or ideas. I hadn’t realized that the group dynamic might help the process along. If that is truly what is happening in the group training, then I think it’s one of the greatest benefits to come out of it.

If the students were all working the same target, the information about that target would be passed back & forth. When everyone’s session was over, that would be that. However, when it is the skills which are getting passed back & forth, the result is more permanent. Once those skills are experienced, whether through hard work or telepathic overlay, the student becomes aware of new pathways: of new ways of thinking. Then, even if only vaguely and partially remembered afterwards, the experience of that awareness allows the student to more easily work toward his/her final goal of establishing a clear, open and active communication between the conscious and subconscious minds.

ALSO is a link to Ingo Swann on the same subject:

www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/RVVsTelepathicOverlay.html

Robert

Targets/ Telepathic Overlay

The intent of the tasker should be for the viewer to go to the location represented in the photograph. You will notice many of our target cues contain the phrase “Photographic Timeline.” This instructs the viewer to go to the location at the moment the representative photo was taken. The photo is merely evidence of the target itself used to represent the target.

The photograph is not the target. Understand this. The photograph is not the target.

Many targets are tasked without a photograph. It is the intent of the targeteer that gets you to the target. If you were to view only the photograph you would describe a thin piece of paper with a glossy surface. How would you expect to get sounds, or smells/tastes or textures or temperatures from a photograph?

We have many, many, many published examples of viewers going to target as represented by a photograph, where they see, perceive, hear, smell, describe things not shown in the photograph, things verified at target by collateral research.

Now on to telepathic overlay. This is a theory put forward by Ingo Swann. We respect Ingo but don’t believe everything he says.
We are still waiting for someone to publish any remote viewing work that demonstrates evidence of telepathic overlay. If is true, that would make a great presentation at IRVA. “Here are the sessions that show telepathic overlay.”

There is a lot of contamination in remote viewing work. We’ve seen our share. There are many explanations, but we don’t believe “Telepathic overlay” is the source.

It is a nifty catch phrase to excuse poor session work by remote viewers.
This is a subject sure to get Glenn off the sidelines and onto the bulletin board, lol.

As my darling Korean wife says, “You poke the bee house.”

Dick

Thank you Dick:
I have often wondered about telepathic overlay; is it or isn’t it. There is no proof one way or the other if TO is real or not. It appears there are varied opinions/beliefs on both sides. I don’t know that I have ever experienced such a phenomenon but then “how would I know if I had” since I have no point of reference to its existence? Philosophically I am left to wonder: “If we are all ONE consciousness and exist in a seamless interconnectedness (another supposition not proven one way or the other but is nevertheless believed by many) then telepathy seems a given though not proven argument for psychic perception whether its RV or psychically knowing when someone (ourselves or someone close to us) is in danger through some psychic function. Philosophically and practically, if I can be psychically in tune with another person then “telepathic overlay” is certainly a possibility but unproven. I don’t know that in my present time frame I will ever know for sure.

If as has been suggested; “It (TO) is a nifty catch phrase to excuse poor session work by remote viewers,” could it not be said by the skeptic that “psychic function” is just a neat catch phrase to excuse coincidence.

That so many of the Farsight Special Project viewer’s produced strikingly similar sessions is amazing but while their sessions seem to agree on many points I’m not ready to throw in the towel and say the entire project was a success and assume there are intelligent beings, human or alien working on the surface of the planet Mars. I think analysis can only go so far but feedback will have to be the final arbiter.

I have no idea what psychic function is regardless of the name attached to it, remote viewing or any other designation. There are many varied theoretical beliefs as to HOW it works. All I know is that something is happening when I sit down with pen and paper or just sit quietly and access the target. Information begins to flow and I receive it. When I turn on the electric light switch, information begins to flow in the form of electrons, but I honestly don’t claim to understand it either; all I know is that it works and produces an end result regardless of what I believe to be its theoretical underpinnings.

I think the Farsight Project produced some very interesting work even though as Das Smith says, “’….overlay”. As the tasker and analyst were both Courtney then we could just be expressing his beliefs about the Mars targets especially as the tasking shows a bias in a man made scenario direction from him from the start.” I have no reason to discount the possibility even though “overlay” may not be part of my existing theoretical frame work ; I probably have more reason to accept it as a possibility. On a scale of one through ten I’d have to give it a five or possibly a six.

Don’t you just hate people who stay on the fence? :)

Robert

As my darling Korean wife says, “You poke the bee house.”

Dick

I always seem to be poking that darn thing no matter what! The honest truth is I really try not to, but sometimes I end up doing it anyway!

I’m trying to read through Ingo’s work now. I guess I need to understand why telepathy would exist separately from remote viewing.

I understand that you are telling us that we are viewing the target, not the photo. And I understand that you are telling us that we are not reading the targeteers mind for details about the target.

Now on to telepathic overlay. This is a theory put forward by Ingo Swann. We respect Ingo but don’t believe everything he says.
We are still waiting for someone to publish any remote viewing work that demonstrates evidence of telepathic overlay. If is true, that would make a great presentation at IRVA. “Here are the sessions that show telepathic overlay.”

the ‘entrainment’ as you guys call it experiment we did on the island that didn’t exist but in the mind of a person is in fact an exercise in telepathic overlay.

Also like in this Mars experiment – do you then think it coincidence that the viewers pickup the exact beliefs of the tasker – in light of no feedback to confirm or deny.? Courtney and his team in the past possibly also had heavily overlaid sessions with hale bopp and possible others.

with the tasker being also the analyst and being so emotionally involved you cant count out overlay IMO.

Daz

>I guess I need to understand why telepathy would exist separately from remote viewing. <

Telepathy is another facet of “psychic function” in my opinion; if I have understood correctly from the early masters of remote viewing, psychic function is not remote viewing. Anyone can sit down and give a psychic reading and have psychic perceptions, even experience random psychic knowings. Sometimes the reading may be spot on or completely off depending on the talent of the person using his or her psychic ability. The term remote viewing was a term used to designate a specific thought out methodology/protocol developed by trial and error to make anyone’s psychic function more accurate and to even train the basic grunt solider how to obtain useful information. The term remote viewing referred to the method/protocol or recipe if you will that could channel one’s psychic function more effectively as opposed to the haphazard way psychic function had appeared in the past. As it stands, the term remote viewing is usually thought of as being psychic, but it is NOT that at all. It is a method, a step by step method that leads one to better psychic functioning and getting data about some person, place, thing, or event, past present or future. A bit long winded?

