The elusive document. Comments please.

Hi John, I would be surprised if anyone DIDN’T know about this document. It has been up for browsing for quite some time now and if I remember correctly pissed Psi-Tech off for some reason. But then, pretty much anything will piss them off. If it is the original manual or not, I think you may have to ask the people who were in the Fort Meade program (Paul Smith, Lyn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle, Mel Riley etc. etc.) Glenn is not teaching the CRV protocols since he was trained in another set of protocols developed and used independently of the program at Fort Meade.

I’ll let someone more qualified discuss the ASA, INSCOM, SF connection to RV, since I would probably make a jumbled mess out of it.

Aloha,

Jim

Hi folks!

I can’t imagine that no one knows about this document, so I hope that no one here is going to get ticked that I’m providing this URL.

In the interest of determining whether this is the real deal here is the URL:

www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/core2.html

Would anyone care to comment on whether this is the real deal?

So as not to clutter up the forum with thank you’s for my question about coming to Hawaii, thank you Glenn, Dick,Rich. Thanks Lucid for the URL.

Regards,

John

>

Hi John, I would be surprised if anyone DIDN’T know about this document. It has been up for browsing for quite some time now and if I remember correctly pissed Psi-Tech off for some reason. But then, pretty much anything will piss them off. If it is the original manual or not, I think you may have to ask the people who were in the Fort Meade program (Paul Smith, Lyn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle, Mel Riley etc. etc.) Glenn is not teaching the CRV protocols since he was trained in another set of protocols developed and used independently of the program at Fort Meade.

I’ll let someone more qualified discuss the ASA, INSCOM, SF connection to RV, since I would probably make a jumbled mess out of it.

Aloha, Jim Having undergone Psi-Tech’s TRV training program and recently becoming aware of the CRV Manual, I see comparitively little difference in the ‘2 methodoligies’. Given the facts of contention subsequent to it’s review for the public(and facts ARE important here)and in conjunction with my own ‘intuitis’, I’d say it’s the real Mcoy. There are just too many factors which have not come into play here to suspect fraud, malice or otherwise.

Oh boy, here we go.

OK, I’m getting confused. Would it be possible for a brief bio of Glenn indicating where or what his training was? There must be some info that would not violate any security issues.

Anyone care to comment, not on Glenn, but on the separate program?

This is all getting a little confusing as everyone is making all kinds of claims. I’ve read almost every book out there, and surfed to almost every web site out there on RV and this is the first I’ve heard of a separate independent program.

I take that back. Moorehouse mentions a separate program from Ft Mead that was involved in taking RV’ing to the next level, Remote influencing. Yes, I recall now, it was a very brief mention. Is this the separate program?

Confused in the Land of the Morning Calm,

John

Hi John, I would be surprised if anyone DIDN’T know about this document. It has been up for browsing for quite some time now and if I remember correctly pissed Psi-Tech off for some reason. But then, pretty much anything will piss them off. If it is the original manual or not, I think you may have to ask the people who were in the Fort Meade program (Paul Smith, Lyn Buchanan, Joe McMoneagle, Mel Riley etc. etc.) Glenn is not teaching the CRV protocols since he was trained in another set of protocols developed and used independently of the program at Fort Meade.

I’ll let someone more qualified discuss the ASA, INSCOM, SF connection to RV, since I would probably make a jumbled mess out of it.

Aloha, Jim

John:

That document was written by Paul Smith. Lyn Buchanan told me that the document itself, while a good overview of the method used, only comprises "about 1%" of what there is to know about RV.

It’s been described as "something to give to visiting senators & VIP’s so that they could go away thinking they understood what was going on in the program."

That said, I use the manual pretty much exclusively as my own template for doing RV, and have been doing so since sometime this past winter. It’s a big improvement on the "freeform" structure I was using before.

Regards,

-John Cook (the other John)

Hi folks!

I can’t imagine that no one knows about this document, so I hope that no one here is going to get ticked that I’m providing this URL.

In the interest of determining whether this is the real deal here is the URL:

www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/core2.html

Would anyone care to comment on whether this is the real deal?

So as not to clutter up the forum with thank you’s for my question about coming to Hawaii, thank you Glenn, Dick,Rich. Thanks Lucid for the URL.

