Thanks again Glenn, for teaching the real thing

Glenn…

I want to get it exactly correct.
The gestalt is there- Human seeking cover behind barricade peeking out at whirling energy.

But I drew a man. And a wall. The target photo shows a woman and child behind what seems to be poles, or freeway supports. Could there have been a man nearby?

I want to get it exactly correct. Is that too much to ask, or do we have to settle for pretty close?

When I took HUMANS to blackboard I did get an image of a person crouching behind barrier of some kind, with an energetic disturbance in the distance. It was a visual event, not a concept. The thought of tornado never came to mind. I felt it might be someone witnessing a weapons test or explosion of some kind.

Damn… so close.

Glenn,

While you’re answering that question about getting it exactly right, answer this one. I’ve had some people get on my informational remote viewing page and remark about David Morehouse’s book, Psychic Warrior. So I bought it and got through about 12 pages before I put it down. What’s the story on the descriptions of flying through space and walking around a remote landscape and all the rest of that stuff? What’s the story with David Morehouse?

Craig

Craig…

remember law one. If any sensory data can be obtained via remote viewing then all sensory data can be obtained. With focus and clarity you can fly thru the target and walk around at target. That’s what we’re all spending so much time and effort on. :-)

David Morehouse was remote VIEWING. h

Hi Craig,

I am not answering for Glenn, by the way. I just wanted to give you my take on what Moorehouse was doing, and will wait for a pro to give you a solid answer. I read the book about a year ago and from what I remember, he was hooked up to an EEG and an EMG among others. When his body voltage reversed, as was read by the EMG, he was ready to ‘go’ to the target. I believe he was going out-of-body to the target, and I think this is called ERV (Extended Remote Viewing). I remember him saying he was accelerated through a tunnel to get to the targets. I even remember that at one point he went right through a large tree at high speed and said it felt like a wisp of air against his face when he passed through it. When he first started, he remarked that trying to stop his body at the target was like trying to stop a freight train. All these ‘at the target’ sensations led me to believe he was out-of-body or at least bilocated (also called Perfect Site Integration or PSI as coined by Ingo Swann). Anyway, I wanted to take a shot at answering your question. See ya. Rich B.

Glenn,

While you’re answering that question about getting it exactly right, answer this one. I’ve had some people get on my informational remote viewing page and remark about David Morehouse’s book, Psychic Warrior. So I bought it and got through about 12 pages before I put it down. What’s the story on the descriptions of flying through space and walking around a remote landscape and all the rest of that stuff? What’s the story with David Morehouse?

Craig

Aloha Craig,

I have read Maj Moorehouse’s book some time ago. I had also heard that it was said by Ed Dames that he in fact wrote the 1st draft for the book but after a falling out with Moorehouse he dis-associated himself and required any mention of his name to be removed from the book. Hmmmm But anyway on to the book.

It is my impression that the driving force behind the RV events in the book was Altered State RV or ERV. This is manifest as monitored RV while the viewer is in theta state. That little place between sleep and awake is an amazing place. If the Viewer has a controlled approach to target in theta then the target contact is experiential as being there. Not a concept or an idea about the target but a Target Environment with data presented and collected from experiential awareness.
ERV requires that you have discipline and control while maintaining the thread of contact with the target. This is a true duplicity of consciousness. Some Viewers cannot achieve this level of target awareness, some can. But you will never know unless you train and test. RV always requires you to be more than you are.

Aloha Glenn

Dick, the photographer of this picture is a man and he was close by..so you probably picked up on him….

Remember, we don’t remote view the photograph but the event…and the event here was a man taking a picture of a tornado….as well as a woman and child taking cover beneath a freeway overpass…soooooo..IT IS RIGHT! Good work, Zoltan! Aloha, Mana

Remember, we don’t remote view the photograph but the event…and the event here was a man taking a picture of a tornado….

I recall one of the first HRVG targets I worked was one of Valtra’s homework cues. It wound up being the Apollo Lunar Lander that took Neil Armstrong et al to the surface of the moon. In the feedback photo, one of the astronauts is standing beside the lander (I’m working from imperfect memories here, sorry if this is a bit innaccurate)…

but in my data there were, I think, two people. One of whom was at the end of a long "line" leading off from the main object (lander). Only later did I realize that in all likelyhood there WAS such a man… the cameraman, with the cable for his video camera leading back to the lander.

That said, I usually DON’T get the photographer. :-)

And hopefully, all my sessions don’t now start off with "there’s this guy with a camera…" LOL.

-John

Aloha Glenn,

Thanks to you and the others. Foremost among the things I have learned about remote viewing in the past year and a half is that it has great richness and variety. Different people access it in different ways, and the results cut across the spectrum of human experience and sense.

I am coming to understand why. The physical world is impersonal. Psychic activity and remote viewing are in the non-physical realm–it is personal. We interact with the personal realm; we influence it and are influenced by it. We ask personal questions, "What is this?" "What are the sounds?" "Is there life in this scene?" The personal realm answers, in a variety of sensory and perceptual forms.

Our intention is a personal interaction with the personal realm. It knows . . . it knows our intention and our questions. And just as a person can respond in a variety of ways, the personal universe responds to us variously. All of the ways we can "know" are open to us in the personal universe. We can "see," "touch," "hear," "taste," "smell," be moved to feeling, and feel kinesthetic sensations. That is because the personal universe is interacting with us personally. It responds warmly and affectionately, at times in ways we can’t predict. If we also believe in a Higher Power and Higher Self, then we can expect that even those unpredictable ways have intention.

