NEWS: Analysis & Commentary Discussions on Remote Viewing Part 3 by Jimmy Williams We now have some idea of the mental framework that is operating when we attempt to remote view. What other factors come in to play? We are marvelous receivers and processors of information, however, the ability to perceive things that are outside the range of our normal sense organs is very weak in most people. So weak in fact, that many people believe that perception other than through normal channels is at best a fantasy and at worst, mental illness. It is tempting to become metaphysical when discussing remote viewing and other psychic phenomena. I think the ultimate answers are beyond the reach of this article, so I will stick to ideas that are known to science or can reasonably be associated with known principles. A weak signal can be detected providing the surrounding noise is sufficiently low. This is what is known as the signal to noise ratio. If there is little difference between a signal and the surrounding noise, little information is present. The ultimate example of this is the high contrast between the hot bright point of a star and the cold vastness of space. In between these two is all the information there is: all planets, all life, all that we know and perceive. This is an example of very high information density. Our perceptual apparatus is hard wired to receive visual, auditory, gustatory and tactile data. It is like a television that is capable of receiving a broad spectrum of information. The receiver itself, apart from the input array, is still a receiver. If you were to pull the tuner out of a television, you would still get a snowy picture. An occasional station may bleed through on the audio or you might see an occasional glimpse of a picture, but the high noise to signal ratio will prevent your accustomed level of reception. Your receiver, the wet-ware between your ears is capable of receiving even without the normal data feed from your senses. This is not a normal mode of operation. If you were to backward engineer a television so that you would get interesting pictures on the screen in response to AM radio stations, you would have interesting patterns that do not fit your normal scheme of understanding. Weird associations between the tempo of a song and the visual cues on the screen might occur. These are weak signals, disassociated from the normal scheme that you expect from a television. The same is true of remote viewing. Remote viewing protocols are the substitute tuner you use in place of the normal sensory array. You co-opt the usual sensory pathways and cue (tune) the receiver to a band your receiver does not normally pick up. When these weak signals hit your signal processor, they lack the normal contextual framework. The information is mixed up, incorrectly associated, metaphorical or only partially perceived. Placing this information in the overlaid framework of remote viewing protocols allows you to reassemble data in a meaningful fashion. Retraining yourself to operate in this environment takes a lot of work. It is as hard as learning any difficult new skill. We have discussed the mental framework. We have a working idea of how things are wired up. Now lets talk about what facilitates our ability to perceive the intended target. This is probably the most speculative and least understood area of remote viewing. How do we select a coherent and intended set of information out of all the possibilities? First I will offer an expert’s opinion. After much experimentation, Rene Warcollier offers the following explanation under a heading entitled The Hypothesis of Psychic Charges: The influence of the agent’s glance may have two interpretations. Telepathic phenomena happen as if the percipient were looking with the agent’s eyes. But this does not explain why the percipient often sees the drawings as if he were behind them, that is to say, as if they were reversed. It may be then, that looking at an object gives it a psychic charge, perceptible to the percipient. Note: This reversal may also be confused with the effects of dyslexia. (author) Continuing: It is only reasonable, if we admit, with Bergson, that perception is exercised upon the object itself. In Matiere et Moemoire he writes,” External objects are perceived by me where they are, themselves, not in me.” In so far as this concerns the hypothesis of psychic charges, it seems to me necessary to add that it is the first perception of an object that can be perceived as of itself, the subsequent perceptions for the most part continuations of our memory. If that is so, A percipient in a state of clairvoyance might, then, have a particular attraction toward an object which had been recently seen by the agent, rather than toward another which had not been seen. “Remote viewing protocols are the substitute tuner you use in place of the normal sensory array. You co-opt the usual sensory pathways and cue (tune) the receiver to a band your receiver does not normally pick up.” Here Warcollier attempts to frame in words a phenomenon that he and others repeatedly observed. It is a hypothesis. I can add that we have observed a similar phenomenon in remote viewing. No one is claiming that this psychic charge is a measurable force, detectible by instrumentation. It is merely a convenient description that helps us to talk about an observed experimental effect that we don’t understand yet. In the simplest terms, we can say that there is an interaction between the perceiver and that, which is perceived. There is compelling evidence from quantum physics that the only time quanta (sub-atomic particles) ever manifest as particles is when we are looking at them! Disturbed by the idea that there was a quantum soup that only came in to form when you had your eyes open, physicist David Bohm postulated that particles do exist in the absence of an observer and this could be explained by a new field he called the quantum potential, and like gravity it pervaded all space. However, unlike gravitational fields, magnetic fields and so on, its influence did not diminish with distance. Its effects were subtle, but it was equally powerful everywhere. (from: Michael Talbot’s The Holographic Universe.} The effects reported by Warcollier and those we are seeing in remote viewing are plainly accounted for and have some basis in physics. I don’t presume to be able to explain it all. All I am saying is that some very high-powered scientific theories seem to parallel the phenomena we are reporting. In Warcollier’s example above, he notes that, “every object observed for the first time by me can reflect me as I reflect it, at least for a certain time. It has a certain psychic charge from me, and it also retains the impression that I have of it, just as I have a memory of the object.” Focused attention on anything causes the subject and object to be identified with each other in some way. There is an entanglement of the observer and the observed. In this way, a targeteer associates a subject to be remote viewed with the cryptic identifier the remote viewer will use to retrieve target imagery. Warcollier goes on to say, “it is the first perception of an object that can be perceived as of itself, the subsequent perceptions for the most part continuations of our memory.” I think this is an important statement. It illustrates the principle of resonance. At first encounter with the target, the very first incident wave of attention by the targeteer with the target is pure. As one lingers, ones own memory associations begin to create interference patterns with the original event. A similar effect happens from the perspective of the viewer. As a viewer lingers on target imagery, there is an increasing chance that subsequent information will be colored by interference of the viewer’s creation. I think this equates to simple contamination and not what is commonly termed analytical overlay (AOL). Finally, it is important to be in a good frame of mind when remote viewing. Rene Warcollier says,” It is necessary for the percipient to be in good spirits, free of cares and even of conscious thought.” He also says that faith in the existence of telepathy is helpful but it is not necessary in the person that is sending the message. You have to be ready, willing and able to communicate. The role of targeteer simply requires a clear understanding of what is to be perceived. No particular will power is required. It is the viewer’s job to extract accurate unembellished data. Hopefully this article will give you a clearer knowledge of how things work, and a faith that one can succeed.    PRINT THIS ARTICLE * (Discussions on Remote Viewing, Introduction, Part One, February R.V. News) * (Discussions on Remote Viewing, Part Two, March R.V. News) Privacy Statement Copyright © 2001, H.R.V.G. All rights reserved.

APRIL ARTICLES ·CRV Direct Hit    Page 2    Page 3    Original, Pg. One    Original, Pg. Two    Original, Pg. Three    Original, Pg. Four    Original, Pg. Five    Original, Pg. Six    Original, Pg. Seven    Original, Pg. Seven-A    Original, Pg. Eight    Original, Pg. Nine    Original, Pg. Ten    Original, Pg. Eleven    Original, Pg. Twelve    Data Worksheet ·Best Evidence ·What Frontloading Is    Page 2 ·Discussions on RV