Note to Cecil from the TC

Jimmy:

I know what you’re trying to get across to Cecil, but it just isn’t going to work. He has convinced himself that the HRVG is a fraudulent organization that makes use of every trick available to deceive the public.

I also understand the rules disallowing him the chance to set up his own targets. You can’t have non-guild people setting up targets who have no idea how to properly cue them, or who have no accountability to the Guild. This was very aptly demonstrated to me several weeks ago when I let Cecil privately cue me for a few "blind" targets. I made very clear in advance what I expected of the cuing, and of the nature of the targets. Cecil agreed. When the feedback came, they were poorly cued, and the images themselves were of a sort that no RVer would consider to be ideal for such a demonstration. Cecil even mentioned to me in retrospect that one of the targets might have been edited… that it was hard to tell with images like that whether they really were genuine photos or just computer-modified stuff.

Of the targets I did, I think I recall that a couple were pretty dismal (RV-wise) but that one had some pretty congruent data. Cecil’s initial assessment of that session was that it was largely a miss. I had to argue each bit of data before I finally got grudging confirmation that some of it "could be OK".

His lack of understanding of the targetting process was further demonstrated when he suggested his next set of demo sessions for me to do… apparently, I was to try to RV his garden, and over a period of weeks identify the growth patters, etc. in various quadrants of the plot. I simply explained that no beginning RVer in their right mind would take on such a project, and declined.

Cecil, I know you’re reading this, and I reckon you’ll be steamed at my saying all this, but I am frankly tired of this tossing around target ID’s and demanding that people work them to convince you. You won’t be convinced by any amount of data unless you yourself hold all the cards (and believe me, I can understand the sentiment), yet you have no idea how to properly cue targets. I honestly don’t know this will ever be resolved for you… and I’m beginning to wonder why you care so much.

Back to what I was trying to say to Jimmy… Your suggestion to Cecil that he "just mail in his targets" is obviously going to be met with hysterical laughter at his end. Why would he trust HRVG to administer his target if he believes the guild to be con-artists?

Cecil is not going to be convinced. HRVG needs to stop wasting its time and bandwidth debating him. I logged on this evening to take a peek at the bulletin board, and it was completely dominated by Cecil-chat, and very little about plain old RV.

Respectfully,

-John

First of all Jimmy… what a great post. You haven’t been that active on the BB, but you really summed up this issue eloquently. We really do appreciate your work getting the targeting issues under control. Folks I can vouch for Jimmy’s pitbull like attitude toward making sure the chain of custody and protocols are clean as a whistle. When targets are posted on our site, there was no way the viewer could have gotten the data other than via remote viewing. Thank you Jimmy. (Jimmy is also one of the nicest people in the Guild.)

John.. you are right too. We had an intersting thread going there. (Physics 101) Let’s try to shine some light on things instead of bickering.

I’m the one who commented on Cecil’s spelling and sentence structure, and that was wrong. I apologize to you Cecil for that. We should debate substance, not make personal attacks. However, the targeteer is the person who makes the road map to the target for the viewer. Viewers put a lot of time and effort into learning remote viewing, and we all want some assurance of quality- both in the target itself and the pathway in the collective that must be created with clarity, precision, and intent by the targeteer.

John,

I’m a little confused by "cuing" and the "images of a poor quality".

I am a novice and brand new to this site, but I was under the impression that a judge could randomly pick a target from a pool of let’s say 10,000 photo stock images, assign it a target code, and then email me the target code indicating to me that I should now remote view the photo associated with the target code.

Is that not what HRVG does? It would seem to me that the judge should have minimal involvement with the targets other than to assure that the photos are all unique and of a good professional quality, and to randomly pick one and assign a target code to it.

Point me in the direction of the FAQ if that’s where I’ll find my answer.

Thanks,

John

Jimmy: I know what you’re trying to get across to Cecil, but it just isn’t going to work. He has convinced himself that the HRVG is a fraudulent organization that makes use of every trick available to deceive the public.

I also understand the rules disallowing him the chance to set up his own targets. You can’t have non-guild people setting up targets who have no idea how to properly cue them, or who have no accountability to the Guild. This was very aptly demonstrated to me several weeks ago when I let Cecil privately cue me for a few "blind" targets. I made very clear in advance what I expected of the cuing, and of the nature of the targets. Cecil agreed. When the feedback came, they were poorly cued, and the images themselves were of a sort that no RVer would consider to be ideal for such a demonstration. Cecil even mentioned to me in retrospect that one of the targets might have been edited… that it was hard to tell with images like that whether they really were genuine photos or just computer-modified stuff.

Of the targets I did, I think I recall that a couple were pretty dismal (RV-wise) but that one had some pretty congruent data. Cecil’s initial assessment of that session was that it was largely a miss. I had to argue each bit of data before I finally got grudging confirmation that some of it "could be OK".