So, in reply to your question, telepathy/psychic function, is indeed separate from the RV method. The RV method is just the way to open to the target more effectively and get information, in my opinion.:)

Robert

>I guess I need to understand why telepathy would exist separately from remote viewing. <

Telepathy is another facet of “psychic function” in my opinion; if I have understood correctly from the early masters of remote viewing, psychic function is not remote viewing. Anyone can sit down and give a psychic reading and have psychic perceptions, even experience random psychic knowings. Sometimes the reading may be spot on or completely off depending on the talent of the person using his or her psychic ability. The term remote viewing was a term used to designate a specific thought out methodology/protocol developed by trial and error to make anyone’s psychic function more accurate and to even train the basic grunt solider how to obtain useful information. The term remote viewing referred to the method/protocol or recipe if you will that could channel one’s psychic function more effectively as opposed to the haphazard way psychic function had appeared in the past. As it stands, the term remote viewing is usually thought of as being psychic, but it is NOT that at all. It is a method, a step by step method that leads one to better psychic functioning and getting data about some person, place, thing, or event, past present or future. A bit long winded?

So, in reply to your question, telepathy/psychic function, is indeed separate from the RV method. The RV method is just the way to open to the target more effectively and get information, in my opinion.:)

Robert

I’ve read all that before and honestly it just sounds circular to me. If telepathy is part of psychic functioning then remote viewing should not improve it if it is separate.

I get the point that is being made, but I’m still not convinced that being psychic is separate. For me, being psychic just happens and is very fickle. Damn hard to make a living off fickle so alot of people just fake it on the days that it’s off. Remote viewing is a way to make the function work on demand. I’m not sure that is separating it.

Hi Daz,
Interesting discussion. I’ll reply point-by-point.

You stated:
“the ‘entrainment’ as you guys call it experiment we did on the island that didn’t exist but in the mind of a person is in fact an exercise in telepathic overlay.”

My reply:

The entrainment did not involve an island. That’s a small nitpicking mistake, but just for the record it wasn’t an island. (It was a manmade dam.) In my presentation I explained that this was not telepathy. I created a target that was the Tanner Dam, a manmade lake. That was the target. You and a number of other viewers successfully viewed this because it was the target that I created and intended.

You did not telepathically read my mind. If you could read my mind telepathically you and the other viewers would have described the New York Stock exchange, which was the target behind the mask. No one did generate any data about the stock exchange, because no one exhibited one iota of telepathy in the exercise. Not one viewer penetrated the mask. This project proves that telepathy did not manifest at all in the work.

You state:

“Also like in this Mars experiment – do you then think it coincidence that the viewers pickup the exact beliefs of the tasker – in light of no feedback to confirm or deny.? Courtney and his team in the past possibly also had heavily overlaid sessions with hale bopp and possible others.”

I reply:
I would say the Mars work is not telepathic overlay. Rather it would be contamination in the targeteering process, combined with frontloading the viewers.

And you say:

“..with the tasker being also the analyst and being so emotionally involved you cant count out overlay IMO.”

My reply:

I am with you on this one, in that the tasker should NEVER be involved in analysis. That invites BIAS. But not telepathic overlay.

I have a slightly different version of my Masking/Overlay Project that I will post on You Tube so you and others can see what I said about the Masking/Entrainment project. There was no telepathy in any of the work.

Aloha,

Dick

You did not telepathically read my mind. If you could read my mind telepathically you and the other viewers would have described the New York Stock exchange, which was the target behind the mask.

I disagree and until someone does some experimentation we just wont and don’t know.

For example you set a target – I.e. the tanner dam project.
You didn’t tell me what this was because it was a blind target – how does my sub or the part of me in the rv process know where to go and what data to get? – this can only be done with a level of communication between you the tasker and I the viewer – this, if the rule of ‘simplest route’ is to be observed would be direct communication – telepathic.

I’ve seen over and over the feelings and beliefs of the tasker become key data in the viewers sessions – in fact Courtney’s last book details these problems in detail that they came up against – which is why he has this long viewer closes the session procedure.

All the best…

Daz

PS. on another note – how about a detailed article on the ‘dam’ project for eight martinis?

>If telepathy is part of psychic functioning then remote viewing should not improve it if it is separate.<

Why should it not improve it? If psychic function or “being psychic” is a sense, then why can’t it be improved on like any other sense. If we can improve our hearing, seeing, whether it be with a hearing aid or a pair of perscription glasses, why not the psychic sense with RV technology?

Robert

Aloha All,

An interesting discussion. Those of you who know me know that I have never been a fan of theories regarding Telepathic Overlay. My simple Telepathy test is to pull out my driver’s license and say “ok I am transmitting my driver’s license number to you now….what is it?” It is very unlikely that you will be successful in obtaining the information even though I intend to send it and you intend to receive it. Telepathy is mind-to-mind after all. While I believe that telepathy is possible, I believe that it is indeed a rare event. I remember a nice article written by our own Anela about the difficulties in accomplishing a telepathic event due to the simple density of our mass and the density of our own electromagnetic activity. When dealing with non-physical events it is difficult to reconcile what is actually the active agent involved with an event change. Telepathy is virtually non demonstrable. Science does not believe it is possible and it has never been proven to be a real event in the laboratory.

But I think we all know that something is indeed happening and all things considered equal we must reconcile what it is that we as remote viewer’s do in correlation to the results we obtain. I don’t believe that most people can pass my simple telepathy test but most can pass my simple remote viewing test. So all things considered equal Remote Viewing is not Telepathy. Remote Viewing is not mind-to-mind it is consciousness-to-consciousness.

When we get a bit more exotic such as our work with masking and entrainment we find we drift deeper into channels of consciousness and further from telepathic possibilities. Telepathy is little more than mind talking while the Remote Viewer is the time traveler, the watcher. Masking is actually playing with the fabric of consciousness and shaping it so that it can interact with the greater reality.

Tanner Dam exists even if it is a non-physical thing, it exists in consciousness.

Glenn

Glenn:

I think most people would fail that test because I don’t believe telepathy is something that we can just turn on at will. If that were the case I’d be a very rich man. Telepathic experiences seem to happen, in my opinion, when we’re NOT trying. Everyone has experienced this in my opinion when they think about a friend they haven’t seen in years and they call that very day, or in my case I think about my old aunt who is still living, bless her heart, and she calls me with in moments. Of course it could be all coincidence. But the events happen, not because we stop and say, “I have not heard from so and so for ages, I’ll send them a telepathic message and see how they are doing.” Why bother when you can just pick up the phone, unless they don’t have a phone.