I am coming to believe that every rv session, even those that seem far off, results in data related to something–perhaps the target, perhaps not–but it is a valid interaction with the personal universe.

The physical world has laws of physics that provide relative predictability. The personal world is less predictable, just as a person is less predictable. I see many in the rv community trying to explain the non-physical world using physical terms, but the non-physical world defies the explanations. It will tell us storeies about what we are asking, but in ways that are meaningful to us at deeper or higher levels, across the space and time continua and across the range of human experience.

You wrote on the Remote Perception site, "RV is being channeled to become a perceptive based collection platform and is being lead away from the development of viewers who obtain experiential awareness and deep contact with the target. They don’t want you to be able to generate the ability to REPLAY the target spectrum where you have good awareness or direct knowledge of the target." I believe you are right. We need to open ourselves to the non-physical, personal universe and let it teach us . . . anything, everything.

Aloha Craig,

Wise words somehow seem to fit together. And you have made a large number of very wise words fit together quite nicely. I think in the last year and a half you have become more than you were.

Aloha Glenn

Craig,

But a lot of the original RV’ers are big on saying that remote viewing is not an OBE! So who is right?

Here we go again with taking new age mumbo jumbo and tieing it in with remote viewing, which is scientifically, statistically proven.

Where are the peer reviewed research papers on OBE?

Regards,

John

PS Forgive the apparent tone of my message. Email doesn’t not allow for a nice diplomatic discussion. Everything looks cold and hard.

Hi Craig,

I am not answering for Glenn, by the way. I just wanted to give you my take on what Moorehouse was doing, and will wait for a pro to give you a solid answer. I read the book about a year ago and from what I remember, he was hooked up to an EEG and an EMG among others. When his body voltage reversed, as was read by the EMG, he was ready to ‘go’ to the target. I believe he was going out-of-body to the target, and I think this is called ERV (Extended Remote Viewing). I remember him saying he was accelerated through a tunnel to get to the targets. I even remember that at one point he went right through a large tree at high speed and said it felt like a wisp of air against his face when he passed through it. When he first started, he remarked that trying to stop his body at the target was like trying to stop a freight train. All these ‘at the target’ sensations led me to believe he was out-of-body or at least bilocated (also called Perfect Site Integration or PSI as coined by Ingo Swann). Anyway, I wanted to take a shot at answering your question. See ya. Rich B.

Hello John,

I know you addressed your message to Craig, but since it’s a response to my message, I am assuming it was meant for me.

As far as the ‘tone’ of your message, no offense taken. Sometimes you feel like you have to put a smiley face after ‘thank you’.

There are several types of remote viewing and most types do not involve out-of-body travel. This is probably what you’re referring to when you talk about "a lot of the original remote viewers". There is however, definitely a portion of us that ‘goes’ to the target (a partial OOBE?) Who knows. I doubt whether anyone knows precisely how or why any type of RVing works for that matter. But, on to your question about peer reviewed papers. Here are a few. There are more, but this will suffice for your question.

Morris, R.L., Harary, J. Janis, J. Hartwell, and W.G. Roll. 1978. "Studies of Communication during out-of-body experiences." Journal of the American Society of Psychical Research. 72, 1: 1-21

Gabbard, G.O., and S.W. Twemlow. 1984. With the eyes of the mind: An empirical analysis of out-of-body states. New York: Praegar.

Now, please provide the peer reviewed references that "scientifically, statistically" prove remote viewing (as you described).

Thank you:):) Craig,

But a lot of the original RV’ers are big on saying that remote viewing is not an OBE! So who is right?

Here we go again with taking new age mumbo jumbo and tieing it in with remote viewing, which is scientifically, statistically proven.

Where are the peer reviewed research papers on OBE?

Regards,

John

PS Forgive the apparent tone of my message. Email doesn’t not allow for a nice diplomatic discussion. Everything looks cold and hard.

Thanks for responding.

I’m puzzled by your request, but here is the one web site I can immediately come up with that lists some of the more recent literature.

http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts

jt

Hello John,

I know you addressed your message to Craig, but since it’s a response to my message, I am assuming it was meant for me.

As far as the ‘tone’ of your message, no offense taken. Sometimes you feel like you have to put a smiley face after ‘thank you’.

There are several types of remote viewing and most types do not involve out-of-body travel. This is probably what you’re referring to when you talk about "a lot of the original remote viewers". There is however, definitely a portion of us that ‘goes’ to the target (a partial OOBE?) Who knows. I doubt whether anyone knows precisely how or why any type of RVing works for that matter. But, on to your question about peer reviewed papers. Here are a few. There are more, but this will suffice for your question.

Morris, R.L., Harary, J. Janis, J. Hartwell, and W.G. Roll. 1978. "Studies of Communication during out-of-body experiences." Journal of the American Society of Psychical Research. 72, 1: 1-21

Gabbard, G.O., and S.W. Twemlow. 1984. With the eyes of the mind: An empirical analysis of out-of-body states. New York: Praegar.

Now, please provide the peer reviewed references that "scientifically, statistically" prove remote viewing (as you described).

Thank you:):)