Regards,

John

>

Glenn came out of a different program. The Fort Meade unit developed the CRV protocols, which are indeed posted at the Firedocs website.

When you read stories about David Morehouse, Mel Riley, Joe McMoneagle and others from that unit having full experiential bilocations, they were not getting there via CRV methodology. They were using altered state RV.

A viewer using CRV can give very accurate information about a target, without having any idea whatsoever just what the target is, because he never sees anything.

The NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) based protocols taught by Glenn were developed and used at US Army Special Forces Intelligence.

Both CRV and HRVG methods start in similar manners. You execute spontaneous ideograms, probe them for low level gestaltic data. (The difference is HRVG goes after visuals.) But in both methods it is understood that the viewer has only a 1-2 second window of target contact. The protocols keep the viewer’s conscious mind occupied doing busywork while communicating in 2 second bits and pieces with the sub.

CRV based protocols give you those little windows (no visuals) to obtain ideas and concepts and words about the target. Then the session is over.

In HRVG protocols after you have gone thru that 45 minutes of quick little bits, you then cool your primary awareness down, go into an altered state (high theta line) and with some gentle proding by the monitor, go to target. For some of us students it is a flickering black and white movie in a tunnel at this point. Some of us have had a pretty good full color OH MY GOD look at things… incredible clarity. It only lasts for seconds. Usually it is so damn startling that your primary awareness jolts out of it.

For Glenn and others using this method they can get a half hour or 45 minutes on target, seeing it all.

For those starting out I would compare it to learning to play piano. If you started out with no training in music… the amount of training, work and practice it would take to get to where you could sit down at a recital and play a fairly difficult piano concerto- that’s about the same effort you would have to put in to become a real remote viewer.

Aloha

Dick

Hi John,

I am familiar with the manual. It is used by Paul Smith who did most of the writing of it. It was used in the class I took from him.

This is not the manual I was asking about. I am asking about a source for the HRVG method manual. Since the process is de-classified it should be available.

Glenn occasionally talks about training at Ft Bragg. I suppose I could start there but if someone knows where this declassified material is, why not say so?

CRV based protocols give you those little windows (no visuals) to obtain ideas and concepts and words about the target. Then the session is over.

I’d disagree with this. The entire "stage three" portion of the CRV method involves visuals, and the sketching of visual impressions. Later stages even take this further, having the viewer use 3-d modelling with things like clay to represent what they are "seeing".

I also use visuals as the basis of the contents of the "tangibles" column in my "stage four" matrix.

-John

Are you talking about visuals as in "seeing things as though on a screen or actually being there" ?

Many RVers have used the terms "I saw" or "I heard" as though there were movie or picture like scenes and

actual audible sounds whereupon further discussion
reveals they were "sensing" or "perceiving" the data.

Here is a sketch from a session I did under controlled circumstances with 12 witnesses. I executed a protocol which involved closing my eyes and looking. This is what I saw.

In my 25 years as a professional journalist I’ve seen and heard a lot of BS.

When I first attended a lecture given by Glenn Wheaton I could tell he was the real deal. He invited whoever wanted to show up to come to a classroom and learn remote viewing.

He never (not for about 18 months) showed us any of his work, nor did he until fairly recently work a session in front of us. The Guild has always been driven by students proving for themselves that what Glenn says is true.

There is no written material. He stands up in class once a week and tells us protocols, which we write down in little spiral notebooks.

We go to his house for Sunday brunch each week, and from time to time he pulls out old photos, commendations, orders, awards, etc from his days as a Green Beret. (He was skinny and could kick the head off an NBA center with his right foot, with his left foot flat on the ground.) Once in a while he’ll tell a war story or two, but not much involving remote viewing.

We don’t grill him about who taught him what, when, or how. I’m sure he could write a hell of a book, but it’ll never happen.

Here is a sketch from a session I did under controlled circumstances with 12 witnesses. I executed a protocol which involved closing my eyes and looking. This is what I saw.

Yes, that’s great. That’s what you guys are learning.
Your work is impressive and that is why I am concerned about all of the "fully trained" people who remain anonymous and who are continuing to multiply with every training cycle.

I was questioning the CRV methods experience described by John.