Sigmund Freud, while a hard nosed scientist, commented in his writings about this psychic component, especially in hypnosis where he observed what he called telepathic happenings. He played it down and almost never talked about it, probably for professional reasons.

I had an unusual experience several years back while waiting for a bus in the downtown metro area. At this time I was in some very dark mental spaces and not someone you would want to meet for a happy afternoon lunch. I was just not thinking much about anything; totally spaced out I suddenly heard IN MY HEAD “you ought to be ashamed of yourself” and my immediate mental response was, “Why. I didn’t do anything!” And at that very moment I had eye contact with an elderly black lady who was standing nearby waiting for the bus. She just looked at me,shook her head and turned away with the slyest of looks. For just a moment there had been this mental contact. I call that telepathy. I don’t think it was deliberate on her part. We were both “just waiting” and somehow we connected just for a few seconds and she read me and responded with disgust. I don’t blame her. Looking back at my life there were some really disgusting moments I’m not proud of. In my opinion, that was telepathic. And I can tell you I am very careful what I carry around in my consciousness.

I have tried doing deliberate experiments where I attempted to contact someone telepathically and I can tell you deliberation doesn’t work in the same way your experiment doesn’t work. There have been dream experiments in dream telepathy that have had better success.

No. In my opinion telepathic experiences seem to be intrusions that happen when we’re just not thinking about it happening. But opinions are like button holes; everyone has at least one.:D

Robert

Glenn:

>So all things considered equal Remote Viewing is not Telepathy. Remote Viewing is not mind-to-mind it is consciousness-to-consciousness.

When we get a bit more exotic such as our work with masking and entrainment we find we drift deeper into channels of consciousness and further from telepathic possibilities. Telepathy is little more than mind talking while the Remote Viewer is the time traveler, the watcher. Masking is actually playing with the fabric of consciousness and shaping it so that it can interact with the greater reality.<

I agree with you on that point, “remote viewing is not telepathy.” Telepathy is just what it is, a facet of psychic function. Remote viewing to me is the methodology. In my opinion, intuition, telepathy, and whatever other words that designate this function are just facet’s of the diamond presenting itself in different ways or reflecting light in different patterns.

>Remote Viewing is not mind-to-mind it is consciousness-to-consciousness.<

There are some deep philosophical issues here such as “What IS mind.” and What IS consciousness.” Are they separate entities or one and the same? If science ever gets a handle on just what mind and consciousness really is and how it comes into being it may be necessary for us to rethink our assumptions about all of this.

Robert

Well..I guess Glenn touched on the tempest in the teapot for the best clarification.

If you try to send your driver’s license number to me telepathically and I pick up information regarding a great many things that a driver’s license ‘can be’. Is that telepathy or remote viewing. And, wasn’t there an article recently that talked about ‘guessing the number of jelly beans in a jar’. We don’t really count and numbers arent really real…they are just symbols we use to communicate with out mouths. Maybe telepathy just happens in a language we don’t understand. Maybe it requires that both people have exactly the same common points of reference. That would be a rare thing indeed for two individuals to have exactly the same mental represenation, even for mundane tasks. Almost like having two fingerprints be the same. From time to time, it may come very close spontaneously, but not a day to day experience for certain. Further, even when two minds might brush each other, it is unplanned unless you are kind of searching for that other exact mind out there. Kind of like the listening device deployed for UFOs. One mind would have to be constantly seeking.

Robert: Thankfully, I’ve much better ‘moments’. I can still remember the last one, but it is not suitable for mixed company. ;)

The whole problem with this ‘telepathy or not’ debate is there is no real way to tell.

What we do know is that everything in the universe is connected – that means you and I are connected at some level – now whether you want to call the communication at this level telepathy or not is irrelevant as its just a label – the truth is we are all connected and that communication is possible. This also means that all involved have an influence on every level of an RV process.

all the best…

Daz Smith

Michele:

>If you [B]try to send your driver’s license number to me telepathically and I pick up information regarding a great many things that a driver’s license ‘can be’. Is that telepathy or remote viewing.<[/B]

Telepathy is far as I know is considered “mind to mind.” That is what you are describing. But if you were to write on a piece of paper your DL number and below it, “Describe the target.” and then put that in a sealed envelope with some kind of Target ID number on the outside of the envelope, your essentially setting up a remote viewing session. This is NOT mind to mind. Your asking the person at the other end to access the target in the envelope (not access your mind) to describe it.

There is a second important and real issue there and that is CUEING the target. How the target is cued means, “what is the intent; what information do you want to know and is it in the past, present or the future. Cueing the target is extremely important in the RV process. Not done properly, the viewer will be all over the place giving all kinds of information.

Dick and Glenn can explain that better than I can, at least from the HRVG perspective.

Can a person remote view numers such as dates?

HRVG did and I think still does a protocol for getting numbers such as dates (numbers, not the ones you eat or the ones you go out on Saturday night:D.Teh heh heh.)

Robert

Robert/Daz;

This issue is not as important to me really. I dislike the question have you been psychic all your life, because I’m not sure how to answer that. If remote viewing takes the function away from the ‘garbage’ junk that is routinely associated with psi, then I’m all for it.

I must say about my personal experience with psi is that is very uncontrolled and so therefore there is no way to scientifically prove it. I laughed though when I got to the NIMO portion of HRVG. Your supposed to cut your eyes left and work the right side of the NIMO, correct? There are other ways of interpreting that when someone is doing it naturally and not inside a NIMO session. I still find that sometimes I forget to use the NIMO. I just cut eyes left and start filling out the cells. I forget to touch my pen to each part of the NIMO. Whoops! But, I always make myself do it anyway just to pick up finer more controlled information. But, cutting our eyes left is a natural way to access information. NIMO just captures that.

I don’t need to prove telepathy and I’m quite happy with HRVG process that doesn’t include it. While I may be operational, there is a great amount of learning left to do, so this is just a point I like to chew on a little bit!

I think I like the subject of non verbal communication more than I like just telepathy all by itself. Having said that, magicians don’t attract me other than just an entertainment value. We non verbally communicate with everyone around us all day long and maybe telepathy rides that back bone.

