What makes a good target?
What makes a good target for STUDENT remote viewers?
For example, Glenn… what elements do you look for when you come up with targets for students who are at S-4? (We have some posted on our target page.)
For example the Firedocs page has a lot of very static structure targets… buildings with different lines and shapes but not much going on. I find it hard to focus my attention on an arch for an hour of hard work.
Some instructors like to give beginning students very esoteric targets, other dimensional stuff, sweeping historical events.
I’d like to hear some people’s thoughts on this.
Re: What makes a good target?
Good Question Dick,
I think the meat and potatoes of any RV program demands that the targets be geared towards validation and assurance. Each viewer has his or her own cycle of contact. There seems to be periods of good work interspersed with periods of work that is not so good.
This has been validated time and again by analysis. The smart mission manager tracks these periods and works the viewers on targets of real interest at the peak performance periods.
There is no real explanation as to why this is so, but ask any viewer, it is the way of things. The best targets are those that unique. These would include targets that have not only significant meaning to humanity but data that is unique. This may be terrain, structures, or kinesthetics associated with a person or object.
I recommend targets that ply the viewer with many avenues of approach. In training it is more important to learn to pick up and trail threads of data, threads of contact. After enough tracking training is done the viewer learns to switch tracks and even targets in session.
The monitored or directed session is where this is best exploited. The use of subcueing in session takes some of the heat off the viewer with out leading. The performance of a team far exceeds the lone viewer, add to that team some management and analysis and you have a collection system.
It is important to note and repeat. As a remote viewer you will not always be on target. That is the way it is. The validation targets let the analyst know when you are in cycle. How long your cycle is and what the dwell time is of your non-productive period.
Then there are some types of targets that seem to be easier for viewers; I.E. Any target that has fire in it seems to be easy pickings for the guild. I’m still trying to figure that one out.
The mindset of the viewer is by far the most important factor regarding target contact. It takes discipline and maturity to sit down and approach a target that may in fact be of low interest for the viewer. That is what separates the type of viewer you have the potential to be.
There are some that will be best as recreational viewers on the prowl for target rush and adventure. Others will develop into the professional caliber that can hit target and pick the bones clean on demand.
It takes time to change the way we think, to change how we accept data, to learn that we in fact change when we adopt a simple baseline of discipline in our lives.
We understand more from focus and attention and our own assessment of a situation than what someone tells us, or the media informs us. So simple validation targets are actually the springboards to a greater awareness that change not who we are, but what we are. Aloha