The Man at 11 O’clock…

When asked once what it was like to play at Woodstock, Grateful Dead guitarist Jerry Garcia said that while he was on stage (in an altered state) he could perceive time travelers from the future coming back to witness the event.

We may just have a photograph sitting in the Library of Congress that has a record of remote viewers from the future, showing up in that photograph, experimenting with time.

Let me bring you dear readers up to speed on what this is all about.
On March 9 this year Glenn Wheaton worked a remote viewing session in front of HRVG class, on camera with a video camera recording the event. Debra and I had selected the target, a person who lived in the 1800’s. Glenn’s session- every bit of it captured on camera- was stunning, more information than most people would ever expect a remote viewer could gather, given nothing more than a blind target ID.

The person selected as the target is not spectacularly famous- not Lincoln, or Robert E. Lee, or Mark Twain, but it is someone history buffs might recognize. He led an interesting life and left a good record of his time on earth. A photo of the person was taken in 1875, and that photo is in the Library of Congress. Copies are available on line.

After he worked the session on camera Glenn was not immediately given feedback. It seems kind of silly to withhold feedback after the viewer has just told you more about your target than you ever knew when you tasked it, but that’s how it worked. We didn’t tell Glenn the name of the subject. He went back and revisited the target person, and found a moment when his portrait photograph was made using 19th century Deguerrotype technology. Such photos are one of a kind.

Glenn’s intent was to send a message to the past. To put a message in some medium that would persist and be evident today. If he were successful it would prove that remote viewers don’t just perceive some inexplicable record or imprint of a past event, they actually displace something of themselves to the actual event across time. If Glenn were successful it would also mean that remote viewers have the ability to generate some type of “affect” (however small) at the target across time. If Glenn could successfully put his message, say in an old photograph, it would show that he traversed time, and affected that moment. Heady stuff.

Glenn flipped a coin- a nickel- to select his message. If the coin came up heads, the message would be: A HEADS W. All upper case. (Glenn wanted to leave his initial, W for Wheaton.) If the coin came up tails, then the message would be: b tails w. All smaller case.

The coin flip turned up heads, so the message would be:
A HEADS W. Glenn published this on the HRVG website.

Glenn went into S-5 Theta Isolation and went to target. When Glenn does this a small part of his awareness remains where he is viewing, in this case in his bedroom at his house in Kalihi. But a greater part of his awareness goes to target. It means Glenn is at the target in a full experiential reality. He feels as if he has a body and is standing there at the target.

He found himself in the 1875 photography studio where the subject was sitting for his photo. Old style photos like this require extremely long exposures. It why people never smiled in Deguerrotypes. They had to sit rigidly, not moving a muscle or expression for many minutes while the light photons were captured on the copper plate. As the photograph was exposed, Glenn (there at the target) placed himself between the subject and the camera and traced the letters H HEADS W. on the subject’s forehead. Glenn is able to revisit targets and replay the scene over and over again. He did this many times, each time etching the message A HEADS W. as the photographic plate was exposed.

When I spoke with Glenn at the conclusion of this exercise he was both exhausted and rattled. He asked if Debra and I could come right over. He said, “I need to resolve this.”

We met at Glenn’s house and gave Glenn feedback. We told him the name of the target, but he already knew. We found the photograph that was taken at the time Glenn visited the target in his sessions. We began examining every centimeter of that image, using computer enhancement to search for possible letters embedded somewhere in the photo.

Glenn is a trained military image analyst. He spotted it first. On the subject’s forehead, what seems to be an anomaly in the emulsion. The process of Deguerrotype leaves tiny faint squiggly lines on the photograph, or least it did on this photograph. Most of the lines are random. On the subject’s forehead they resolve into some letters. You can make out the letters A HEADS W.

The A is very clear. The H is easy to make out. There are three letters EAD after the H, which are not as easy to spot, but you can make them out. The S is very clear and the W is unmistakable. To those of us who have spent hundreds of hours taking notes while Glenn writes on the whiteboard, it even LOOKS like his penmanship, the way he draws block letters.

As we examined the photo further we began to see other anomalies. The subject was wearing glasses. In the reflection we first made out a human figure, the tiny image of a woman. Then later that night we were at home, on our computers examining the photo and talking on the phone. We noticed another face reflected in the spectacles, a man with a beard, and then yet another face. Since we were talking on the phone we used clock terminology to point to the position of the faces. “Look, at 11 o’clock from the corner of his eye, see that face with the creepy eyeball staring right at you?” It gave us goosebumps, or as we say in Hawaii “Chicken Skin.” Faces that weren’t there before were appearing in the image, staring back at us.

And always, that small grouping of letters that should not logically be there: A HEADS W.

Now at this point I’m sure you’re going to ask, “Okay, where can we see this photograph?”

We need to ponder this for a bit. We’re going to have some folks we trust examine the photo and ask if they honestly also see the message. In the meantime we want to safeguard the image, if that is possible. The original is in the Library of Congress. We will order a high resolution copy from the Library of Congress. But if a remote viewer can go back in time and alter the photo, maybe remote viewers in the future will go back and put their own mark on the photo, and those marks are already there, because they did it already (like Glenn did) in 1875. This photo may become a popular test or “proving ground” for putting messages in time. So where we are right now, we’re trying to figure all this out, and we’re not going to reveal the photo just yet.

I keep looking at the photo and pondering the scrawl in Glenn’s all caps style: A HEADS W.

I have this question for Glenn, who grasps all of this better than I. Glenn, If future remote viewers go affect that photo, are their messages already evident? Or will they appear after they do their sessions, and then will they have always been there? When you first worked the target, was your message already there? The paradox issues give me a headache.

This is a most interesting project. I believe Glenn did traverse time and did affect the photo. I plan on submitting this as a topic for presentation at the IRVA conference in June. If approved, we’ll bring the photo and it will be revealed at the conference and then made available to the public after that.

Working with Glenn has always been the most interesting part of my life, and it is getting more interesting all the time.

Aloha Dick,

Life is certainly more interesting when it’s…interesting. I am not quite sure I grasp it all better than you do but it has become a bit easier to reconcile since we have more data. The number one issue for me just now is understanding the mechanism of how it could be. As we understand the photographic process used in the time of the photo it seems the message is in the sodium residue, which was the wash, used to fix the image on the plate. This puts the message between the image and glass. It is more than likely a magnetic effect as sodium is paramagnetic and easily attracted to magnetic fields. Again propagation seems to be the player here. Perhaps the sodium residue was the only thing that could be affected in a coherent way.

The paradox of the message is a bit more interesting. Was the message always there? Logic tells me that the order of time is sequential in the assembly of our perceived reality. I know that if the message is there, then it had to be placed there before it was placed there, and the time it was placed there was then and not now. A confusing sentence at best. To place the message would require information to move from the present to a point in the proper sequence of time. Now our reality is changed a bit but those who do not know anything about it are still safe in a singular continuum while we reconcile a branch continuum having two memories of what was and what is now. The paradox minimizes.

I believe that this photo will become more populated with messages as others solve their own message puzzles. Their messages are there now but you may have to adjust your time reality to see them, regardless those messages were in-fact always there.

Glenn

This bears a spooky resemblance to the saying: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it really fall?” I think based on this experiment, the answer is…No.

[
Greetings all,

Well I have read this posting, and re read it, it has me asking a series of questions, that I am sure others will want to ask or shout out from the
audience, when this paper is presented at IRVA.