Whether it is remote viewing or telepathy, if I could figure out how to read a series of numbers, I would already be a jackpot winner!

Sometimes that whole nonverbal thing can make alot of trouble. I disklike accidentally picking up on things that are the opposite of what they are saying or doing. Makes problems where none should exist. So, remote viewing is a better framework. Unintentional psi is exhausting when you are trying to shut it down because it is countering what a person is doing or saying. I’ve been on both sides of that fence. Everyone is entitled to their privacy. Just because people have a certain thought doesnt mean they intend to act on it. Or, just because they have a thought doesn’t mean it actually has anything to do with that person. It can misleading and confusing, so I usually dismiss it. If I don’t dismiss it altogether, I just tuck it away in the back of my head…not something that I bring into interpersonal dynamics. But, to a certain extent, it changes my actions in interspersonal dynamics. Large crowds of people are overwhelming unless I really shut down which changes the way I act at parties or conventions or sometimes meetings…etc.

Remote viewing dispenses with that quite readily.

Michele:

HRVG did and I think still does a protocol for getting numbers such as dates (numbers, not the ones you eat or the ones you go out on Saturday night:D.Teh heh heh.)

Robert

Oh…:o you mean like ordering the number 1 or 2 from a menu. You confused me for a minute as I thought you were reading my mind about the first time a telepathic event happened for me at a salad bar. Whew!;) Somethings are just private.

Michele:

>Whether it is remote viewing or telepathy, if I could figure out how to read a series of numbers, I would already be a jackpot winner! <

Try associative remote viewing.You might get lucky and wind the big one.

There are websites you can check out.

www.jackhouck.com/arv.shtml

www.remote-viewing.com/

www.google.com/search?q=Associative+remote+viewing&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Es4&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&source=univ&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&ei=ubzhS8RJwvjwBoHKyKMM&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=10&ved=0CD0QqwQwCQ

rviewer.com/What_Is_ARV.html

Robert

Glenn,
I’ll challenge you here. You say no one can telepathically obtain the drivers license number you hold in your wallet.

When the Green Beret RVers tested Dr. Richard Ireland he had his eyes sealed shut, putty, tape, etc. and was able to look on Blackboard and read the serial number of a $100 bill you held up- backwards.

You lost the $100.

Explain the difference, please.

Dick

Aloha Dick,

You ask a question that is very difficult to answer. In the time that I knew Dr. Ireland I found him to be a most amazing fellow. He was certainly not average by any scale. I asked him more times than I can remember to tell me how something that he did was accomplished. Those conversations became the model that I followed in how I think today. I understand beyond my ability, but my ability continues to grow. Just like you Dick, I think thoughts I could not think 20 years ago. Knowledge is not wisdom. I know now that everything I say and do makes a difference in the greater reality. I agree with Daz that connectivity is the master puzzle. By definition Telepathy is mind-to-mind and if you cannot pass my Telepathy test you won’t be in any danger of Telepathic Overlay if I am in the room while you work my target.

Some many years back I passed on some information that I got directly from Dick Ireland. That information was that the viewer is solely responsible for the content of their work; it is your mind and your ability that provides clarity. If you have ever been amazed at something I have done surely you must wonder how I accomplished it. Dick, years ago I pulled a piece of paper out of my pocket and handed it to you in the parking lot at the classroom. That paper set you on the trail for greater knowledge and within weeks while a room full of viewers worked a target in another room you captured image after image from the work they produced. At that time you joined the ranks of the amazing by the normal standards of knowledge. Was it Telepathy? No it was not. Just like I listened to Dick Ireland, you listened to me. This is how the secrets get passed on.

Viewers must never attribute something in their work to Telepathic Overlay, or the sun was in your eyes, or the room was too noisy. Unless you accept responsibility for the content of your mind’s work you will progress only slowly. To leap forward look at your work and let your own internal dialog sort the good and bad. Never lament the bad and the less attention you give it the better. Recognize the value of the data and just move on, let it go, and in doing so your mind will correct itself. If you divest yourself of responsibility you are hurting your own progression. Remote Viewer development requires a journey, not a class.

Daz is very correct in his comments on the inter-connected nature of our Universe. These are the synapses we leap to and from in Remote Viewing. People with Telepathic skills are forces of nature compared to the rest of humanity; they are few and far between and thankfully live their lives unskilled for the most part. Telepathic Overlay reeks of concepts of mind control or the loss of mind control. Dirty tasking is the main culprit for results where Telepathic Overlay is suspected. It wasn’t Telepathic Overlay…the viewer collected what was actually tasked with all the contamination of the Targeteering process.

You ask about Ireland’s ability to suss out the number letter combinations on money bills. It was not telepathy because many times the owner of the bill never knew the bill numbers and usually only learned them as they followed along as Dick read them off from across the room. How did he do it? Well I certainly know how but there are a few transitions I still have to make before it becomes a skill I can demonstrate. I am still working on Heads-or-Tails or Red-or-Black; but the path leads to alphanumeric divination. Ireland’s biggest tool was Blackboard, and I cannot emphasis enough for our viewers to literally learn to live on Blackboard. You have seen me work sessions and the volume of data is fairly large. If I didn’t keep moving in protocol the session would be a lot larger bordering on wearisome.

Too many things are mislabeled as Telepathy. It actually has a very precise definition and I know that I do not use Telepathy. I just ride the waves.

Glenn

www.scienceprogress.org/2008/03/a-computer-program-that-sees-what-you-see/

A very interesting article. I understand about the brain being too dense (barely). This is an area I would like to know much more about. Yet, I find myself tsk tsking because I’m supposed to be cooking and exercising as I’ve been doing so much overtime I’m out of synch with everything.

In so many ways we have to keep our heads wired firmly to our butts…yes?

Glenn:

Glenn said “Knowledge is not wisdom.” Well put. I think we see glaring examples of this everyday in our world.

You wrote a very well written and thought out response to Dick, with the exception of the “telepathic overlay” issue; on that point I am not yet willing to say it doesn’t exist. I also agree that the viewer has to take responsibility for his or her viewing. Joe McMoneagle said years back in his book, “Mind Trek,” that he had discovered he was making a list of reasons why he could not view. He had hit a dry spell in this viewing experience; one target after the other met in “abject failure.” He made a list of all the things that must be standing his way; this lead to the discovery that he was sabotaging his own efforts; he threw the list away. I am reminded that I have to be more diligent in the messages I send to myself; what I am holding in my consciousness.

