Real Vs. Fictional Events

It looks to me as though HRVG has already RV’ed a widely believed fiction and produced data consistent with mass public belief. It was the flight 77 target. The results included analysis that said the White House was the intended target. The link below gives a CBS report that shows that the White House was not the target. There are many other pieces of info pointing to the same thing. Also just a bit of simple reasoning reveals that the Pentagon must have been the intended target, because someone VERY high up had to order all of the Pentagon’s air defenses to be turned off!

There are at least two very sophisticated air defense systems on at the Pentagon that are on 24-7. Whoever turned the defense systems off was part of the attack. In addition, there appears to be mounting evidence that it was not a jumbo jet that hit the Pentagon. The hole simply is not big enough. Just look at the video footage of the jet that hit the second twin tower. The hole is the full size of the wingspan. The bottom line seems to be that sometimes RVer’s can pickup on widely believed fiction.

I recently tasked a very interesting target to the guild. It involved a rather fantastic event described on an internet website. I wondered, "Did this really happen?"

Using the description of the alleged event I cued the target and gave it to guild viewers to work blind. This data will soon be published in a fascinating and probably controversial presentation.

The question is: If you task remote viewers with an event that never happened, what kind of data will they give you? If the event did not occur, would the remote viewers produce nonsensical and disjointed data? (We believe this to be true.) If they gave solid and corroborated data describing the alleged event does that mean it did in fact take place?

This project was done under strict conditions. The viewers were all blind to the target. Analysis was conducted, with the analyst blind to the target. When it is published we will produce full sessions along with step by step analysis. Corroborated data will be illustrated.

For me this project was extremely interesting, and a little bit frightening.

Aloha,

Dick

>

Aloha,

I believe the dynamics of an airliner impacting the lightweight steel and glass superstructure of the Trade Center are a bit different than impacting the granite walls of the Pentagon. It would affect the penetration aperture significantly. Why would anyone try to make a case that it wasn’t an airliner that struck the Pentagon?

GBW

Not meaning to give rise to any conspiracy theories here (or butt in), but the majority of the UK population do not believe that the Lady Diana death was an accident; in fact current events are still pushing for an inquiry through the Scottish legal system.

It would appear that mass belief and logic do not necessarily hold together…as we have seen from recent events in Iraq.

Steve

Aloha,

I believe the dynamics of an airliner impacting the lightweight steel and glass superstructure of the Trade Center are a bit different than impacting the granite walls of the Pentagon. It would affect the penetration aperture significantly. Why would anyone try to make a case that it wasn’t an airliner that struck the Pentagon?

GBW

It looks to me as though HRVG has already RV’ed a widely believed fiction and produced data consistent with mass public belief. It was the flight 77 target.

George,

What has HRVG published on Flight 77? I know there is a lot of material on this website- and maybe I missed something, but I don’t recall any analysis or presentation being published on that incident.

What exactly are you saying we did? Point me to the data you feel is consistent with your theory.

Dick

I’m looking foreward to your data. I personally believe that fictional events and objects can be and are RVed regularly as in Hale-Bopp and Cosmic Voyage and the various Mars and moon sessions revealing human slaves and sentient machines.

It sounds though that your target has no verifiable feedback.

For me this project was extremely interesting, and a little bit frightening.

Why is that Dick? did you find out that even fictional senarios will bleed through as if real? I think that’s akin to TO. It will be interesting to see the sessions and analysis. It would be great to do more studies along this line.

Shelia

The bottom line seems to be that sometimes RVer’s can pickup on widely believed fiction.

And I’ve seen not even ‘widely believed’ fiction picked up by several viewers and reported with very similar accounts.

Shelia

It might be more useful to research targets that are 100% known to be untrue like the tooth fairy for example. I haven’t read the internet story we are currently discussing, but even if it’s way out there, it might be based partially on facts which could muddy the research waters.

-E

Why is that Dick? did you find out that even fictional senarios will bleed through as if real? I think that’s akin to TO. It will be interesting to see the sessions and analysis. It would be great to do more studies along this line.

Shelia

And I’ve seen not even ‘widely believed’ fiction picked up by several viewers and reported with very similar accounts.

Shelia

Hi Shelia,

You assert this, but can you document it?