Please do not take the questions in a negative way as they are not intended as such, more to establish parameters etc. I hope this all turns out to be a big positive and is delivered up to the “old guard + newbies”

I will highlight the text below and pose the question, hope that is acceptable?

Let me bring you dear readers up to speed on what this is all about.
On March 9 this year Glenn Wheaton worked a remote viewing session in front of HRVG class, on camera with a video camera recording the event. Debra and I had selected the target, a person who lived in the 1800’s. Glenn’s session- every bit of it captured on camera- was stunning, more information than most people would ever expect a remote viewer could gather, given nothing more than a blind target ID.

1. What no frontloading at all ?

The person selected as the target is not spectacularly famous- not Lincoln, or Robert E. Lee, or Mark Twain, but it is someone history buffs might recognize. He led an interesting life and left a good record of his time on earth. A photo of the person was taken in 1875, and that photo is in the Library of Congress. Copies are available on line.

After he worked the session on camera Glenn was not immediately given feedback. It seems kind of silly to withhold feedback after the viewer has just told you more about your target than you ever knew when you tasked it, but that’s how it worked. We didn’t tell Glenn the name of the subject. He went back and revisited the target person, and found a moment when his portrait photograph was made using 19th century Deguerrotype technology. Such photos are one of a kind.

2.How was this inofrmation ( if any ) passed onot him in regards to the photograph being in existence, and suggestions that he move to the time it was being taken?

Glenn’s intent was to send a message to the past. To put a message in some medium that would persist and be evident today. If he were successful it would prove that remote viewers don’t just perceive some inexplicable record or imprint of a past event, they actually displace something of themselves to the actual event across time. If Glenn were successful it would also mean that remote viewers have the ability to generate some type of “affect” (however small) at the target across time. If Glenn could successfully put his message, say in an old photograph, it would show that he traversed time, and affected that moment. Heady stuff.

3. When was the intent to leave a message at the site/photograph established, before, during or after the initial session ?, say on some of the numerous re-visits ?

Glenn flipped a coin- a nickel- to select his message. If the coin came up heads, the message would be: A HEADS W. All upper case. (Glenn wanted to leave his initial, W for Wheaton.) If the coin came up tails, then the message would be: b tails w. All smaller case.

The coin flip turned up heads, so the message would be:
A HEADS W. Glenn published this on the HRVG website.

Glenn went into S-5 Theta Isolation and went to target. When Glenn does this a small part of his awareness remains where he is viewing, in this case in his bedroom at his house in Kalihi. But a greater part of his awareness goes to target. It means Glenn is at the target in a full experiential reality. He feels as if he has a body and is standing there at the target.

4. This presumably was the moment/time when the photo was being taken ?

He found himself in the 1875 photography studio where the subject was sitting for his photo. Old style photos like this require extremely long exposures. It why people never smiled in Deguerrotypes.

5. No one “finds themselves” at a precise location or time unless directed, what were the directives

They had to sit rigidly, not moving a muscle or expression for many minutes while the light photons were captured on the copper plate. As the photograph was exposed, Glenn (there at the target) placed himself between the subject and the camera and traced the letters H HEADS W. on the subject’s forehead.

6. So, directive of time and location was given/directed to/by the viewer prior to or at the onset of the session, or perhaps a directive during ?
Glenn is able to revisit targets and replay the scene over and over again. He did this many times, each time etching the message A HEADS W. as the photographic plate was exposed.

7. How many times did this happen ? Presumably while back in the S-5 Theta.
When I spoke with Glenn at the conclusion of this exercise he was both exhausted and rattled. He asked if Debra and I could come right over. He said, “I need to resolve this.”

We met at Glenn’s house and gave Glenn feedback. We told him the name of the target, but he already knew. We found the photograph that was taken at the time Glenn visited the target in his sessions. We began examining every centimeter of that image, using computer enhancement to search for possible letters embedded somewhere in the photo.

8. Not being picky, but why examine every centimeter, when the exact location was already known ? I mean you state that he etched them into this chap’s forehead !

Glenn is a trained military image analyst. He spotted it first. On the subject’s forehead, what seems to be an anomaly in the emulsion. The process of Deguerrotype leaves tiny faint squiggly lines on the photograph, or least it did on this photograph. Most of the lines are random. On the subject’s forehead they resolve into some letters. You can make out the letters A HEADS W.

The A is very clear. The H is easy to make out. There are three letters EAD after the H, which are not as easy to spot, but you can make them out. The S is very clear and the W is unmistakable. To those of us who have spent hundreds of hours taking notes while Glenn writes on the whiteboard, it even LOOKS like his penmanship, the way he draws block letters.

9. Wow ! If they are that hard to spot then they must be really small, and to actually say that “it even LOOKS like his penmanship”, well that is a big claim.

As we examined the photo further we began to see other anomalies. The subject was wearing glasses. In the reflection we first made out a human figure, the tiny image of a woman. Then later that night we were at home, on our computers examining the photo and talking on the phone. We noticed another face reflected in the spectacles, a man with a beard, and then yet another face. Since we were talking on the phone we used clock terminology to point to the position of the faces. “Look, at 11 o’clock from the corner of his eye, see that face with the creepy eyeball staring right at you?” It gave us goosebumps, or as we say in Hawaii “Chicken Skin.” Faces that weren’t there before were appearing in the image, staring back at us.

10. This has me at attention, to be able to “see” all this from the reflection from a small pair of spectacles…is incredible !

And always, that small grouping of letters that should not logically be there: A HEADS W.

Now at this point I’m sure you’re going to ask, “Okay, where can we see this photograph?”

11. Of course !:) This is what everyone will be asking.

We need to ponder this for a bit. We’re going to have some folks we trust examine the photo and ask if they honestly also see the message. In the meantime we want to safeguard the image, if that is possible. The original is in the Library of Congress. We will order a high resolution copy from the Library of Congress. But if a remote viewer can go back in time and alter the photo, maybe remote viewers in the future will go back and put their own mark on the photo, and those marks are already there, because they did it already (like Glenn did) in 1875. This photo may become a popular test or “proving ground” for putting messages in time. So where we are right now, we’re trying to figure all this out, and we’re not going to reveal the photo just yet.

12. If established as “fact” Then I can see this being a game of “tag the photo” the new and latest game craze, created in the Rv community, and attributed to …GW !

I keep looking at the photo and pondering the scrawl in Glenn’s all caps style: A HEADS W.

I have this question for Glenn, who grasps all of this better than I. Glenn, If future remote viewers go affect that photo, are their messages already evident? Or will they appear after they do their sessions, and then will they have always been there? When you first worked the target, was your message already there? The paradox issues give me a headache.

13. Note…watch the movies Back to the Future !

This is a most interesting project. I believe Glenn did traverse time and did affect the photo. I plan on submitting this as a topic for presentation at the IRVA conference in June. If approved, we’ll bring the photo and it will be revealed at the conference and then made available to the public after that.

14. Agreed, very…very interesting.

As I say folks these comments/observations are really me trying to clarify things in my own mind, before going crazy:eek: I would love to have some responses to the aforementioned, and hey ! Lets us have a peek at the photo !…please :DI am standing ( sitting actually ! ) here with much anticipation

regards

Rick

Aloha Rick,

No offense taken. We certainly expect to take a lot of heat from people about this project. For myself I don’t particularly like to claim the outrageous and we are not looking to sensationalize our activities. This BBS is a record of our days together in the Guild aside from our personal notes and papers and I and others post our activities when something interesting is afoot.