It also reminds me of a discovery made by John C. Lilly, author of Center of The Cyclone:

Lilly’s Law:

“In the province of the mind, what is believed to be true is true or becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the province of the mind, there are no limits.”

Whatever we hole in our consciousness molds and shapes our reality. HRVG has a definite belief as to what remote viewing is and how it operates. Controlled Remote Viewing as its own map of the remote viewing territory, and is equally adamant about its structure. There are other schools of thought as well and the amazing thing is this, they all seem to help the viewer get results. “In the province of the mind, what is believed to be true is true or becomes true…..”

This is an excellent book and I recommend anyone interested in exploring inner states of the mind to give it a good read. The book has long been out of print but can be gotten from online out of print book finders.

used.addall.com/

www.alibris.com/books/rare-collectible

www.bookfinder.com/?src=google-bf&gclid=CKjVwezzvaECFcRM5QodjSGF_g

Lilly explored inner spaces with sensory Isolation tanks, had several near-death experiences where he met the “beings of light,” he met the same beings in the tank experiments. He did exceptional work with dolphins; a movie was made based on Lilly and his dolphin work.

Robert

Michele:

>http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/…-what-you-see/<

Thanks for the link; It’s very interesting and perhaps a bit scary when you consider the implications. As of late there has been much talk about the coming or forming of a new “World Order” taking shape behind closed doors. What would the “New Order” do with such technology when fully developed? I shudder to imagine it.

>A very interesting article; I understand about the brain being too dense (barely). <

Yes, I’m told my brain is a little too dense as well.:D Teh heh heh.

Robert

Michele:

>http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/…-what-you-see/<

Thanks for the link; It’s very interesting and perhaps a bit scary when you consider the implications.

The more things change, the more things stay the same. The monitor will be vulnerable in a great many ways.

Ireland’s biggest tool was Blackboard, and I cannot emphasis enough for our viewers to literally learn to live on Blackboard.

Good one Glenn!… in fact I’ve always wondered why the HRVG training has not developed separate exercises for the viewers to do that bring home this point. I know I work with the “inner screen” of my mind (blackboard) all the time…but now I realize I’m still way short of how much time I should spend there. This one little tidbit of info is very encouraging to me, now’s the time to try harder.

JP

J.P.

>I know I work with the “inner screen” of my mind (blackboard) all the time…but now I realize I’m still way short of how much time I should spend there. This one little tidbit of info is very encouraging to me, now’s the time to try harder.<

I agree. I love the Blackboard. If I could I would do NOTHING but blackboard and drop everything else…..but to do that my “Blackboarding” would have to get much better.(:-)

Robert

Getting me to blackboard for just 3 seconds was Dick’s greatest accomplishment. When I first started doing the process, I was like this will never work for just three seconds. I chewed the bit on that one, I can tell you that!

And, it’s funny, when we got to cascade where I would get a full 15 seconds, strangely enough, I rarely if ever use it for a full 15 seconds.

Did you guys know that there is this link on the Internet, I’ll see if I can find it, where the teacher of a psychic class says that just looking at blackboard (the inner screen of the mind) for 15 min. a day… everyday for about a month, will start to give you spontaneous clairvoyant experiences. She encourages her students to do this exericse above all others. If you could keep doing it for months and months… your ability to “see” will increase greatly! That’s something I bet Dick Ireland would approve of!

JP

Why I believe telepathy plays a part in the rv process.

Lets use for example the Tanner Dam Entrainment project.

The viewers were blind.
The target was a fiction created in the mind of the the tasker – who over an extended period of time created in their mind a whole place populated with people, structures, an economy and great detail and depth. But still this was a fictional place with only one real physical piece of existence – a painting created by an artist to the the taskers descriptions of what thedam looked like.

Now the viewers like in most rv projects did the target blind. As the target did not physically exist then the only place the viewers sub or whatever RV uses, to get the connection and target related information on what the target was, is direct form the tasker – it didn’t exist anywhere else, it wasn’t recorded in some great conciousness as it didn’t exist except in the mind of the tasker.

This I feel is and remains in all cases of remote viewing a distinct clue that mind-to-mind communication has taken place.

Secondly:
the target was a feint or what HRVG calls a ‘mask’ the actual real target behind the fictional target was for the viewer to record in their data an indicator of a future stock movement.

The remote viewers clearly followed this indepth hidden command/need even when it came form a non physical target and itself was a second level of depth and in non physical.

There IMO is only one place that I as one of the viewers could have gone to at some deep level and got both the instructions for the;
a. fictional target
b. the second ‘deeper’ hidden/real target – the prediction data.

That is from a direct mind-to-mind communication.
How else would the remote viewers know at this deep level what to do on both (a,b) counts?

All the best…

Daz

Why I believe telepathy plays a part in the rv process.

Lets use for example the Tanner Dam Entrainment project.
Daz

I’m not sure I can agree with that statement. Here is my email from my very first target with Dick, which is the Tanner Dam project. I used no protocol at all. First shot out of the gate. But, look at the bolded area. I think I was remote viewing Dick. I used a different color for my emails to hopefully make it less confusing.

Start First Email:

Here are my final notes for the session. All my session times are recorded on the .jpg files attached. But, I will recount my notes here. I included the first two original pages from my initial session.

Land Features:

Definitely there is water. It is a natural clearing that was expanded to serve as a heliport. It is crisp, cool and clear. No evidence of population. While trying to get above the site to look for nearest populated area, I encountered a strong feeling of being spun around in a counterclockwise fashion. AOL is helipcoptor or some kind of large fan. In the next session, I still picked up the fan very strongly. It is large and industrial in nature. Not being caught up in it this time, it was spinning in a clockwise fashion.

I enclosed a map of the area that shows it sits off some kind of body of water, then there is the clearing, then there is elevation (hills) with tress and vegation and then there is a huge depression. I looked down the side and the drop is very steep. This depression is very deep. I could not actually see the bottom of it.

Gestalt/Energy: This is an offsite area. It is not manned. General energy is that this place is being researched. All human activity is present in another facility far from this area (did not go there). AOL is geologist in nature..associated with the first man I saw giving the briefing at the simple table…a field table. AOL is Oil research.

