TABBY CAT Gamespace

Remote Goat

Here's a story about Glenn Wheaton, the ex-Army remote viewing master.Worth reading, and seeing the movie. In the TMI Remote Viewing class, Atwater showed us a private film of Wheaton's unspeakably awesome RV powers. The most jaw-dropping exhibition of pure RV mastery I ever saw in years of poking at this subject. Actually I am a member of his Hawaii Remote Viewer Guild. I think Wheaton's RV training protocol is the best, at least that I currently know of.

I suppose James Randi can probably duplicate and debunk the remote goat-killing expert (RG?) also mentioned in the movie (and the book it's derived from which of course I read a long time ago).

Not again

Dreams, as a topic of discussion, are a huge bore. I don't just mean some idiot telling your their fascinating dream of last night, though lordy only knows that's bad enough, but I mean the whole topic of dreams is inherently dull. Mainly because they don't go anywhere. The problem boils down to this: dreams lack teeth. And we humans can only care about stuff with teeth.

It's such a boring cliche to assert that waking life is actually a dream simply not recognized as such. That was already done and dusted back in the ancient BCE time of Zhuang Zi (man v. butterfly). Yet there is something to the concept.

The most interesting stuff I ever heard about dreams was at the Monroe Institute (out of body and remote viewing training venue). Skip Atwater, one of the RV coaches there, told us that one avenue of Remote Viewing explored by the (then) classified Stargate military RV program of the 70's and 80's was to have the viewers attempt to wake up inside their dreams (now called Lucid Dreaming) and then mentally shift the focus or locale of the dream to the target location of interest (some known USA location for training and testing or a Soviet missile base or what have you in a real session).

As I recall Atwater's comments on it, there was only one guy who was really super good at this. Atwater showed us RV session sketches done (just after waking) by this guy, and compared them to actual target verification photos. The accuracy and detail this guy achieved was phenomenal, off the charts, far superior to the regular CRV stuff (which I learned and did with great success at the Institute, see  my other posts on that topic). So then? What's the problem?

Well aside from the fact that nobody else could really achieve anything close to this one guy's level using the Lucid Dreaming technique, the other issue was more serious. See, this dream-viewer guy completely lost the boundary between dream vs. real. He would be dressing in the morning to go to work, sun shining merrily through the window, wife had the coffee started downstairs, birds chirping on the trees outside, neighbors starting their cars for the daily commute - everything fine and dandy. Then he'd open his closet to get a shirt and a pink crocodile would walk out into the bedroom. And he'd think OH SHIT IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN - see, he was still caught in a dream. He literally became UNABLE to tell the difference.

So he truly felt his sanity was under threat and he quit the RV program cold turkey. Atwater attributed this guy's success to both extreme inborn natural talent, coupled with rigorous application of the main LD-RV priming technique: Over a period of months: every x minutes (set a timer if necessary) stop whatever you are doing and ask yourself seriously - is it possible that I am dreaming right now? Am I absolutely SURE I'm awake?

Pero. Cuidado! You have been warned (pink croc thing above). You are playing with fire here.

Another interesting highpoint of the program was an invited talk given to us (RV or OBE students) by a world famous dream researcher from the nearby University of Virginia, Robert Van De Castle. The main thing I remember that this egghead had to say was just "Life is hard. It's mostly bad stuff. Similarly, the content of dreams when systematically tabulated, is mostly negative stuff." He wasn't talking nightmares mind you, just ordinary "dreams". It's mostly shit because it's reflective of real life. Such an obvious point! But I hadn't ever exactly consciously noticed that, later I realized - he's right. Your average nightly dream is rarely anything pleasant. It's mostly generalized anxiety or futile search or evasion of some threat, etc.

RV Transcipt

And moving through a mirror clear
That hangs before her all the year,
Shadows of the world appear.

- Alfred Lord Tennyson 'The Lady of Shallot'

In support of my contention that reality leaks, I want to present one of my Remote Viewing (RV) session that I did at the Monroe Institutes's Remote Viewing Practicum last year.

The training is a 7-day residential program, 12 hours of class and exercises per day. It's taught by Skip Atwater, a long-timer veteran of the RV scene and the former director of the US miltary STARGATE program in the 70's and 80's. He is assisted by other veteran RV luminaries, including the greatest of all, Joe McMoneagle.