I will answer some of your questions and I am sure Dick and others may be in a better position to answer others.

———-
1. What no frontloading at all ?
———

I received no information about this target beyond the Target ID. Dick maintains the timeline for this project.

———-
2.How was this information ( if any ) passed on to him in regards to the photograph being in existence, and suggestions that he move to the time it was being taken?
———-

All information in regards to photography was generated in the session being worked at the whiteboard on camera by myself. There was no prompting towards photography by any other person.

My task was to take the data that I collected in the session and in the days that followed, and before feedback, revisit the target of interest and devise a means to place a fixed message in some record identifiable in the session work itself. On the tape I state that this man photographed himself. That photograph session became my target point in time.

———-
3. When was the intent to leave a message at the site/photograph established, before, during or after the initial session ?, say on some of the numerous re-visits ?
———-

That decision was made during the filmed session when I realized that my S-3 (site sketch) was a very old photograph. In subsequent revisits to that photographic session over the next day and 2 hours into early Wednesday morning I rehearsed and applied myself the best I could to pass the message to this past event.

———-
4. This presumably was the moment/time when the photo was being taken ?
———-

My S-3 was a photographic pose. It was my intent to place the message in this photograph or a photograph of this person relevant to the tasking. This was no small task and since feedback I have been sorting and examining all the photographs of this person I can find. The message appears in a single photograph that is held by the Library of Congress.

———-
5. No one “finds themselves” at a precise location or time unless directed, what were the directives
———-

I must emphasis that my S-3 was the starting point for all activities related to the message. This was the point in time that was of interest to me. I received no directives or movement orders. I followed my S-3.

———-
6. So, directive of time and location was given/directed to/by the viewer prior to or at the onset of the session, or perhaps a directive during ?
———-

I worked this target on camera for well over an hour and had a fair understanding of what the target was and state so on the tape. Also in the tape I reconcile where in the past the target is and when. I did not stipulate that the target photo was 1875 and probably couldn’t lol, well maybe but…

———-
7. How many times did this happen ? Presumably while back in the S-5 Theta.
———-

Hmmmm an interesting question. Before I went to S-5 I spent several hours rehearsing my actions that I would attempt at the target. This project is in its 3rd year so past failure has shown me that casual actions produced no results regardless of how well I do in the session work for the camera. My response to Dick when he asked the same question was that I went through at least 100 iterations of scripting the message during what I perceived to be those moments when the photograph was being taken.

———-
8. Not being picky, but why examine every centimeter, when the exact location was already known ? I mean you state that he etched them into this chap’s forehead !
———-

My S-3 was recorded on a very large whiteboard on an easel. I used my whiteboard image as my focal point during the rehearsals. The only clear space on the image that would accommodate my focus and text was the forehead. Etched is actually a good word here because that is essentially what occurred. All at Hrvg are familiar with hosting imagery on Blackboard. It is an NLP tool we use specifically for imagery. I will say that the message was a combination of small finger writing movements generating text on Blackboard.

When I was given feedback on this target there were 4 people present, Dick, Debra, Sita and myself. At the computer I typed the name of the person they gave me and queried Google images. As I recall the 3rd image in the lineup was my S-3. I downloaded the image and opened it and we examined it together. The message is not perceptible to anyone simply viewing the photograph. You must examine it at a greater level of detail. The fact that it is not visible to the casual observer and is very small makes its coherence a bit more of a surprise. When Dick asked why it was so small, I told him I am not really sure how big we are at target. We may be no larger than a speck…

———-
9. Wow ! If they are that hard to spot then they must be really small, and to actually say that “it even LOOKS like his penmanship”, well that is a big claim.
———-

As mentioned above it would in-fact escape detection and would not be readable even in the original photo plate. A closer examination of the fix residue is where you will find this message. It is coherent and indeed small.

———-
10. This has me at attention, to be able to “see” all this from the reflection from a small pair of spectacles…is incredible !
———-

It is actually quite spooky. I try not to think too much about those images.

———-
11. Of course ! This is what everyone will be asking.
———-

This image is getting more interesting and several things will happen when the image information is released. First every possible way to discount the possibility of the event will hit the fan. There will be some that are intrigued by the possibility that it is all as it has been stated and want to discuss it. Some will simply be confused about it and find it to difficult to understand. I have bit mapped this image at 10,000 pixels per inch and no matter what is said, the message will still be there. Currently it is a challenge to our intellect and I want to see it play out.

———-
12. If established as “fact” Then I can see this being a game of “tag the photo” the new and latest game craze, created in the Rv community, and attributed to …GW !
———-

When Dick asked me about replicating the message in another photo my response to him was “Well what other National Treasure should I deface? Maybe another signature on the Declaration of Independence?”. I think this image already is being tagged by others in the future.

Thanks for your questions and I hope my answers help. Dick et All jump in anytime.

Glenn

Hi Rick,

So many times in the past we’ve published projects and presentations that were greeted with little more than silence. Thank you for asking questions and considering this with some amount of genuine skepticism.

If something is true it can withstand any challenge, so we invite you to challenge any aspect of this. Glenn was the viewer and he addressed your questions. I would also like to respond to your concerns point by point, since I was the main tasker on this project. Debra helped select the target and she was also involved in every step of the process from targeteering to feedback.

1. What no frontloading at all ?

There was absolutely no frontloading. Glenn was shown a sealed manila envelope with the target ID (E1B3-U4N6) written on the outside. He was not told anything about the nature of the target. He did not know it involved a photograph, he was not told the target was a person.

2.How was this inofrmation ( if any ) passed onot him in regards to the photograph being in existence, and suggestions that he move to the time it was being taken?

Again, Glenn was given ONLY the target ID. He was not told about any photograph. He was not monitored. He was NOT given movement orders, and he got no feedback during the session. We have the entire session on video with high quality audio. All information generated by Glenn came via blind remote viewing generated only by the target ID.

3. When was the intent to leave a message at the site/photograph established, before, during or after the initial session ?, say on some of the numerous re-visits ?

Glenn’s stated intent was to use the target as a vehicle for sending a message to the past. I have a pre-session interview with Glenn on video tape. HOW he would set about to send the message would be determined after he worked the target. We selected a target that we felt would allow him to do this, but we did not suggest how. It was a result of data generated by his blind session.

4. This presumably was the moment/time when the photo was being taken ?

In the 75-minute session Glenn saw the target individual at many times during his life. Glenn described him traveling from his house in New York to his studio. Glenn saw the man’s final moments as he died from pneumonia. Glenn saw him running for his life during a civil war battle. Glenn saw and sketched his wife, and described his lover in some detail. Glenn also saw him sitting for a photographic portrait. It was this moment of his life that Glenn gravitated to for his S-3 sketch. The S3 site sketch shows the person in this pose. Again this is totally blind, without any prompting or monitoring. Let me inject a personal note. I cued the target. I know he worked this blind. To watch Glenn stand there and draw this person with such uncanny skill was something that is difficult to describe. So much of what passes for remote viewing involves vague squiggles and stick figures. Glenn is at an entirely different level.

5. No one “finds themselves” at a precise location or time unless directed, what were the directives

In working the session Glenn perceived the target person at this time and location. Glenn resolved this in his own mind with no direction or prompting.

6. So, directive of time and location was given/directed to/by the viewer prior to or at the onset of the session, or perhaps a directive during ?

Glenn was given only the target ID. When he resolved in his mind that the target was a person, and that person was involved in a portrait session, he then came up with a method to insert his message.