His lack of understanding of the targetting process was further demonstrated when he suggested his next set of demo sessions for me to do… apparently, I was to try to RV his garden, and over a period of weeks identify the growth patters, etc. in various quadrants of the plot. I simply explained that no beginning RVer in their right mind would take on such a project, and declined.

Cecil, I know you’re reading this, and I reckon you’ll be steamed at my saying all this, but I am frankly tired of this tossing around target ID’s and demanding that people work them to convince you. You won’t be convinced by any amount of data unless you yourself hold all the cards (and believe me, I can understand the sentiment), yet you have no idea how to properly cue targets. I honestly don’t know this will ever be resolved for you… and I’m beginning to wonder why you care so much.

Back to what I was trying to say to Jimmy… Your suggestion to Cecil that he "just mail in his targets" is obviously going to be met with hysterical laughter at his end. Why would he trust HRVG to administer his target if he believes the guild to be con-artists?

Cecil is not going to be convinced. HRVG needs to stop wasting its time and bandwidth debating him. I logged on this evening to take a peek at the bulletin board, and it was completely dominated by Cecil-chat, and very little about plain old RV.

Respectfully, -John

Hi John:

I’m not an actual bona-fide HRVG member, but I’ll take a stab at answering this since it was my ravings that prompted the question. :-)

You’ll notice that on the "targets" page where past (and present) homework targets are listed, and go "into" one, you’ll notice a very particular line of textual cuing accompanying it. It isn’t ABSOLUTELY necessary (I sometimes don’t use one, myself), but it focuses the viewer on certain aspects of the target, and hopefully filters the types of info you receive.

As far as poor quality… A good target would be, for example, a group of people outside the Taj Mahal, or something else with readily identifiable features. A bad target (for beginniners, as most of us are on this board) would be… as was the case in my above message, the contents of a garden.

I’ve gotta run to work, but if you want more clafification, drop another note and I’ll reply in more detail.

-John C

I’m a little confused by "cuing" and the "images of a poor quality".

Cecil,

Its an amazing universe. Take your brain out of the box, dust it off, get out of the house, and look around.

Aloha Jimmy,

You are a critical link in our system. Without controls there is no management. The target pool integrity is the foundation for the ability to trust that the information going to the analyst is RV data and not data derived by other means.

You do a great job and sometimes I am sure you get saddled with the Grinch of the Guild title. You bring order to the chaos and form to the reason.

Thanks Jimmy.

Aloha Glenn

Hi John,
We’re not remote viewing the photo. We are remote viewing the thing depicted in the photo. The photo is simply evidence of the target location, used to reinforce the cue. (You don’t need a photo. You can write a cue that doesn’t involve a photograph.)

An example of a bad image used as a remote viewing target. Someone once clipped an image from a magazine of a person on a windsurfer in a field of wheat. (This was an ad for hay fever medicine.) There was never a windsurfer in a field. It was a composite, created in a computer.

Aloha

Dick

I am glad that you open the door for me to respond John,I hope you kept all your e-mails to me and mine to you, because I’m going to post a few and let the others judge if every-thing transpired as you said, for openers here is your first response to me after you told me to cue up some targets if I wished and you would work them,show me where you gave instructions in regards to how you wanted them cued.

Cecil:

Thanks for your note. I’m the first to say that periodically I have doubts myself. What sane person wouldn’t have doubts about this kind of thing? :-)
May RVers are, I think, somewhat insecure about their abilities. The RV "game" is, after all a somtimes-good-data-sometimes-bad-data proposition. Every honest practicioner of RV I’ve ever talked to has admitted this. The "amazing" part is that, when the viewer is "on", the data can be spectacular, and (I’m convinced) well beyond the realm of "statistical flukes". Still, even the Great Joe McMoneagle has lots of misses. I know you know all this, I just want to make sure you’re not putting too much stock in my results if I’m "off".

I’d happy to work some targets for you, although you might need to allow me a bit of time, as the next several days are going to be quite hectic at this end. You’ve been around RV long enough to know how to cue a target… and I’m not entirely convinced that the exact phrasing of the cue is as all-important as they say, anyhow.

I’ll wait to hear from you.

Regards,

-John

Of course I’m gonna follow up with our comments to each other when you done the targets, but I got a feeling they will not be posted here long before I’m bannished, but you opened the door and didn’t quiet tell it like it happened.

My first target to you was from a sports group that showed a hanglider,I cued it as describe the activity, after your work I made the comment that this picture I had no control over its source or if it was a computer enhanced photo or not.