The training is based on Ingo Swann's Controlled Remote Viewing protocol. This is fairly complex and rigorous  (other training programs out there use a more free form approach). We did many training session every day from Day 1 forward. For most training sessions we were given a target id (more on that below) and did our viewing, and were then given a picture of the target to compare with our "Viewed" result. However, some sessions were special in that they were evaluated by a 6-member panel of our classmates. This is the real STARGATE evaluation protocol. It is this type of session, one of my own, that I'll present  here.

About the judging: As I said, six people. At the time of judging, they have not seen the target picture. The Viewer who did the session, in this case me Tabby, is not in the room while judging takes place. The judges are given all the Viewer's notes (my pictures and writings from my session, as displayed below) and are also given a set of four pictures. Those four at the target pool, like a police lineup, three are distractors (randomly chosen from 10,000 pics by computer) and one is the actual target that I, the Viewer, had been attempting to render.

They examine the session notes and try to decide which of the 4 pics was the target. Only when they have made their selection are they told which pic of the 4 was in fact the actual target.

In the fully judged session I'll present here, I was given a target specification of a number: #941. That's it. Yes that's all. That's one of the most confusing things to newbies. What?! You are given ONLY a simple number?! Yes that's right. Nothing but that number to go on. It's just a random id, with no meaning-relation to the target whatsoever. Then I as the view sit down and do the session, going into an altered state of consciousness and using the CRV protocol in ordered stages access various attributes of the target. I'll explain a few technical details as we go along.

Bear in mind, this is not easy. It's non-trivial, because guessing gets you nowhere, as the target could be anything - a close up of a pine cone, a herd of buffalo, a sea horse's tail, a bucket full of seashells, the Great Pyramid, Lake Huron, a Russian babushka's face, the Kilauea caldera, a computer IC circuit, a machine gun ammo belt, two birds on a wire, an exterior shot of a small town car wash business, a World War I biplane, the planet Jupiter, I mean any thing.

The process is difficult because your mind is receiving radically different kinds of information about the target, all jumbled up. You get visual attributes,  you may get audio or other sensory attributes, but you'll also get "semantic" attributes such as use of an object or scene at a target, and then finally you'll get purely symbolic information. But these types of info do NOT come labeled "I'm a symbolic image" "I'm a visual reference" etc. That's what makes it so hard.

Another thing that makes it hard is our human tendency to jump and apply our own label. Left Brain stuff. You see might "see" a man in a red hat and long red coat and conclude aha Santa! But it was actually a fireman, that kind of thing. When your Left Brain starts peeing in the punchbowl like that, it's called an Analystical Overlay (AOL). They are almost always wrong. The goal is to report what  you actually get, not what you decide on your own. But we cannot entirely suppress them, so as you'll see below, we are taught to simple note them but add the marker AOL so that a session judge later looking at the notes has that reference. It's good self-awareness training.

The session I'll present here was neither my best nor worst. In this case the judges, all six, instantly identified the true target picture from my session notes, with no discussion or dissension. So it is a successful session in that sense. However, selecting a target is one thing, identifying it from the notes alone would of course be far more difficult, though in some sessions the information was so good that it could have been done. In this session, the target was really tricky - it was not something like the Taj Mahal or the Eiffel Tower that you can work toward like 20 questions. It was more unfamiliar and amorphous, it doesn't map or snap to a single obvious phrase identity, like "the White House" or "Mt. Rushmore" or "the Saint Louis arch".

Below each session page, I will note any special features and transcribe the written words because my handwriting sucks and the scans are bad. Also I wrote these in an altered state of consciousness with a light pencil. I warn you, it will appear messy, incoherent, useless, pointless. But apart from the fact that I was a beginner and truly I was working much rougher and cruder than a real pro like McMoneagle would, additionally you have understand that this really is how RV works, it more like a bunch of puzzle pieces dumped on a table than a single finished picture or perfect description/id phrase. Yet it has compelling power and mystery.

The final image is the target picture, with my commentary.

 I hope this transcript can teach you something about both the strengths and the limitations of RV. But most importantly, looking at this, you should realize once and for - reality leaks. The world is more than we know.

==================================

 

Page 1 shows the normal starting protocol. Name, date, and target id # I was given. The real session begins below the horizontal line. This is the CRV protocol format. The trailing line from the '1' of 941 is where you allow your subconscious to take over, too detailed a process to cover here, refer to the Ingo Swann protocol documents. You see a curved line with the word BRIGHTER, then below that the word DARKER, then some striped lines to the side and cut wedge or cutting types of lines, and between those the words VERTICAL UPLIFT.