7. How many times did this happen ? Presumably while back in the S-5 Theta.

After working the initial session on camera, Glenn revisited the target at the time of the photograph and spent several hours replaying it, tracing the letters while standing between the camera and the subject.

8. Not being picky, but why examine every centimeter, when the exact location was already known ? I mean you state that he etched them into this chap’s forehead !

Prior to feedback and prior to inspecting the photograph of the target individual Glenn first told us he thought he might have inserted the message into a photo. He didn’t specify where. I actually spent the good part of an entire day going over a photograph in Photoshop, blowing it up, changing contrast, using various filters. I wasn’t looking in the right place. Later, Debra and I went to Glenn’s house and we downloaded a copy of the photograph off the internet. The three of us were huddled over the computer and Glenn said, “Here, on the forehead, over his left eyebrow.”

And now that I’ve mentioned Photoshop, we want to be sure no one can accuse us of altering the photo in question. It is in the Library of Congress and when we reveal the target and reference the photo anyone will be able to order a pristine print from the Library of Congress and see the message. Unless Glenn managed to break into the Library of Congress you won’t be able to accuse us manipulating the original photograph. At this point we only have copies downloaded from the internet. It is one reason we are not revealing the photo at this point. We’re waiting to get our copy from the Library of Congress.

9. Wow ! If they are that hard to spot then they must be really small, and to actually say that “it even LOOKS like his penmanship”, well that is a big claim.

The letters are indeed small and you must zoom in on that portion of the subject’s forehead to see the letters, but you can see them. I have video from years past of Glenn giving lectures and writing in all caps on a white board. I’ll prepare a comparison for my presentation

10. This has me at attention, to be able to “see” all this from the reflection from a small pair of spectacles…is incredible !

The faces are a little bit creepy.

11. Of course ! This is what everyone will be asking.

Hey, I’m a TV guy. I know how to do what we call in the business a “Tease” to increase ratings. I hope to present this at IRVA. I think it will be a fascinating presentation.

12. If established as “fact” Then I can see this being a game of “tag the photo” the new and latest game craze, created in the Rv community, and attributed to …GW !

I don’t think many remote viewers have the skill to remote view at the level Glenn demonstrated in his initial session on camera, let alone go back and do what he did at target to insert the message.

13. Note…watch the movies Back to the Future !

14. Agreed, very…very interesting.

[COLOR=”blue”]As I say folks these comments/observations are really me trying to clarify things in my own mind, before going crazy I would love to have some responses to the aforementioned, and hey ! Lets us have a peek at the photo !…please I am standing ( sitting actually ! ) here with much anticipation[/COLOR]

I think this is a significant event in civilian remote viewing, worth consideration. I’m sure it will be dissected and debated with some vigor. Thanks again for your comments. Feel free to post any more questions that come to mind.

See you in Las Vegas in June at the IRVA conference. Maybe George Noory might have me on to discuss this with links to the photographs.
I’ve attached a video still frame of the target envelope sitting on the board the night Glenn worked his session. That’s all he knew about the target.

Aloha,

Dick

This all Glenn got when he worked the project.

Guys, a very interesting project and now I’ve digested it I have a couple of questions & thoughts if you don’t mind.

How blind was the experiment – was the tasker or anyone who knew the target in the vicinity (say 50m) of the experiment? From the descriptions it sounds like the tasker was in the room.

How was the project constructed – if the viewer knew it would be an attempt to leave a message behind for example – wouldn’t this be a form of front loading as you’d generally only leave a message on a photo or picture?

The feedback image you are saying you changed – are you saying this is one you got online and not the actual image you say you changed?

If so I guess you’re thinking that also all copies of the image have also changed?

As an online copy isn’t the target -which iwas the actual image – then to validate this any further only a copy of the image in the library would suffice.

So I guess it all hangs on this?

Also online versions like .jpegs have gone through all kind of compression algorithms which change the image and would not be advisable feedback for a project like this.

Is the text clear or is it interpretational?

Wouldn’t this experiment need a control sample – i.e. a copy of the image before the experiment to show a change had taken place. If there is writing then we cant prove a change occurred so yes we would have to also look at other options like:

Glenn affecting the image

coincidence

others…

The faces you see in the image – how do you know they weren’t all there before? Again is all this is a downloaded .jpeg or net image which may have been changed form the original intentionally or by computer processes?

interesting concept and experiment – look forward to hearing more.

all the best…

Daz

Hi Daz,

Here you go.

Guys, a very interesting project and now I’ve digested it I have a couple of questions & thoughts if you don’t mind.

Thanks for posting these questions. We’re happy to discuss our work. I think I may have jumped the gun on this one. Glenn may have wanted more time to analyze and reflect, before putting this out in public forums, but I sort of spilled the beans. If this is a bit premature it’s my fault, but questions are good.

This was not intended to be a scientific experiment, rather a demonstration. Mainstream science would never accept this, would always require more controls, demand more proof, create more hoops to jump through, never accepting results as “evidence.”

Disregarding the issue of whether a message was sent to the past, science would have a difficult time reconciling this work as a simple validation target. Daz, I think even you will have to adjust your parameters a bit when you see the data collected by Glenn in the session.

Glenn wanted to do 5 demonstration targets. The purpose is not to prove he can stand there and hit target. He is curious about determining whether viewers actually go to the past event in its own time and not some recording of the event. And he’s interested in whether a viewer has enough presence to affect target and actually send a message. But Glenn’s simple validation session is so good, so beyond anything thing produced by most other remote viewers, that just the simple verifiable validation target aspects of the session (without any time message) make this incredible. Daz, I promise you’ve never seen a session like this. We’ll make sure you get a copy of the raw unedited video at some later date.

How blind was the experiment – was the tasker or anyone who knew the target in the vicinity (say 50m) of the experiment? From the descriptions it sounds like the tasker was in the room.

There were two people present who knew the target cue; myself and Debra. Are you suggesting that if we were, say, 52 meters away Glenn’s session would have contained less valid data? How? (I hope we don’t get off on a telepathic overlay tangent here. )

How was the project constructed – if the viewer knew it would be an attempt to leave a message behind for example – wouldn’t this be a form of front loading as you’d generally only leave a message on a photo or picture?

I have Glenn’s instruction on tape and can transcribe it for you, or post it as a video. Let me work on that tonight. We knew Glenn was looking for a way to affect something in the past, in a manner that would place a message that would be visible now. The only frontloading was that Glenn knew the target would be a past event, or location, person, or object. Glenn’s last attempt was a balloon festival in a location with a rich Native American history. It involved chipping a petroglyph on a rock wall. This one could have been painting, skywriting, music, recorded spoken word, Morse code, newsprint, photography, snow sculpture, basket weaving, the list goes on. We were thinking about whether we could have someone place a personal ad in the New York times in 1972 that said, “HRVG rocks” or something like that.

Glenn did not know the target involved photography. There was no frontloading.

The feedback image you are saying you changed – are you saying this is one you got online and not the actual image you say you changed?

The image is a digital copy of a deguerrotype photograph created in 1875. The copy we have examined is from an internet reference site.

If so I guess you’re thinking that also all copies of the image have also changed?

We’re thinking Glenn caused the letters to form on the original photograph at the time it was created, so all subsequent copies also have the letters. They never changed, they are copies of what was on the original. But we would not expect anyone to accept a copy of the image that comes from HRVG, a copy that we have have had in our possession. We all have Photoshop. We expect anyone will be able to order their own copy from the Library of Congress and find the message in that copy.