By the way, a question occurred to me………

Suppose you are going to try to find Amelia Earhart’s plane…….Now, if she herself didn’t know where she crashed, what would be the source of the RV derived info? If you try to find someone who is lost, who doesn’t know where they are…..who or what provides the location data?

Rich

Hey, c’mon now.

I’m not talking about anyone putting out BS. I have supported what HRVG has done. But there are some loose ends that roughly parallel Ed Dames. Dames went public with his TRV before the info was declassified and admitted to… even though there were leaks to medea.

The parallels end abruptly.

Here we have a declassified methodology with no "home".

Many CRV and/or Stargate people were identified and came forth. Here there is only one and the inference is that the orginization is much larger than Stargate ever was.

I wasn’t implying that anyone else was putting out BS.. just that Glenn wasn’t. What I meant was he struck me as quite legitimate from the very first.

Aloha Rich,
The location data is present in the collective. Even if the individual does not know his/her location their subconscious knows the emf signature of the place they are at.

Meridians and latitudes have a signature. Pigeons fly by lines of detectable electomagnetic wave signatures. The don’t remember the barn or the tree they remember the place. They intuitivly know the direction home by these same lines of magnetic travel.

In the case of a missing/lost person/place/thing we use triangulation from fixed known locations to the unknown location. It is location by intersection with a computed area of probability. We can also use re-section from the site to fixed or known sites.

It is a rather complex exercise to quantify the data. An example was posted with the Ramirez skeds posted. Both Dick and Valtra published their loaction (HOUSTON AREA) information using this process.

Aloha Glenn

Hi folks!

I can’t imagine that no one knows about this document, so I hope that no one here is going to get ticked that I’m providing this URL.

In the interest of determining whether this is the real deal here is the URL:

www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/core2.html

Would anyone care to comment on whether this is the real deal?

So as not to clutter up the forum with thank you’s for my question about coming to Hawaii, thank you Glenn, Dick,Rich. Thanks Lucid for the URL.

Regards,

John

>

Many RVers have used the terms "I saw" or "I heard" as though there were movie or picture like scenes and actual audible sounds whereupon further discussion reveals they were "sensing" or "perceiving" the data.

Sometimes I perceive, sometimes I actually "see". Detailed visuals are definitely obtainable by CRV. It may well be that the HRVG methodology allows for more immersive experience of those visuals… I’m just saying that the suggestion that CRV is non-visual is an significant over-statement.

Having not seen the HRVG training materials, I really have can’t comment on that side of things.

-John C.

Hi John..

It is good to see some interesting discussion of RV methods on a remote viewing BB. This is how it is supposed to be.

Perhaps I spoke without really knowing what CVR is all about. I guess I was basing my judgement on Ed Dames saying (in TRV, which I assumed was very close to CRV) that you can’t close your eyes during a session, and any visuals are to be discarded as imagination.

It would seem to me if you are working CRV and getting spontaneous visual experiences, then you definitely have the lines of communication open between you and your sub, and are doing something right.

Aloha

Dick

Dick,

Thanks for your excellent post. Very good info here. I especially like the description of the 2 second target contact.

Over my last 120 targets, and even the several I did before I started, I must say that I almost always acquire the target within 5 minutes, if not within seconds of closing my eyes.

On a side note, I know Glenn is going to roll his eyes, but I’ve experimented with not even setting up the targets prior to remote viewing them. In other words sometimes I’ll set aside the randomly picked targets (each identified by target ID, none looked at prior to feedback date/time), and then remote view them,

AND (here is where Glenn rolls his eyes)

other times I will simply write down in my journal an entry for a target to be seen at feedback date/time.

I then remote view that target that I haven’t even randomly picked yet. A few minutes prior to feedback time, I will randomly pick a photo from 20,000 to be that photo that I remote viewed.

If you give it some thought, I’m basically predicting a future event as I did not cue the target, ie I did not verbally say to empty space "This is the target John".

My rather remarkable results lead me to believe that target cuing is not necessary, or rather setting up the target more than a few minutes prior to feedback date/time is not necessary.

Comments?

By the way, I’ll make a public prediction now:

Sometime in the future I will meet you guys. Ha, typical vague prediction!