 

Page 2 shows a jagged curving line, with a dark central spot, and a curved line beneath, annotated EYE-LIKE AOL (see above for discussion of analytical overlay). Then a sideways wedge or triangular shape, with words FURROW and FUNNEL-LIKE. Now I'm trying to be totally open here so I'll tell you everything that happened in the session. Remember it's an altered state of conscious, but you have just enough awareness to control or exercise veto power. At this point in the session, I was getting a strong visual of (het) sexual intercouse, very specific, detailed and zoomed-in to the (mental image of) a ... well-prepared... male organ entering a female's part. I tried to shake that off, assuming I'm just horny or something from being in this monastic training program too many days or something! But it would not shake, and I realized it meant something in relation to the target. But I didn't want to express it in words or pictures directly. I was editing myself even in the altered state. I "thought": what if I'm wrong? How could it be? How embarassing I'm just displaying my own subconscious... So I choked it down to a most abstract representation, the cut and wedge type of shape that you see here. You'll understand later the informational aspect of this that was being symbolized by a visual of the forceful sexual act.

Page 3 shows additional visual impressions. You see rows of correlated wavy lines rough diagonal, notated DARKER on the upper side, BRIGHTER on the other side, and EDGE, BORDER on the lines themselves. There is a semi-circular concentrated dark area labeled SMALL BROWN OBJECT.

Page 4 again shows the curvy diagonal line cutting the whole scene and on the line a small circular area labeled WHITEISH LONGISH OBJECT NEAR BORDER. There's a circular shape with a small center and radial line labelled CIRCULAR RADIATING.

Page 5 again emphasizes the diagonal division line, labelled BORDER. Above that is BRIGHTNESS.  The words CIRCLES, WHEELS appear above the diagonal line, with an arrow linking them to further description of their location: FOUND AT OR BEHIND BORDER. At the bottom is 2NDARY LINE.

Page 6 shows visual of an aligned wavy pattern, labelled as STACK ARRAY MULTIPLES. Those words are a bit of jargon in CRV meaning a continuously repeated pattern of lines or shapes.

 

Page 8 (there was no Page 7, I mis-numbered during the session, remember I'm in an altered state of consciousness) is special. In this phase you just let your hand go, let  your subconscious draw anything it wants, like automatic writing. The words appear FREE FORM GESTALT SKETCH. The main features we've already noted appear: a strong diagonal running from lower left to upper right, multiple wavy lines, and a nucleus or eye-like area near the middle of the scene.

Page 9 shows final visual notes on the scene, in discrete feature chunks. The top one is a "detail" show of the wheel or eye like object, again showing a center with radii and the words HOOPISH WHEEL-LIKE. The feature diagonal line appear below to the left, with the circle superimposed on it. and the words BORDER SUNRISE/AOL ("sunrise" is interpretive so an analytical overlay). Then finally mutliple lines in order with the words FEATHERY, ENERGY RISING.

Page 11 (mis numbering again) is special in that we are expected to end with a verbal summary of impressions of the target. This read as below:

TARGET HAS AN IMPORTANT BRIGHTNESS CONTRAST, ALONG DIAGONAL. PROMINENT WHEEL-LIKE OBJECT AT OR BELOW (DARKER SIDE) OF BORDER. SOME ENERGY, MOTION (POWERFUL, EXPLOSIVE FEELING) ASSOCIATED, AGAIN MORE ON THE LOWER SIDE, TOWARDS BOTTOM. FEELING OUTDOORS, UNIVERSAL VASTNESS.

Note that this verbal summary does not have any special priority over the other more visual/spatial pages. (In fact the judges tend to work more from the visuals, but the relative priority is somewhat scene-dependent.)

* * *

Ok! That's it! I'll post the target next week... hee hee... !

* * *

Naw. Just kidding. BElow is the actual target picture, below, which I did not see until all judging had been completed. This photo with its text was among the set of 4 such target text/photo sheets given to the 6 judge panel, along with all my session notes as displayed above, for their evaluation. They instantly and unanimously selected the correct target based on my notes.