As an online copy isn’t the target -which iwas the actual image – then to validate this any further only a copy of the image in the library would suffice.
So I guess it all hangs on this?

Let’s be clear about this. Glenn did not remote view a photograph. The target was not the actual image. The target was the person. Glenn’s session details his entire life. Glenn focused on an event in his life- his portrait photograph in 1875, but that wasn’t the target. The man himself was the target. We didn’t write a target cue that said, “Go place a message on this photograph.” The target cue was the man’s name. When Debra and I gave Glenn the target we did not know how he might go about placing a message. Glenn came up with his plan after working his initial session, prior to feedback.

Also online versions like .jpegs have gone through all kind of compression algorithms which change the image and would not be advisable feedback for a project like this.

You have a point there. We have downloaded different versions of the photo, in which the letters have different degrees of clarity. This is one reason we’re going over all this before making it public. The message is visible at a certain resolution and size.

Is the text clear or is it interpretational?

Several of the letters are quite clear. It is to a degree interpretational. But I see the message and I see Glenn’s style of writing block letters.

Daz, one reason we’re not publishing this yet. We decided to show the image to several well known and respected members of the RV community and get their opinion. Do they see it? Sort of a sanity check.

Wouldn’t this experiment need a control sample – i.e. a copy of the image before the experiment to show a change had taken place.

Think for a moment. How could we get a copy of the image before the experiment? If this happened then the experiment took place in 1875 at the moment the image was made. All copies are copies of the original, and if this worked Glenn affected the original, not the copy we later downloaded.

If there is writing then we cant prove a change occurred so yes we would have to also look at other options like:
Glenn affecting the image
coincidence
others…

Coincidence :-)

The faces you see in the image – how do you know they weren’t all there before? Again is all this is a downloaded .jpeg or net image which may have been changed form the original intentionally or by computer processes?

I think the faces are the faces and we’re not going to try to explain or understand those.

interesting concept and experiment – look forward to hearing more.

all the best…

Thanks again for your questions Daz. I’m sure my responses will elicit more questions and comments. Please fire away. This is interesting.

Aloha,

Dick

Here is a short video clip of Glenn’s briefing before he worked the session. He states he is not sure how he will construct the message, that it will be something that comes to him after working the session and considering the data prior to feedback.

Dick

Dick,
thank you for your replies to my questions. Clarifies it for me.

LOL ill need to digest all this again – anything to do with time – make my head swim and I need time to assimilate the possibilities etc.

Please keep us informed of how things progress.

Thank you!

all the best…

Daz

Hi Daz,

It is an interesting topic, and I also have a difficult time trying to figure it all out.

Consider this: Daz, you are a remote viewer. So have no doubt sat down with just a target ID and displaced part of your awareness across space and time and brought back sensory data. When you did that it probably changed your view of the world and caused you to realize that the universe works a bit differently than we or the physicists understand.

What Glenn is trying to show us is that remote viewing is indeed just a smaller skill in a larger toolbox. Glenn has always taught us that if any small bit of sensory data can be obtained via remote viewing, then ALL data can obtained by remote viewing. That means you can take a target ID and draw a stick figure. Or, as Glenn demonstrates, you can stand there when the person has his photo taken in 1875, part of you can really BE THERE. And even more fantastic, you can affect that event in however small a way.

Dick

Dick its an interesting theory but not one I subscribe to- yet.
I have yet to see any evidence that remote viewing actually exhibits part of the remote viewer going to the target. I feel that as part of the quantum universe we know/or can know everything about the target and the mind creates a virtual reality of the target using our past experiences and memories to build the picture of reality.

What Glenn might have experienced (being there) to me feels the same as when mediums say they can see an speak to a relative standing just behind your left shoulder – its a construct of a virtual created reality and a tool to impart information they aren’t actually there – or to be correct – to date they haven’t been proved to actually be there.

I’m open to the possibility that part of us travels to the target – i just don’t think this is the case – i feel its a simpler than this a more elegant mechanism.

All the best…

Daz

Greetings Glenn / Dick,

Many thanks for all your input thus far, as I mentioned in my previous posts about people having questions about this particular session, well…

If we have accpted that RI is real and has been done, many times ( ref L. Buchanan ) why do we have such a hard time with this concept? The word is
Proof ! as people are scratching their heads at present trying to understand this, possibly historical session, which I hope turns out to be positive, we, lack the deatils of the session and therefore things become questionable when making such large claims.

This ( if proved ) will really shake the RV community up but as has been pointed out, repeatablity, is Glenn able to do another similar session with all the controls in place ? Would this be something that could be done after the IRVA conf. ?

When do you anticipate getting a copy of the original from the library ?
Is this method something that you would consider putting up for scrutiny, in particular the fine deatils of how this was done ? Due to a lack of detailed information a lot of speculation has been posited elsewhere, but that will happen with anything out of the ordinary. But hey! let us think outside of the box !

The “going to” the site or recreation of the info from the site is one that will be a sticking point, as I have been taught that you are only reassembling the information, tapping into the signal line, not “going to” the site.

But then this seems to conflict with thinking of certain other areas of RV and RI, especially when it comes to experiments that have, been performed, and actually affected something at the target site.

This really is a …”three pipe problem”

I look forward to more information, as and when it surfaces.

regards

Rick

Glenn and Dick,
this is a very interesting subject and one people within Rv have been toying with for years – would you consider writing it up for an article in ‘eight martinis’ when you are ready to disclose in full?

all the best…

Daz

Greetings all,

Great idea, but this would take up a lot of pages going into some detail.

Do you think it would be an idea if a DvD were also made, this can give good visuals and highly detailed information to someone who is trying to get to grips with this method, like all of us !:)

regards

Rick

Aloha

In order to push on I think there is a question that many will have to ask themselves. That question is “Is there a past?” Is there any research or evidence that the past is a real thing? When a scientist in the laboratory receives a photon before he transmitted it has he solved this riddle? Has he facilitated the travel of mass (however light) through time? The question as to whether or not there is a past is easier to reconcile than the idea of some energetic residue that we can obtain information from. There is more evidence that time travel is possible.

Now thoughts indeed have mass, there is no such thing as a thought without mass. If mass can be cajoled to move through time then there is a reality that we must accept. Any direction that the mass took through time must extend to infinity. Even though the modern equipment of this age can only examine short movements through time it still remains that any vector must seek infinity. Time reversals in wave activity at frequencies below ELF give us some clues. The designs of equipment that measure time have historically been forward time, or time progression sensitive, but not designed to be accurate in measuring time regression. So we basically sought to understand time by examining its forward arrow and not any other vector deviation.

Time is really only relative from common or coordinated points of observation.

From our current point in time we know that there is a future. The idea that there is a next week or tomorrow is very solid to us. We have all emerged into the tomorrow to realize that it is in-fact a real functional environment. Why then does yesterday seem less tangible? And did we not phase into the tomorrow at a predictable rate? Why would the present and future be real environments and the past not? The theoretical movement backwards through time does not conflict with the known science of this day. For the mind it is easier to remember the past then it is to predict the future. Throughout history there have been countless events where someone has witnessed the future before it came to pass. While the body may not have made the leap through time to witness it, some mass surely did.