Can you show us publication of this? Was the work done blind? Was analysis conducted? Are the raw sessions available to be examined? Was there a proper "chain of custody" to verify the work?

In the presention I will publish the work was all done blind. Analysis was performed under blind protocol with documentation. WItnesses can verify the chain of custody of this work. But here is where we differ: WE ARE GOING TO PUBLISH THE RAW SESSIONS, ALONG WITH THE ANALYSIS, AS WELL AS CORROBORATED IMAGES FROM THE SESSIONS.

I’ll show you mine. Can you show me yours?

Aloha,

Dick

Why is that Dick? did you find out that even fictional senarios will bleed through as if real? I think that’s akin to TO. It will be interesting to see the sessions and analysis. It would be great to do more studies along this line.

Shelia

Hi Shelia,

I was intentionally vague when I made the original post. Because of this (my fault) people seem to have assumed the presentation is different than what it really is.

Let me clarify. This is not about proving remote viewers can perceive fictional events. It is about showing data to support a rather "far out" scenario, an event some may doubt but which remote viewing seems to verify.

There was an article published about a secret bombing mission during the first Gulf War- 1991. The published "details" of the mission are a bit disturbing. I wondered if the mission in fact occurred, so I tasked it as a target to HRVG viewers.

If this were a fabrication we would expect the data to be nonsensical, all over the place- viewers producing all manner of disjointed data that had no coherent theme or corroboration. ( I have seen this in other publications by other organizations on questionable target cues.) A targeteer’s belief or erroneous assumption is not strong enough to create a meaningful resonace in the collective. (If you disagree, then by all means publish something to prove your belief. By the way you mentioned Telepathic Overlay. This does not exist and no one has ever presented a shred of evidence to support it.)

What was frightening to me was that the viewers produced corroborated data that described the mission as written in the article. Two viewers produced IDENTICAL S-3 SITE SKETCHES that describe the event perfectly. The odds of this happening by coincidence would be incalculable.

You’ll see when it is published. I had better get to work. All the data is here- I just need to assemble it into a coherent format.

Aloha

Dick

This is what is coming:

It’s been at least 8 months since I saw the published results. I simply remember that re 911 one of the conclusions from the analysis was that the White House was the intended target and not the Pentagon. That surprised me and thus I remembered it. I thought I’d find it on the targets page, but I did not find it there.

George, What has HRVG published on Flight 77? I know there is a lot of material on this website- and maybe I missed something, but I don’t recall any analysis or presentation being published on that incident.

What exactly are you saying we did? Point me to the data you feel is consistent with your theory.

Dick

Interesting point regarding steel vs. granite walls. Even with a drastic difference in the two crash dynamics there are still many remaining big holes in the official story.

The short answer is: I heard it said “The truth will set us free.” To be a bit more specific. The official story for forty years now is “Oswald killed Kennedy.” It takes only a little open-minded research to reveal that, that statement is not only untrue, it’s a blatant lie. There appears to be many more official lies. Saddam’s WMDs and the Pentagon “crash” appear to be excellent candidates as more lies. The official stories are full of holes.

For example, my reasoning tells me that the Pentagon needs to be protected against all kinds of things including cruise missiles. That means that there must be an automated system to protect it from an air attack. You can’t take a chance that a soldier will blink and sneeze at the wrong time. It also seems very likely that there are several independent systems so that one can be down for maintenance. A quick search on the Internet seems to confirm my reasoning. That indicates that someone had to have ordered those systems to be shut down. If I understand correctly it would be treason to order those systems shut down during an attack. Why have we not heard of this? Why is there no investigation about this? Do you see what I mean? There are a lot more holes in the official story. And that makes it “fertile ground” for searching for the hidden truth.

Aloha,

I believe the dynamics of an airliner impacting the lightweight steel and glass superstructure of the Trade Center are a bit different than impacting the granite walls of the Pentagon. It would affect the penetration aperture significantly. Why would anyone try to make a case that it wasn’t an airliner that struck the Pentagon?

GBW

Hi Shelia,

I was intentionally vague when I made the original post. Because of this (my fault) people seem to have assumed the presentation is different than what it really is.

Let me clarify. This is not about proving remote viewers can perceive fictional events. It is about showing data to support a rather "far out" scenario, an event some may doubt but which remote viewing seems to verify.