Here is another email regarding the Tanner Dam project:
Sunday, August 24, 2008 10:38 AM
From: “Michele Tusa” Add sender to ContactsTo: “Dick Allgire” Are you still collecting data on this target? Now that the flurry of starting a temporary new position is over, I feel the need to go ‘back’ to this target and work around the field table…that was strong and vivid.
But, if you have closed the session I will log for myself and then wait for the target to be revealed.

End Emails

I can’t reconcile your statements of telepathy if I was actually remote viewing Dick.

And..as I understand it Dick just cued Tanner Dam as if the stock market was represented by the dam. This always makes my head swim a little bit, but basically…Dick cued the stock market.

Aloha Daz,

The answers lie in things we cannot see or touch. At best we assemble theories of how we think things are working and then test them out to an application. At the last IRVA conference Dick presented his body of knowledge on Masking and Entrainment and ended his presentation with a demonstration that was amazingly successful. This was a demonstration of cause and effect where consciousness was the playground. In this unseen, untouchable playground, Dick set into motion causation with a predicted effect in the real touchable reality. No small task by anyone’s measure and it did not employ Telepathy but the subtle responses of a person to the combined reality of the seen and unseen world.

Let’s go back to Tanner Dam and look at what was really done by our theory of employment. Let’s pretend when Dick constructed the mask and entrained it to the Stock market he was really 97 years old and that night before the target was put out to the viewer’s he passed away in his sleep dreaming the most amazing fluffy bunny dreams possible. Now the target still went out to the viewers but Dick was no longer here to be the source of origin for any possible Telepathy. Would the viewers have still produced the sessions that they did? Would your session work still be as it was? If none of you knew that Dick had headed off to the Happy Hunting grounds I think your results would have been just as they were. While a difficult theory to test, and I am sure Dick wouldn’t go for it, it would disprove Telepathy as a component in the viewer collection process.

Knowledge does not imply Telepathy, nor does omniscience. I think most people here believe that they may receive some information, data, or knowledge from a greater reality/consciousness that does not require a point-to-point mind connection with another. The theory we employ assumes that consciousness is pliable and can be shaped. When Dick created Tanner Dam it was not solely in his mind but in the greater field of consciousness. It was designed specifically to have purpose and mirror something else entirely different. Cause and effect are real correlations but what Dick did was create his cause and effect in the world of consciousness. A simpler test would be to set up a double blind condition and have Tanner Dam re-targeted and put back out to another group of viewers. Push the collected data through analysis and see if the results are the same. With Dick disconnected from collection effort I think you will find your answer to what actually happened.

While we have demonstrated Entrainment in the world of consciousness we have taken it a step further and demonstrated it in the physical reality. Here is a post from the BBS here about the first entrainment demonstration I did for the class. The trick would be to find the Telepathy involvement.

This is a post from our own Jason…

Perhaps the entrainment exercise had a stronger impact on myself because I was the person that picked the chips that were *designed* to be picked in the exercise. Besides Glenn, four of us participated in the exercise. The four of us knew nothing about what we going to do, except for one thing Glenn said. We’re gonna do a little exercise. Ahhh, an exercise, and it’s little.

Each of the four people was given a blue poker chip and a white poker chip with their first initial written on both chips. All eight chips were placed in the center of the table with the initialed side faced down. The four of us stuck our hands to the center of the table and began mixing the chips up. We pushed chips to the left, chips to the right, this chip that way and that chip this way, mixing them around until no one knew where their chips lay. Then the first person picked a blue chip and a white chip, and only Glenn and that person were shown which initials were written on the chips they had chosen. Those two chips were placed back into the center and the mixing process was repeated. The second person did the same, picked a blue and white chip, and only Glenn and that person were shown which initials were on those chips, then the chips went back into the mix. Then the third person, that’s me, I picked a blue chip and a white chip. Glenn and I looked at the initials that were written on the chips. Glenn placed the two chips on the table with the initials facing up. The blue chip had a “D” written on it and the white chip had a “P” on it.

Then Glenn said to me while pointing towards the right side of the room, “Lift up the carpet and look for a piece of paper”. So I walked over and lifted up the area carpet and there lay a piece of paper folded in half. I unfolded the paper, and the writing on the paper read 3rd game Blue – D White – P.

Hmmm, so as I stood there with this big grin on my face, the first thing I thought was, How did he do this. The second thing I thought, What was this exercise about. This was not precognition. This was not remote influencing. This was… entrainment. The piece of paper had been placed under the carpet at least an hour before any of us had shown up at the house. The entrainment exercise had been designed so that on the third “game”, the third participant would pick a specific pair of poker chips.

So how did this happen? As best as I understand it, and in simple lay terms, Glenn had constructed an architecture of the third “game”. The four of us came in and participated in the “game” in the architecture, and played it out as Glenn had designed it to be played out. We were part of the architecture of the third “game”. We had become entrained in the game, with the game, by the game. The third game. Which only lasted a minute or so. Entrainment was briefly discussed in the Masking/Overlay classes we had last year. Hearing about in class was interesting and exciting. But actually seeing it implemented, as with the exercise on Monday, is quite an experience.

Entrainment may be difficult for some people to grasp. You’ll have to stretch your thinking a bit. I spoke to Glenn about entrainment for quite a while after Monday’s class. I also talked to him the following day about it. It still boggles my mind. We haven’t been taught the mechanism behind entrainment, yet. Hey Glenn, maybe after Las Vegas we can have a few in-depth classes on this. And we’ll probably need to see it implemented a few more times to fully understand it *hint*hint*. Those of you that were at class on Monday, have you sat down and thought about what actually happened in the exercise. Or maybe you’re still thinking about it like myself.

Here’s a few definitions of the word entrain. I pulled these from dictionary.com. They seem to fit, in a certain way: 1. To pull or draw along after itself. 2. Chemistry. To carry (suspended particles, for example) along in a current. To draw along as a current does; as, water entrained by steam.
Aloha, Jason

In another post by Dick Titled “Stop Thinking Normally” he illustrates another Entrainment demonstration.

I’ll explain what happened in class tonight. Debra walked in and Glenn pointed her to a tray full of poker chips surrounding three small boxes. He instructed her to (after he had left the room) pick one of 80 chips (either red, blue, green, or black) and place the chip in one of 3 different ornamental boxes. The boxes are (tan- number 1, black- number 2, and brown- number 3.).

So Debra had a lot possible choices:

• A red chip in box number one,
• A blue chip in box number one.
• A green chip in box number one.
• A black chip in box number one.
• A red chip in box number two.
• A blue chip in box number two.
• A green chip in box number two.
• A black chip in box number two.
• A red chip in box number three.
• A blue chip in box number three.
• A green chip in box number three.
• A black chip in box number three.