To revisit the past one need only to reposition their point of observation. In remote viewing I refer to it as a displacement of a portion of your awareness or consciousness to the target of interest. This can be an interesting concept to wrestle with and with a little preparation easier to understand. The idea of time as a continuum is only the two dimensional consideration when it is really at least a 4 dimensional entity. We can detect time distortions around large mass objects so we know that there is a texture to time that can be affected by mass. Mass can affect time and I suspect in a variety of ways. Small mass can proceed or recede through time and large mass creates its distortions. This implies that time has density which we can test for. Simple tests using identical measuring devices at different altitudes above the surface of our large mass planet also give us a few clues. Time is not the same everywhere and can contribute to the hypothesis that the past is real and continues to exist in its time.

With enough energy the forward arrow of time could be reversed, slowed or stopped but remote viewers are not nearly so energetic. What the viewer does is vector small mass thoughts towards the origin of the tasked target. Small mass thoughts slip through the texture of time either, laterally, forward into the future, or back through the past. The challenge is to project enough thought to achieve coherent realizations from the target environment. I put this on a par with the difficulty of learning a foreign language. You must train yourself to think properly, a bit like learning to aim your thoughts with some precision. Now if the human were not somehow inherently capable of thinking to the past or the future it would complicate what all of us believe in a profound way. There could be no psychic functioning, and certainly no possibility of remote viewing. Human mind potential in relationship to our environment is relative. What you are and what you can do in this environment is only limited by what you can comprehend and envision. Your mind can be retooled once you can see a possibility. It may take some time but if you apply yourself you may find your evolution is indeed happening as you think. You will think the thoughts that propel you to the future or hurl you back through the past.

Glenn

Glenn,
Its all certainly very interesting thoughts.

How does all this tally with he SAIC/SRI experiments over hundreds of RV sessions trying to find ‘which time zone did the remote viewer get their information from’ and the conclusion from this was that the viewer didn’t go to the future and get info from feedback or anything but that the remote viewer got their data in real time?

all the best..

Daz

Daz,

I think that the research and experimentation done at SRI, for its time, was top notch and conducted in such a way as to minimize the “Giggle Factor”. But there is something that must be said in regards to it all. It was neither definitive nor expository in regards to the mechanism in Remote Viewing. They did not know then, and they don’t know now. I am reminded of one of their greatest statements of misinformation, that being that Remote Viewing is not a function of EMF. Sure they ran tests in Faraday cages and used this data to proclaim that it was not EMF but sadly they are wrong. They neither had the funding, nor the brainpower to solve this question. I do not believe even today that we have the technology or the money to create a Faraday cage that is inclusive of all known frequency spectrums. The Faraday effect will only hold for certain ranges and even the NSA and other agencies have resorted to copper foils and plates to secure areas from emanations or collection. But there are a few who like to point at the cage and say, “Oh we proved it wasn’t EMF”. Ack! Even a foil/plate cage is not impervious to EMF radiation, emanation, re-radiation and anomalies of harmonics.

I even get this line of junk science from Paul and a few others and I just want to grab them and sit them in a chair and give them the class on basic shielding properties and requirements. While they are obviously intelligent people it is not their area of expertise. So when I think about what SRI knew and compared it to how we would evaluate it all today it would be two different worlds. If the research was replicated today by a competent laboratory the scientists would simply refer to the SRI group as pioneers in the early research and I assure you that our knowledge base would expand tenfold from any sizeable new effort. We are actually smarter and more competent today than we were in the 70’s etc.

The problems in our community lie in the misguided belief that we somehow obtain the information locally and that is simply absurd. To believe that there is some repository that we locally or non-locally retrieve information from is not proven. There is not a single bit of science that has been discovered that would lead any sane prudent person to come to that conclusion. Occam’s Razor cuts through the Blarney in this area. If the data is in the past and you retrieve it…..then information moved. But see they can’t or won’t believe that. I guess it would be hard to stand there in a suit and tie and report to your superiors that the evidence points towards time travel. Yea I suppose your tenure or pension fund might blast through your visual cortex as it flies out the window. The best you will get is their favorite line “harumff Remote Viewing is outside of space and time harumff….cough…mumble”. Balderdash! Poppycock!! Flapdoodle!!! If its in this Universe then it is not (is not) (is not) (is not) outside of anything.

Ipso Facto Stupido! We have better rockets than the coyote…

Glenn

Glenn,

It was neither definitive nor expository in regards to the mechanism in Remote Viewing. They did not know then, and they don’t know now.

Its not for the lack of trying – over 25 years and over $20M.

If the research was replicated today by a competent laboratory the scientists would simply refer to the SRI group as pioneers in the early research and I assure you that our knowledge base would expand tenfold from any sizeable new effort. We are actually smarter and more competent today than we were in the 70’s etc.

You make it sound like to long ago – but key work was being done by SAIC well into the mid nineties – in fact the document and experiment I discussed ‘From what time frame does the information originate’ was circa 1989/1990 not the 1970’s. Even in the years 90-95 its clear form the documentation that SAIC with all the available funding still couldnt get a handle on the makeup of PSI – yes they had some good insights but I don’t think it would be any different today – it would still remain elusive.

daz

I remember a short conversation I had with Glenn one time. It was short because he’s still not at liberty to say many things due to a nondisclosure agreement that remains in effect.

I asked him, “Did Special Forces use remote viewing for intel?”

He said, “Yes, all the time.”

I said, “I imagine it would have to be done reliably and consistently.”

“No doubt.”

“Did they stop using it?”

He paused and selected his words carefully. “You can say… there are others in my unit who were trained in the same skill, and some of them have not retired from active duty yet.”

I then asked, “Special Forces Intel would have to understand how and why something works before they would use it?”

He said, “Of course.”

Daz, we have a one-hour video DVD in the library, Glenn giving a lecture called “How Remote Viewing Works.” I’ll see if we can loan you a copy.

The point is, there’s a lot more to remote viewing than the public, published history.

Dick

Aloha Daz,

It is quite amazing that competent men in suits spent so much money and no real science resulted from the effort. No working theory was developed either, and beyond the CRV model it seems they did what they could at the time. I am confident that a more current science effort would generate better results and I would have to point to Japan here. What we really need is a functional theory that does not avoid the obvious. I would need a bit of academic assistance but I can proffer a theory within a few months work that would be a plausible propagation theory for Remote Viewing. Much like Bell’s theorem (which is a solid propagation model) it would be based on Mind Gated Consciousness. It really is no different from Bell’s except that instead of single particles it would be coherent waves. Bell’s does not preclude multiple particle effects.

Glenn

It is quite amazing that competent men in suits spent so much money and no real science resulted from the effort. No working theory was developed either, and beyond the CRV model it seems they did what they could at the time.

well i definately wouldn’t say this – this file alone has some very vaild science towards rv functioning within it.