Here is the text of the picture (not part of the viewing session but helps to understand what this crazy scene is):

RVP Folder B: Target #941

FARMING NEAR PULLMAN, Washington, United States

46"42' N 117"12' W

Known as the Evergreen State, Washington has been raising wheat for decades, striving to adapt the grain in order to protect a soil made fragile by the erosive agricultural practices of earlier times. The development of agribusiness, "an alliance of agriculture, industry, science, and financial investments, encourages technological innovations aimed at improving productivity and helps keep the United States the leading exporter of cereals (about 35 percent of the total) as well as corn (40 percent) and soy (nearly half of world production). The use of bio technologies, especially in the production of corn and soy, has led to the creation of varieties that are resistant to parasites, an herbicides that are believe to increase yield. Although these genetically modified organisms (SMO) are still the subject of prohibitions and sharp controversy all over the world, notably because of hte limited knowledge of their effects on health and the environment, their cultivation is widespread in Argentina, Canada, and especially the United States, where half of all soy is genetically modified.

In evaluating this, be careful because there is a fold line in the paper itself (which I scanned) about 1/3 of the way down from the top, running horizontally. That was not present in the original target picture and is not a feature of the target in any way. Clearly in the photo itself, there is a main diagonal division running from slightly lower left to upper right. Above that tline more darkish areas appear, as opposed to the lighter or more light/dark evenly balanced areas below. Right in the center of the paper fold line, you'll note a circular area that looks like a cat's eye, on the diagonal division or border line. There's another dark oval area on the diagonal "border" line, down to the left from the Cat's Eye feature. Overall, you will note the multiple stacked or aligned furrows. You will note that this is an outdoor area of "universal vastness" if anything on Earth could ever fit that phrase.

The area is associated with huge amounts of energy, both in what it took to create this and the food energy that is derived from it.

The sexual symbolism was the Universe or my subconscous trying in its innocent (?) way to clue me that this is an area or scene associated with fertility, with penetration to sow seed for growth and creation... kind of thing. For the visual, note that that top dark squarish area at the top of the photo is cut by two service roads that converge in a shape reminiscent of a female pubic area.

If you refer up to session Page 1, you'll see that the initial "scrawl" from the #941 digits also replicates almost exactly the shape of the corner of this dark squarish area at the very top of the photo.

Well you can judge for yourself. There's actually a whole protocol for rating how well a session matched a given scene, based on how many true and significant features were noted and how many extraneous things appear in the session that have no correlate in the target. Of course, in this police lineup judging, it would have been most interesting to post the other suspects (the additional 3 pics in the judges pool) but I have not got those.

Anyway, this session was an instant and complete success using the STARGATE judging protocol.

As I said, neither my best nor my worst of the week.

Moo

Like some bold seer in a trance
Seeing all his own mischance
- Alfred Lord Tennyson

Actors are cattle.
- Alfred Hitchcock

Remote viewing is a mental martial art.
- Stephan Schwartz

It's different for every individual, of course, but to me, there's a huge glaring problem with the nicely stated concept above, that "remote viewing is a mental martial art". Yes, in terms of being something amazing and fun that requires hard committed practice for final mastery, RV has something in common with martial arts. Watching a true RV master at work, someone at the level of Glenn Wheaton or Joe Mcmoneagle, calls up the same awe that thrills us to watch a one-in-a-hundred-million combative master like Vladimir Vasiliev or Morihei Ueshiba out on the mat. So those attributes do seem to overlap.

But where the analogy breaks down in is that, unlike martial arts, you can't really use RV for any particular personal advantage. This isn't a moral barrier or an issue of spiritual altruism vs selfishness or any cheesy stupid thing like that. It's more of a technical question. You see, RV as it's been traditionally conceived starting in the 1970's in Ingo Swann's Coordinate Remote Viewing, up through the present day proliferation of proprietary protocols (most loosely based on Swann's original CRV), requires that the viewer must know nothing about the target going in. That has always been a key, non-negotiable thing. To tell a viewer anything about the target, such as "view the scene of the OJ/Nicole Simpson murder and tell me what really happened" is consider absolutely out of protocol, doomed from the starting gate, absolutely hopeless, and utterly unprofessional. That is called "front loading" the session or just plain "pollution". It is never done among the pro's or serious amateurs.