She selected a chip and put it in a box, with no one observing. (No one physically at that moment.)

After Debra selected a chip and placed it in the box no one touched the tray, the chips, or the boxes as students arrived for class. The class assembled and Glenn brought in the tray full of chips and set it front of us. He picked up box number one. He opened it and revealed a blue chip.

He instructed Debra to go lift up the carpet in the front room, where she found a sealed, signed envelope. Inside was a paper that stated:
“Debra. Box #1 Blue.”

Parlor trick, or “not normal” thinking? We’ll let Glenn explain this as he posts later. His message tonight was “Stop thinking normally.” In other words, don’t guess- know, or view the past, or view the future, or cause it to happen, but don’t guess.

Aloha,

Dick

My Reply to Dick’s post was the following…

Aloha Dick,

Suspension of the guess is a lot harder than most people would think. The puzzle of the chips and boxes lets you confront what you actually think at the time the puzzle is presented. What am I actually asking you to do? Be psychic? The answer to that is a resounding No!

When Debra picked a colored chip and then selected the box to put it in began a series of possibilities for those who would be asked to solve her puzzle. The most obvious response would be to guess which color and which box. The impulse to guess must be stopped cold. A guess attempts to jump to the solution with literally no intellect or mental management. What you will guess will be influenced by more factors unrelated to the actual solution than you can imagine. While guessing because of the odds may lead to a correct solution within the scale of chance, it is our intention to be correct the first time.

How is this related to Remote Viewing and why is this important? The last several years as we have played with Entrainment and Masking we have seen the malleability of not only environments, but randomness as well. The Entrainments that I have shown you with the chips and roulette were to show you how one can move within the environment and cause the invisible to be come visible. We saw this with Affinity. In the Affinity demonstration you must understand that what was done was done in the past and we were able to observe it in the now. Now this was a generic or artificial affinity because the objects observed were inert and lacked consciousness. A state of attraction was created in the past that did not materialize until we observed it. This means the actions taken did not perish with the passing of time. For those two (2) inert objects the attraction once created traveled backwards down the timeline and forward into the future and will continue unless it is stopped. It is such a small effort for such a large result.

When the class formed I stated simply that tonight there was an Entrainment demonstration. I wanted you to see me solve a free will set of choices by Debra with the chips and boxes. While not a complex entrainment I wanted you also to understand there is more than one (1) or two (2) or a dozen ways to solve it and be correct the first time. None of the solutions require that we resort to the “Guess”. In the early afternoon before class I designed the entrainment by carefully assembling all the components. We must also realize that none of the Entrainment design would rob from Debra the exercise of her free will.

When we think of what’s to be done to solve her puzzle the possibilities are endless. You are only limited by your own mentality and intellect. I will tell you what I decided to do to solve the puzzle. In those moments in the early afternoon I opted to entrain two (2) streams of affinity. One (1) stream to the 20 blue chips on the tray and one (1) stream to the interior of box number one (1). In lieu of any other attractions the Affinity was free meaning there was no affinity linking the blue chips to the interior of box number one (1). This means that when Debra began her puzzle selection that there were two (2) elements of the puzzle that had free Affinity associations. At the time of selection by Debra the state of randomness would be affected by Affinity much like we saw with the Pawns and Roulette. Now the next step is a bit complex so hang with me while I try and explain it. I was concerned about the noise in the class with all the folks present and wanted to be certain that the Blue chip Box 1 solution would materialize. What I designed then was a way for Debra from the future to leave a memory that she would encounter when she approached the puzzle. This I will have to show you and explain in class because it is simply too complex to elaborate on here. Not a memory of mind but a memory of environment.

Where does power flow from? It is everywhere and we certainly cannot start or stop it. We must learn to flow within it. When we Remote View it too is a puzzle and we must solve it with an interactive intellect. In the puzzle we see the solution was only hidden from our eyes but not our intellect, in the Remote Viewing target there is no difference. We have a solid methodology to approach the target now let’s redefine our intellect to solve it.

Glenn

Daz those same streams of affinity used to link chips to their boxes were the same sort of actions Dick used to link the stock market to aspects of Tanner Dam. In this I would say find the Telepathy. Other real tests of Entrainment in Las Vegas have turned out very well for us so our state of belief as a group is high. Your premise, while not illogical, should be explored as both right and wrong, as should ours.

I have tried to devise ways to demonstrate the forces of time and consciousness so our group could see a consciousness cause and physical effect. Using chips and wheels, boxes and pawns, as well as papers under the carpet is fairly convincing if you are there to take part in it. All things considered equal we have strong reason to discount telepathy in favor of consciousness interplay. These events succeed because I make them happen. I don’t lie, or cheat; I set them into motion and let them happen. When Dick set Tanner Dam into motion he created a data set that can be replicated and evaluated. Now Paul’s tie was a bear but because we were there to see it…it happened.

Aloha Glenn

Aloha Robert,

I am thinking that Telepathic Overlay as it is being discussed is a form of mind control. It would take a powerful mind to accomplish such a feat. If it is real then how could one trust any Remote Viewing results if we were all so easily led astray? I spoke with Dick after the last conference about another project in which the goal would be to see if it would be possible to stop someone from remote viewing a specific target. Let’s say the target would be the Washington Monument. Could we make it so that no Remote viewer anywhere could ever successfully view this target? Not only in the now, but in the past and future as well. It would be a large scale denial of service attack on the target. We could then ask viewers all over the world to work the target legitimately tasked and Targeteered as the Washington Monument. There own groups could do the blind or double blind targeting and publish their own target ID’s.

If successful would the cause be Telepathy?

Glenn

Daz those same streams of affinity used to link chips to their boxes were the same sort of actions Dick used to link the stock market to aspects of Tanner Dam. In this I would say find the Telepathy. Other real tests of Entrainment in Las Vegas have turned out very well for us so our state of belief as a group is high. Your premise, while not illogical, should be explored as both right and wrong, as should ours.

Maybe but you also cant rule out that in the ‘chip’ example that the combination of ox1 and blue chip were either communicated unknowingly through body language or from more exotic means like ‘mind-to-mind’ communication, and that debra’s selection of this combination was not as random as you’d like to think but influenced without knowing.