1972-1998 33 key SRI projects/reports in one file

www.remoteviewed.com/files/stargate/33SRI%20reports.pdf

– 14.9 MB .pdf file

1 – An Application oriented Remote Viewing Experiment

2 – An Application Orientated Remote Viewing Experiment (SRI-Project 8339)

3 – Geophysical Effects Study (SRI Project 6600) Dec 84 M

4 – Geophysical Effects Study (SRI Project 6600) Jul 84)

5 – Personnel Identification and Selection (SRI Project 6000)

6 – special orientation Techniques (SRI Project 6600) (PA

7 – Special Orientation Techniques S-IV (SRI Project 5590

8 – Target Search Techniques (SRI Project 6600)

9 – special Orientation Technigues S-V, S-VI (SRI Project 6600)

10 – Coordinate Remote Viewing (CRV) Technology

11 – Computer-Assisted Search (SRI-Project 1291)

12 – Feedback and Precognition – Remote Viewing Experiments (SRI Project 1291)

13 – A Remote Viewing Evaluation Proposal

14 – Free World Psychoenergetics Research Survey

15 – NIC Techniques (SRI Project 7560)

16 – Possible Photon Production during a Remote Viewing Task

17 – Special Orientation Techniques (SRI Project 8465)

18 – A Remote Viewinq Evaluation Protocol (SRI Project 4028)

19 – An Automated RV Evaluation Procedure (SRIProject 7408-12)

20 – A Prototype Analysis system for Remote Viewing Task (SRI Project 1291)

21 – A Suggested Remote Viewing Training Procedure (SRI Project 1291)

22 – An Experiment to Explore Possible Anomolistic Behaviour of a Photon Detection System During a Remote Viewing Test (SRI Project 1291)

23 – Application of Fuzzy Sets to Remote ViewingAnalysis (U) (SRI Prolect 1291)

24 – Bacterial Mutation Study (SRI Project 7408-10)

25 – Enhanced Human Performance Investigation (SRI Project 1291)

26 – Enhanced Human Performance Investigation (SRI Prolect 1291)

27 – Enhanced Human Perfornance Investigation (SRI Project 1291)

28 – Enhanced Human Performance Investigations (SRI Project 7408)

29 – Feedback and Target Dependencies in RV Experiments (SRI Project 1291)

30 – Forced-Chance Remote Viewing (UL(SRI Project 1291)

31 – Location of Target Material in Space and Time (SRI Project 1291)

32 – Neurophysiological Correlates to Remote Viewing (SRI Project 1291)

33 – PSI Communications Experiments

Did they in the 20+ year documented history come close to explaining what makes Rv work and tick – well yes and no depending on who you ask.

I am confident that a more current science effort would generate better results and I would have to point to Japan here.

Possibly but we know much more now about things like mirror neurons and quantum theory etc.

I would need a bit of academic assistance but I can proffer a theory within a few months work that would be a plausible propagation theory for Remote Viewing.

OK you outline what you need and Ill help you get it. We can apply to IRVA and the readers of eight martinis and others/places to help with the needed components. What do you need?

daz

Aloha Daz,

Don’t get me wrong, a great deal of work was done but it did nothing to bring clarity to what RV is. Even the claims of what it is not were not conclusive to any degree. It is difficult to explain something that you cannot see and don’t understand. And believe it or not we are still at Square One. We have a repeatable anomaly but no scientific explanation or even a hypothetical model.

Daz you wrote…

——————————-

OK you outline what you need and Ill help you get it. We can apply to IRVA and the readers of eight martinis and others/places to help with the needed components. What do you need?

——————————-

I would begin by assembling a list of Scientists in 3 primary fields, Physics, Quantum Physics, and Electromagnetic Engineering. I would design a survey to publish that they would participate in. The survey would outline a simple anomalous cognition event and require the survey taker to compose a model to explain it. The survey taker does not need to believe in their model, just devise a model within the sphere of their area of expertise. Once the models had been collected they would be combined in a single volume and published back to the survey participants. The survey participants would then be required to challenge each model and design a compromise model to correct flaws in theory. Survey participants would be allowed to propose a single new Law of Physics to stitch their compromise models together. This information would be republished back to the participants and each participant would be required to draft a Conclusion and state their belief in whether or not a feasible model was possible and identify the feasible model.

Once a model was identified then that is the model design I would take to the lab. This is a bit short because it could go on for pages in regards to the survey and activities of the participants but I don’t want to put folks to sleep lol.

Glenn

Interesting idea but I’m not convinced this would get you a working theory for rv within a few month s- anyways isn’t this the type of thing that SRI and SAIC did – with its researchers all with their differing backgrounds – and still no full answers?

daz

Ok !

Greetings and welcome back to the forum, hope all had a good time at the IRVA Conf. Now I guess it is time to display the goods ? so to speak.

I have not heard anything further on this subject and was hoping that something would come to light, unless this was all…..in fun :D

So GW or Dick, anychance of an update please ?

regards

Rick

Ok !

Greetings and welcome back to the forum, hope all had a good time at the IRVA Conf. Now I guess it is time to display the goods ? so to speak.

I have not heard anything further on this subject and was hoping that something would come to light, unless this was all…..in fun :D

regards

Rick

Hi Rick,

We spoke to a couple of people at the conference. One of them was Skip Atwater. We’re looking for a “sanity check” from some people who understand remote viewing, people who can look at the work with an educated yet skeptical eye. We want to get some comments and critique that way first, before throwing everything to wolves. Glenn has done two sessions in his Message Across Time project. He has said he will do a total of five.

Probably some day I’ll open the vault of HRVG’s unpublished work. It would make an interesting book. We have some amazing things that haven’t seen the light of day. Amelia Earhart, Manned Mission to Mars, Message Across Time, and others. Our recent presentation on Masking & Entrainment pushed the boundaries out a bit, but some of the other things will probably be kept in the safe for a while.

Dick

Greetings guys,

Thank you for answering all my questions about this ( supposed ) work of art.
But I am sadly dissapointed in the resulting decision to keep this information, such as it is, in the vault for the next amount of years…….WHY ? ?

You said that this would be delivered at the IRVA Conf. What better place to discuss this ( supposed ) project. All I seem to hear now is that our old friend “ego” has raised it’s ugly head, for the prime case of what ?…a possible deception ? Was it really a case of look at me …then crawl back to the safety of the Huna ?

Offer proof, anything less will not wash in the RV community, after all, this was being shouted from the heighest roof tops, but it comes now from the lowest basement :mad:

As the old English Highwayman used to say…”Stand and Deliver“

regards

Rick

Aloha Rick,

The purpose of the ongoing project is to determine the feasibility of moving information from the present to the past. While the project is not complete there have been interesting results with the 2nd target that was worked. As Dick stated several uninvolved people have been solicited to provide a “Sanity Check” on the most recent results. These people include Skip Atwater and Bill Ray as well as others. I don’t believe it is a case of ego but more a case of “Avoid Stupid Assumptions”. In addition we are still trying to understand certain aspects about the message itself and the graphic. The message was intended to compliment the early Rhine work on ESP testing by using a coin flip to test for telekinesis. An actual coin was flipped to determine what the message would be. That message would be the result of the coin flip. If it was heads then the message would be “A Heads W”. If it were a tails the message would be “A Tails W”.

Now we have the results of the 2nd test and they are interesting, we think we can see the message but we are the experimenters involved so our bias may influence our judgment. In addition we are trying to understand why what we perceive to be the message is only visible at certain resolutions within the graphic itself. Imagine a graphic where you could turn a dial and make the image density become greater or less while not really changing its actual size. There is a range where we think the message is visible. This makes for some interesting thoughts. As it stands just now we are waiting for the input from the sanity check. Once we get that feedback then we will decide what is next.

Glenn

I’ve been looking at the high resolution archival scan of the negative. The 1875 media is complex relative to digital photographs or even modern glass film. Some observations I’ve made are:

– The substrate is relatively thick, and has some areas that refract with small rounded patterns.

– Because the substrate is thick, the exposure occurs through a volume. Anomalous markings that aren’t part of the light focused to make the image could appear at different depths and intensities from the rest of the image. They could be sharp or diffused.