The viewer must be totally blind. The viewer gets only a meaningless, arbitrary designation or key representing the target, something like a code string X854FJ-99W2. Meaningless right? And the viewer simply trusts that the chain of intent linking the actual target (be that a picture, an event, a location, or whatever) with this code has been established by at least one human mind working in good faith. That has to be taken on trust by the viewer (if violated, the session will fail in some unpredictable way). That way, the viewer has no chance of his own analytical mind imposing all manner of bogus narrative, story, and general analytical, conceptual BS across the entire session, which acts like a spoonful of dirt in a barrel of honey. It might still be sweet, but who'd want it?

Therefore, you always see RV being deployed and worked operationally as part of a "group" or a "guild" or a "mass online experiment" or an Army unit or whatever. Despite the intensely personal nature of the actual viewing experience per se, operationally it cannot be personalized or individualized.

So you can see the issue for the would-be "personal remote viewer", i.e a viewer who just wants to get information, on his own, about a question of personal interest. The problem: he can't task himself! He can't set up his own targets, because he knows too much. He can't even tell a friend to set up a particular, designated target in some specific way, because again the origin of the request is personal. See the issue? It isn't exactly moral or spiritual or anything - it's just technical.

That's the meaning of my quote above about actors - "actors are cattle". In some sense, the actual RV person is the least of the operational equation, as impersonal and replaceable as a foot soldier in a trench. What matters is only the high level designation of target and the final evaluation of results, something "above the pay grade" of the actual individual remote viewer per se. In that sense, remote viewers are cattle too. This problem is especially acute in the arcane sub-field of RV known as "associative remote viewing". That's beyond the scope of this blog post, but it's the area of most potential personal or individual benefit, yet also the area where the individual remote viewer is the most utterly disposable of all.

So getting back to the martial arts analogy, how many martial artists would have the same level of interest if their skills could never be used for any personal situation, target, protection, or benefit? Not because they are selfish or bad or any nonsense, it's just human nature to develop a skill for a personal reason, an expected personal benefit. Suppose that martial arts could only function if deployed as a group, say, in the Army as a group attack or defense system. Then would there be the same level of individual interest in MA training that we see today? I think not. That's why RV still isn't as generally popular as MA training.

Here are some random examples of the kinds of things people actually care about, and want to be able to do:

• find lost or misplaced personal items
• check on the welfare and condition of distant loved ones
• view outcomes of future events or personal decisions
• know whether others are lying or telling the truth

That's the kind of stuff. Yet despite all the spectacular powers of the best remote viewers, nobody in the RV world can reliably do what's listed above for him/herself.

So the "next big thing" that needs to happen in the RV world is that we need a new Ingo Swann to design a method of remote viewing for personal tasking - some kind of "PRV" (personal remote viewing) protocol, so that an individual can self-task and target on any front-loaded, known question of personal interest. That will be the next big breakthrough moment in RV.

Beat it

Remote Viewing (RV) is most interesting as a personal body/mind discipline. In that way it's the same as being into yoga or martial arts. Stephen Schwartz in his book Opening to the Infinite calls RV "a modern mental martial art" and writes as below:

"Think of remote viewing as a form of mental yoga or a martial art. Consistent with any martial art, learning the required skills earns a student not only specialized abilities but a deeper and greater confidence in their own beingness. Forget about the psychic, the occult, the supernatural, and all the mind-set and emotional baggage that go with those terms and the world they conjure up. Think instead about learning how to do something as normal as seeing color, discovering a part of yourself that you didn't know existed."

And Joe McMoneagle in Chapter 1 of his book Remote Viewing Secrets talks about 'The Martial Art of Remote Viewing', writing that RV practice is "the mind's body being conditioned, and the philosophy or spirituality that supports this conditioning is the mind's soul."

I  already wrote earlier about how much RV training is like really good, really deep Taijiquan training. Accessing and working with the Universal Mind (or your own subconscious, however you conceive it) is a lot like playing Taiji push-hands with an extremely soft, super-skillful great old-school Taiji master type of teacher. They want to "tell" you something, they want you to get it, but they are going to make you put something out, show your dedication to the Principles before they let you have anything.

I wrote before how RV work totally encapsulates the "no more than 4 ounces" concept. And there's another ancient Taiji principle that may apply even more. In Taiji circles you often hear the teaching:

不丢不顶 (bu diu bu ding)

It means don't disconnect (lose it), don't resist (force it). This is the secret of both Taiji and Remote Viewing.