There was an article published about a secret bombing mission during the first Gulf War- 1991. The published "details" of the mission are a bit disturbing. I wondered if the mission in fact occurred, so I tasked it as a target to HRVG viewers.

If this were a fabrication we would expect the data to be nonsensical, all over the place- viewers producing all manner of disjointed data that had no coherent theme or corroboration. ( I have seen this in other publications by other organizations on questionable target cues.) A targeteer’s belief or erroneous assumption is not strong enough to create a meaningful resonace in the collective. (If you disagree, then by all means publish something to prove your belief. By the way you mentioned Telepathic Overlay. This does not exist and no one has ever presented a shred of evidence to support it.)

What was frightening to me was that the viewers produced corroborated data that described the mission as written in the article. Two viewers produced IDENTICAL S-3 SITE SKETCHES that describe the event perfectly. The odds of this happening by coincidence would be incalculable.

You’ll see when it is published. I had better get to work. All the data is here- I just need to assemble it into a coherent format.

Aloha

Dick

Aloha Dick-

It is scary if viewers all pick up same data in S3

to an event that never ocurred? Then what is the target? Could it be the thought of the event?
You can use a visual of anything (phototimeline etc.)
for a target…it doesn’t have to exist…what about
that composite over a year ago of the shark which wasn’t there as one photo but sveral to present
a current event we found to be false but viewer
got the gestalts as ‘there’.

Let’s see the results…the data.

Johnm

Hi George

It was target A3N1-A1B6 …Click the "Sessions" button… Choose "Special (out of class)"…it’s the 6th from the bottom. The target was Flight 93 (not 77) and the viewer had the capitol as the nitended target (not the White House).

Kathy

It’s been at least 8 months since I saw the published results. I simply remember that re 911 one of the conclusions from the analysis was that the White House was the intended target and not the Pentagon. That surprised me and thus I remembered it. I thought I’d find it on the targets page, but I did not find it there.

Ooops! I hit the send button too soon… I meant to add that viewer perceived during her session that the capitol was the intended target … that did not come from analysis. i.e. that was one viewer’s data, that wasn’t a conclusion derived from analyzing multiple viewer’s sessions. There’s quite a big difference between the two :-)

Kathy

… I simply remember that re 911 one of the conclusions from the analysis was that the White House was the intended target and not the Pentagon.

Thanks, my mistake.

Ooops! I hit the send button too soon… I meant to add that viewer perceived during her session that the capitol was the intended target … that did not come from analysis. i.e. that was one viewer’s data, that wasn’t a conclusion derived from analyzing multiple viewer’s sessions. There’s quite a big difference between the two :-)

Kathy

Hi John,

It is scary if viewers all pick up same data in S3 to an event that never ocurred?

I have never seen multiple viewers corroborate a false target.

What was frightening to me was the data that indicates the event DID take place.

Let’s see the results…the data.

I’m working on the presentation. The analyst left town for the holidays and needs to redo a few items.

Aloha

Dick

Unfortunately, you don’t know the validity of the story in the first place. You can’t say that the data validates the story and then that the story validates the data and theory. That’s circular reasoning. Perhaps you would be so kind as to publish the data on some stories already known to be 100% false so that we could see what happened in a more controlled situation.

-E

Hi John,

I have never seen multiple viewers corroborate a false target. What was frightening to me was the data that indicates the event DID take place.

I’m working on the presentation. The analyst left town for the holidays and needs to redo a few items.

Aloha

Dick

Hi Shelia,

You assert this, but can you document it?

No I can’t — and I didn’t claim I could. The sessions in question were worked blind, without frontloading, and with no one present who knew what the target was. In fact, the tasker could not have know the outcome. The tasker did, however, have their own idea of what the outcome would be — and the sessions reflected the tasker’s belief which was proved Wrong.

Can you show us publication of this?

Dick, I’m not challenging you — I made a simple statement of fact — i.e., that I had seen it happen. It doesn’t ‘prove’ anything in the scientific sense. But it sure made it clear to me that TO is.

Shelia

John writes:

It is scary if viewers all pick up same data in S3 to an event that never ocurred? Then what is the target? Could it be the thought of the event?

William Blake said:

"Everything possible to be believed is an image of truth."

?!?1?!?!

Joanie