Your term of ‘conciousness interplay’ – surely this is just telepathy by another name or I prefer mind-to-mind communication – if conciousness and everything in the universe is connected then so too are our minds.

The ‘tie entrainment demonstration’ – Im not convinced on this one as I’m sure paul wore the tie to previous IRVA conferences – Im sure there is a pic of him in the IRVA folder – alas I cannot look any more as I am no longer a member.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying anyone cheated or anything – Im just not convinced – its not a properly set up demonstration – but knowing the mind poser of memory someone may have remembered deep inside their minds the ties previous public outing – we just dont know.

I am thinking that Telepathic Overlay as it is being discussed is a form of mind control. It would take a powerful mind to accomplish such a feat. If it is real then how could one trust any Remote Viewing results if we were all so easily led astray?

This is why we cant trust RV – especially if there is a lack of feedback. I’ve perosnally seen it happen time after time that the perosnal beliefs of the tasker/analyst possibly skew the viewing data – like your entrainment exercise.

Maybe because you guys have generally worked closed in house with each other that you haven’t – I don’t know. All I know is I’ve got around and worked long term (years) with CRV, TDS, TRV, SRV students and I’ve seen overlay ‘possibly’ be in effect sometimes. Rv needs alot more work yet before we truly cna say ‘this’ or ‘that’ is happening.

Also if we take the possible reality that ‘conciousness interpleay’ is real and if the theories on quantum universe are correct then it doesn’t take a powerful mind to do mind control – we all do mind control every minute of the day and that conciousness creates and has affects.

All the best…

Daz

Aloha Robert,

Could we make it so that no Remote viewer anywhere could ever successfully view this target? Not only in the now, but in the past and future as well. It would be a large scale denial of service attack on the target.
Glenn

An exhausting task no doubt. I don’t think that anyone is really thinking this all the way through. For the mask to be effective, you would have to know every piece and part of detail and that is much easier said than done. Shades of Agatha in Minority Report leap to mind. I was really glad when she got our of her pool! Poor girl. Talk about uncompensated overtime! But, seriously…I have often been in a state of wonder at a piece of simple art. It would be exhausting to sustain it over time. How immersed would someone have to be in the process itself to sustain it.

This is a post from our own Jason…

The entrainment exercise had been designed so that on the third “game”, the third participant would pick a specific pair of poker chips.
Aloha, Jason

What about observer effect? Wouldn’t it be a bitch if turns out everyone owes Ed Dames an apology? Is it possible to remote view the future without effecting the outcome? (Running for cover!) Just because his predictions didn’t come to pass doesn’t mean that they weren’t probable. How many people does it take to create an observer effect that can change the quantum nature of things. One, twelve, a million?

Glenn:

>Could we make it so that no Remote viewer anywhere could ever successfully view this target? <

Good question. It reminds me of the scenes from the Movie “PUSH” where there is a human capable of Shadowing and protects people and even buildings from being viewed.

I don’t think think so and certainly not to the extreme of “shadowing,” something not even remotely possible for the human species today.

I seem to remember Lynn Buchanan saying something about this however in his book, The Seventh Sense. Regardless of his reputation, I don’t believe him either.

>I am thinking that Telepathic Overlay as it is being discussed is a form of mind control.<

If it, telepathy were something one could consciously “will” I might agree with you; I do not see telepathy or it’s overlay characteristic in terms of an act of deliberation; it is something that “happens’, an uncalled for experience,so my response is tenative: no,mind control as such is a fiction.

HOWEVER if that is proven to be true then what can be said about Lynn Buchanan and his “Remote Influencing.” Is that too a fiction? I’ve seen the DVD’s from early conferences and as interesting as it all sounds I think Lynn gives himself too much credit, no disrespect to him.

AND what about viewers who claim they have interrogated people at a target site? If they can interrogate a person in the past, why not the future as well? Is that telepathy/mind control of sorts? It leaves the issue of “telepathy and overlay” a very, very open question.

Robert

I went to Google Earth and switched from Earth to Mars.
I typed in 19.73 degrees west 3.08 degrees north and it took me to the site the Farsight Project remote viewed but wouldn’t you know, they blocked it out. The same is true for the Fortress on Mar’s. Actually you can see the fortress but another huge section below it is blanked out. What is it they don’t want us to see? Well, I better be careful as I don’t want to imply a conspiracy….but you just have to wonder!!!!!
Robert

Just because his predictions didn’t come to pass doesn’t mean that they weren’t probable.

Everything is “probable” until it doesn’t happen.

I’m reminded of an example that my high school physics teacher gave, that there is a finite probability that all the air molecules in the room will travel in the same direction at the same time, leaving the opposite corner in a vacuum. Not very probable, but possible. I don’t remember the details, but I think the probabilities worked out to it happening once in many times the lifetime of the universe.

After all, isn’t that how the “Heart of Gold” works?

Everything is “probable” until it doesn’t happen.

After all, isn’t that how the “Heart of Gold” works?

My daughter is a big fan of this book. Maybe my headspace was just not in the right place at the time, but I couldn’t get into the book. Maybe I will try again as she was a big fan of the work.

My perspective really comes from a background in Security as opposed to Intelligence. Security is at it’s most effectiveness when nothing is happening. And that becomes a big problem. People (managers) see a big drain of money going into a hole because security never makes money. So, you don’t really see how successful ‘nothing happening’ is until you start to draw down security assets. As bad things begin to occur, only then do you see the value of not understanding something good until it’s gone.

The Chinese Missle crisis at Los Alamos; IMO, is a fine example. So, just because nothing happened didn’t mean something was prevented from happening.

My daughter is a big fan of this book. Maybe my headspace was just not in the right place at the time, but I couldn’t get into the book. Maybe I will try again as she was a big fan of the work.

It’s much like remote viewing, you have to suspend (re-orient?) your belief system to enjoy it.

I think we could learn much from Doug Adams.

My perspective really comes from a background in Security as opposed to Intelligence. Security is at it’s most effectiveness when nothing is happening. And that becomes a big problem. People (managers) see a big drain of money going into a hole because security never makes money. So, you don’t really see how successful ‘nothing happening’ is until you start to draw down security assets. As bad things begin to occur, only then do you see the value of not understanding something good until it’s gone.

The Chinese Missle crisis at Los Alamos; IMO, is a fine example. So, just because nothing happened didn’t mean something was prevented from happening.

Ahhh; Mordred, the preventer of information! ;)