The second target I sent you was a winter scene from a callendar that I made with my photo express program from a picture I took in Idaho,I cued it as describe the season.
The third target was a stars and stripe photo of three soldiers discussing a recon mission ,two of the soldiers were two of the three who were captured by Serbs this picture was taken just minutes prior to them going on recon when they were captured. I cued it as describe who’s present.
After receiving your data ,I responded that I seen a couple of things that I caught immediately, you responded that also there were some other points that you seen also, I responded with the following e-mail to you,I don’t think I was very begrudging at all,in fact thought I was being very open and honest to you,guess I was wrong , no wonder you decided to quit even trying if you felt this way.
John:
I to thought there were other points also and agree that all you mentioned could be argued for,would I consider it a hit,not really but there was data that could be argued as such by many groups.Well it wasn’t a wasted effort in my opinion and hope you felt the same way, I will slip you a target every now and then just to see what happens,I also have a few others who I also do this with but so far they have ask to keep it confidental and I have the same agreement with them as I made to you ,you can take the data and use it anyway you want its your work and belongs to you.
In ending what I gathered from all three exercises was that the first two were not what I would consider even worth mentioning but they also in my opinion were simple but not the type of targets that I think are what should be used for the learning ,they can be contaiminated to easy and in fact could have been not real in their makeup especially the hangglider. The third one had some possibilities but I felt that since it was more of a pure target in the sense that it was very recent and was taken straight from the source and should still have things being being registared that more information would have been hit on.
Well thanks again John I appreciated your work.
Cecil aka Capt. Nimo/Blue Angel

TO: Jim thanks but no thanks on me sending targets to HRVG under those conditions as mentioned at the present time, but I will possibly do so at a later date, on the three that I sent John give me an idea as to why the cueing wouldn’t be acceptable so that when I do they won’t get returned, I cued all three very similar to the same type of cueing done by some others who had no problem with the cueing,thats why I’m interested in your input.

Pleaase excuse my spelling and grammer when I do prepare submissions of targets to the guild I will then be able to use my spell check(I currently let my grandkids use this system for school work and won’t let them use the speel ck they are required to look it up)school will soon be out for the summer.

Hi Cecil,

again I want to apologize for the personal attack on your sentence structure and spelling. I hope we can put that behind us.

The targets you selected for John seem to be good, legimate targets for remote viewing.

It helps if you know something about the scene or location. What it is? Where it is. And the date. If you don’t know the date, you can cue it to "photographic timeline." (That means the viewer will go to the location at the time the photo was snapped.)

The hanglider cue would be like this:

HANGLIDER / LOCATION / PHOTOGRAPHIC TIMELINE

The scene in Idaho… what was in the shot? If it was say a mountain your cue would be:

SAWTOOTH MOUNTAINS/ IDAHO / PHOTOGRAPHIC TIMELINE

and the serb soldiers:

SERB SOLDIERS / YUGOSLAVIA / DATE

You have to affix the target ID to the photo, and then speak it outloud. "This target is ABCD-EFGH. This is the Sawtooth Mountains, in Idaho, photographic timeline."

That should work.

Aloha

Dick

Thanks for the information Dick,in the future I will remember to use such structure if I submit targets to the guild.

Cecil:

I think, looking back over my original post to you, that I got somewhat carried away. It was 3:30am local time, and I was tired. This isn’t an excuse, but there it is. I saw the whole ongoing argument and dove in without thinking too clearly. I am sorry if I offended you.

The matter of the targeting cues is a point I would like to pick up on. Dick listed examples of what would typically be considered "good" cuing. The targets that you set up for me were cued very differently. I can’t put my hand on them now, but I think typically they were short statements like "Describe the Pictured Activity" superimposed on top of the feedback photo. The e-mail you quoted back to me where I discount the importance of the cuing line represents my opinion at the time, but that view has changed significantly. I do think this is a critical issue, even though I AM sometimes able to work with less well-defined cuing.

You were very right to note that the first two targets were essentially "misses" for me. The third one had a lot of congruent data, and we disagreed for I think a couple rounds of e-mailing as to how much of it there was.

Your own e-mail describes the possibility of the some targets being a computer-generated (or modified) images, since you couldn’t confirm the original source.

The garden targets were a whole other thing. Describing the variances in yield & quality in various quadrants of a garden via RV is a tall order… and one that I don’t think any newbie (or maybe even any experienced viewer) would be up to, particularly for a skeptic.

Anyway, that’s all I wanted to cover. Again, I apologize for jumping down your throat.

-John

Hi Cecil, again I want to apologize for the personal attack on your sentence structure and spelling. I hope we can put that behind us.

The targets you selected for John seem to be good, legimate targets for remote viewing.

It helps if you know something about the scene or location. What it is? Where it is. And the date. If you don’t know the date, you can cue it to "photographic timeline." (That means the viewer will go to the location at the time the photo was snapped.)

The hanglider cue would be like this:

HANGLIDER / LOCATION / PHOTOGRAPHIC TIMELINE

The scene in Idaho… what was in the shot? If it was say a mountain your cue would be:

SAWTOOTH MOUNTAINS/ IDAHO / PHOTOGRAPHIC TIMELINE

and the serb soldiers:

SERB SOLDIERS / YUGOSLAVIA / DATE

You have to affix the target ID to the photo, and then speak it outloud. "This target is ABCD-EFGH. This is the Sawtooth Mountains, in Idaho, photographic timeline."

That should work.

Aloha Dick