– There are a lot of curved marks (“C”’s and “S”s ) on the surface of the film. To me, these marks first appeared to be scrapes or natural defects in the in the gelatin surface. At medium resolution, these looked like candidates for anomalous marks and I annotated some that looked like they could be the characters of interest. When I looked at the marks in high resolution, I could see that these actually appear to be portrait photographer touch-ups, probably done with India ink using a magnification loupe. (For use online, the negative has been inverted digitally just as a print would be; it is also likely that the subject should actually be flipped as a mirror image). The marks appear white and have been used to lighten the subject’s brow wrinkles.

– Any anomalous mark that was easily visible to the portrait artist under magnification would probably be considered a flaw to be corrected or if not correctable, it was common to scrape, re-sensitize, and reuse glass plates.

– It is possible that anomalous characters along the subject’s hair line have been “reduced” by photographer touching up the negative.

– It is possible that anomalous characters are still present but relatively subtle. This information is harder to tease out. Currently I see what could be an E and A in mid gray tones in the same general area, but I’m reserving judgment.

(As a lurker/first-time poster my judgment doesn’t count much, anyway.)

Aloha Dave,

Let me send you a graphic to examine from the master image. You can then orient to what we think we see. Please use your own master image to compare. Your comments will be very welcome and we can include them in our sanity evaluation. We have several source listings for the graphic, let me know if you need to point to one.

Glenn

I’ve been looking at the high resolution archival scan of the negative. The 1875 media is complex relative to digital photographs or even modern glass film. Some observations I’ve made are:

– It is possible that anomalous characters along the subject’s hair line have been “reduced” by photographer touching up the negative.

(As a lurker/first-time poster my judgment doesn’t count much, anyway.)

Dave,
Thanks for your comments. Good job finding the photo in question and taking the time to examine it. We value your observations.

As we understand this type of early photographic image there was no negative, so the photographer did not have an opportunity to “touch up” the negative. The image was created on a one time plate, not a negative.

Did you PEM Glenn to have him point you to the exact area in question?

Thanks for coming out of lurker mode and posting. We do appreciate the conversation. I would say your comments have earned you a viewing of the session. Send me personal email and I’ll get you a copy of Glenn working the target. Whether or not he sent the message across time the session itself (as a validation work) is most impressive.

Dick

I’ve been called out my inaugural post! :)

It’s not necessarily germane to the experiment, but the archived image was a negative. The source of the image collection was the portrait studio’s nitrocellulose on glass negative set, so the archivists who put them online inverted them digitally so that they would appear as positives. The people involved with the photograph of interest were pioneers of wet plate photography. The experiment as described was directed at the formation of a wet plate negative. The following link has a short description of the process that was in use at the time:

www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-28-2005-66367.asp

The subject did start his career using the daguerreotype process where there image is created as a positive and has very low sensitivity, but daguerreotypes went out of vogue around 1860.

The wet plate process was still very slow and the substrate was soft and fragile until processed, so as target materials for the experiment, these seem pretty appropriate.

My rationale that the curved lines were ink touch-ups was because they were done in black, appear to have a very narrow range of gray scale, and under magnification appear to have been drawn with a metal “crow quill” pen. If the positive prints were made as contact prints (negatives placed in direct contact with the sensitized paper) any portrait “de-blemishing” would need to be done directly on the image or the print.

None of these things has any direct bearing on the nature or execution of Glen’s work. The confounding factor I was considering is that the more visible Glen’s result would be, the more likely someone of the period would try to obscure it.

With that in mind, if you look across the large number of negatives in the collection archived from the particular studio through 1875, it is apparent that around 90% of the portrait sitters had two or more pictures taken so that the best could be printed. For this particular portrait, although it looks like the portrait is one half of a pair much like the others, there is only one negative represented in the archive. If the typical two pictures were taken, a -really special- one could have been discarded.

HVRG might consider giving Glen a similar target from the same general collection where more than one image from is already present from a single sitter. In the archive thumbnails, quite a few of the pairs have one image marked for discard using scratches on the substrate. These would certainly be fair game.

Glen kindly sent me the small region of interest from the image for reference. I’ll be looking at it for a while yet. By chance, natural aesthetics, or a low-level attraction, the physical area mapped very closely to the area I had found interesting. The designated ROI overlapped my ROI and together they occupy a tiny fraction of the entire image. Something seems to catch your eye.

(Note: I checked the picture guy’s tie for guitars …just in case.)

I’ve been called out my inaugural post! :)

It’s not necessarily germane to the experiment, but the archived image was a negative. The source of the image collection was the portrait studio’s nitrocellulose on glass negative set, so the archivists who put them online inverted them digitally so that they would appear as positives. The people involved with the photograph of interest were pioneers of wet plate photography. The experiment as described was directed at the formation of a wet plate negative. The following link has a short description of the process that was in use at the time:

(Note: I checked the picture guy’s tie for guitars …just in case.)

Dave,

I sent a personal email to you and we’ll get the DVD to you next week. With what you know about the photographic process circa 1875 you will find Glenn’s session interesting. I cued the target and didn’t know much at all about the photography of the day when I did the tasking. What Glenn described in his session went over my head. Not until I researched it on the internet did it make sense.

Interesting you bring up the necktie. You will note when you watch the entire session that Glenn mentions the subject’s neckties, saying this is a person who spends a lot of money on and is proud of his neckties. Glenn specifically talks about his neckties.

There are a lot of quirky little things that happen when you start messing around in consciousness. We have the tape of Glenn talking about the necktie in the session, recorded March 2009. There is a post on the bulletin board here on the subject of Paul Smith’s visit where I talked about neckties. Guitars were also a subject that was brought up a lot with Paul, as he will recall. It is all part of the puzzle.

Anyway, look “over the eyebrow” and let us know what you think. Your posts are quite thoughtful and we value your opinion.

Dick

I’ve been called out my inaugural post! :)

My rationale that the curved lines were ink touch-ups was because they were done in black, appear to have a very narrow range of gray scale, and under magnification appear to have been drawn with a metal “crow quill” pen. If the positive prints were made as contact prints (negatives placed in direct contact with the sensitized paper) any portrait “de-blemishing” would need to be done directly on the image or the print.

None of these things has any direct bearing on the nature or execution of Glen’s work. The confounding factor I was considering is that the more visible Glen’s result would be, the more likely someone of the period would try to obscure it.

With that in mind, if you look across the large number of negatives in the collection archived from the particular studio through 1875, it is apparent that around 90% of the portrait sitters had two or more pictures taken so that the best could be printed. For this particular portrait, although it looks like the portrait is one half of a pair much like the others, there is only one negative represented in the archive. If the typical two pictures were taken, a -really special- one could have been discarded.
(Note: I checked the picture guy’s tie for guitars …just in case.)

That is very interesting. It is something we discussed. What if the message was so clear that they looked at the photo at the time and said, “There’s something wrong with this- what’s this A HEADS W. across his face?” and then threw it out.

Dick

By the way, you seem a good researcher :-) From Glenn’s first attempt at message across time, we are looking for the attached image (NIMO) in native American petroglyph art. If you come across anything like this scratched in a rock in the southwest, or in photos of Native AMerican artwork, let us know…GLenn spent some amount of time standing next to an Indian scratching petroglyphs with a rock, trying to get the thought of this probing icon NIMO (face with intersecting radial lines) into the sculpture’s consciousness so he would scratch one of these out for us to see all these centuries later…No luck yet, but if you see the face with the lines it would be most interesting.