Regards,

John

Glenn came out of a different program. The Fort Meade unit developed the CRV protocols, which are indeed posted at the Firedocs website.

When you read stories about David Morehouse, Mel Riley, Joe McMoneagle and others from that unit having full experiential bilocations, they were not getting there via CRV methodology. They were using altered state RV. A viewer using CRV can give very accurate information about a target, without having any idea whatsoever just what the target is, because he never sees anything.

The NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) based protocols taught by Glenn were developed and used at US Army Special Forces Intelligence.

Both CRV and HRVG methods start in similar manners. You execute spontaneous ideograms, probe them for low level gestaltic data. (The difference is HRVG goes after visuals.) But in both methods it is understood that the viewer has only a 1-2 second window of target contact. The protocols keep the viewer’s conscious mind occupied doing busywork while communicating in 2 second bits and pieces with the sub.

CRV based protocols give you those little windows (no visuals) to obtain ideas and concepts and words about the target. Then the session is over.

In HRVG protocols after you have gone thru that 45 minutes of quick little bits, you then cool your primary awareness down, go into an altered state (high theta line) and with some gentle proding by the monitor, go to target. For some of us students it is a flickering black and white movie in a tunnel at this point. Some of us have had a pretty good full color OH MY GOD look at things… incredible clarity. It only lasts for seconds. Usually it is so damn startling that your primary awareness jolts out of it.

For Glenn and others using this method they can get a half hour or 45 minutes on target, seeing it all.

For those starting out I would compare it to learning to play piano. If you started out with no training in music… the amount of training, work and practice it would take to get to where you could sit down at a recital and play a fairly difficult piano concerto- that’s about the same effort you would have to put in to become a real remote viewer.

Aloha Dick

Perhaps I spoke without really knowing what CRV is all about. I guess I was basing my judgement on Ed Dames saying (in TRV, which I assumed was very close to CRV) that you can’t close your eyes during a session, and any visuals are to be discarded as imagination.

Well, having never actually taken an official CRV course, I’m not sure what the dogma is… but I myself spend significant parts of my sessions with my eyes closed. Come to think of it, I’m pretty sure that "eyes closed" is the only way I’ve ever really gotten solid visuals.

I honestly don’t know how close CRV & TRV are. Ed learned from Ingo, but I’d be hard pressed to guess at how many changes have been made since… and, then there’s the question of how "perfect" Ingo’s method was in the first place…

Bilocations have been rare for me, and fragmentary when they do come. I welcome any change in format that makes them the norm. :-) For this reason, I’m checking out some computer-based tools to use binaural audio signals to induce high-theta states. I’ve heard that these tools (like the Monroe Hemi-Sync tapes) help a person really cut down on their time to cool-down to theta.

I enjoy these discussions too- It’s the meat of things.

-John C

Hi John.. It is good to see some interesting discussion of RV methods on a remote viewing BB. This is how it is supposed to be.

Perhaps I spoke without really knowing what CVR is all about. I guess I was basing my judgement on Ed Dames saying (in TRV, which I assumed was very close to CRV) that you can’t close your eyes during a session, and any visuals are to be discarded as imagination.

It would seem to me if you are working CRV and getting spontaneous visual experiences, then you definitely have the lines of communication open between you and your sub, and are doing something right.

Aloha Dick Dick, You’re assumption is correct. In TRV we’re taught not to close our eyes. We remain focused on the task at hand by keeping our eyes on the paper in front of us. My current understanding is that closing one’s eyes invites imagination and that imagination usually comes in the form of clear or static visuals. However, if the visual is dim or blurry or fleeting–if you just had it and it went away, that’s your target. If ever I perceive a clear/static visual I declare it as AOL(Analytical Overlay). However, there are different types of AOL that occur, some of which are target related. AOL Matching may match or nearly match the actual signal line impression of the site and AOL/S occuring where there is no word value associated with the perception, although still target related.

My rather remarkable results lead me to believe that target cuing is not necessary, or rather setting up the target more than a few minutes prior to feedback date/time is not necessary.

I happen to believe that, in general terms, RV is *so* intent driven that the only limitations on what can be cued, and how it can be cued, and when it can be cued, are the limitations accepted by the viewer.

-John C.