Up scope

I think I'll walk you guys through one very small Remote Viewing example from the recent intensive training. This one is by no means representing my best RV work, as it's waaaay trivial compared to the main type of session we trained on. Mainly we trained in the full discipline of CRV (Coordinate Remote Viewing, sometimes called Controlled Remote Viewing) using the Ingo Swann protocol, which is quite rigorous and complex. That produces a lot of pages of transcript, including Stage I I/A/B ideogram, Stage 2 attributes, Stage 3 dimensionals, Stage 4 array, and on and on, concluding with the multiple-judge blind differential discrimination. It is too complex and too much output to reproduce it all here on my blog. Besides I'm lazy. But I want to give some idea of it.

So let's take a very minor thing we did, just as a sideline, for only a few minutes. This quick session, though short and lite, still has some interesting attributes which differed from any other training or record-run session we attempted.

This was a session future-action remote viewing. Normally we think of Remote Viewing as seeing through barriers (shielding) and over distant space. But Remote Viewing can see through time also. In this very trivial training example, the task was to see a near-future event that had not yet happened. And unlike most of our other training targets, instead of being either a complex graphic or picture, or else a "beacon" person interacting physically with a remote geographical site, the task involved describing a small physical object.

Six boxes of uniform appearance and size about like an ordinary house-brick were placed on the table, fully opaque and tightly locked. Each box had a number, 1 to 6, that was the only outward difference among them. We are told only that every box contains a physical object at its natural scale and size (in other words, not a Matchbox model of a racing car or airplane.) Imagine all the food object, kitchen utensils, sewing equipment, office supplies, natural items, etc etc etc an infinity of small objects in the world, impossible to guess.

And now, on top of that difficulty, here's the time issue. We went into our mental cooldown routine (part of RV standard protocol) and we were told (not exact quote but close enough) "In 5 minutes, an object will be placed into your hand. Describe and/or draw the attributes of this object."

I won't go into the techie details of how we mental access those attributes. It involves a kind of conversation with either (a) your own all-knowing subconscious; or (b) some kind of universal Matrix that knows everything beyond all time and space. Whatever. Anyway, following the (in this case, abbreviated) protocol, I got a some details about the object, which we'll walk through at the bottom of the post.

The viewing phase as I said in this simple "easy" training case was abbreviated to only about 5 minutes, where normally we'd spend up to a half hour on a single standard viewing transcript.

Once our mini-transcripts were done (just 5 minute scribbles of whatever we got using highly abbreviated viewing protocol), we stopped viewing, put down pencils, time to "put the object in our hands"... but what object? There are 6 boxes up front, remember?

Here's the weird part. The instructor got a single large die (one of a pair of dice) and got a student to roll it, no touching during any part of the roll until it comes to a complete halt. The die could obviously specify any digit from 1 to 6, which will direct the single box to be opened. Get it? Even though we already completed our viewings, of only one object, that target object had not yet been selected at the time of the viewing. In other words, we were doing RV not only through physical shielding but also through time, in predictive mode. The die landed showing a 2.

So the instructor opened only the Number 2 box, no other, and removed the object, which he held up and then passed around to each of us so that we could hold it in our hands (it is important to close the time loop, make sure the event that has been viewed from the past actually happens at some point so that the viewing, now in the past, has an actual true event to describe - the now present event of my holding that object in my hand as promised at the time of the now past viewing). 

So what was the object, and how clearly did I view/predict it? Let's go through my mental reception. Keep in mind that this was an off-protocol, very quick and dirty little off-record session, only 5 minutes of actual viewing.

The first picture I got was a flash of the dominant carrier shape of the object. Below is the actual transcript sketch I made in real-time as I perceived that the dominant shape (notice the top of the object is missing from the initial graphic I received), as shown in the upper shape drawn in the transcript page below.

Then I got a flash of color attributes, first an overall dominant impression of brightness, yellow and white, then a flash of an outline, striations, or obverse of a darker color, basically a dark purple. Simultaneously I got two other attributes: soft and smooth. What I actually wrote is shown in the attribute list scrawled to the side of the dominant shape graphic in the transcript pic below.

Then I mentally "probed" for the missing top of the object and got a graphic flash of a shape, which my hand (in the dark, during the actual viewing) sketched out separately, as shown in the lower graphic in the transcript pic.

Here is the actual transcript sheet:

OK so what was the object? It was given to us briefly to physically handle and I didn't think to photograph it, but this pic from the web is exactly the same appearance, same type of object (it was only a single shell, this pic is just used to show both front and back conveniently)

So my basic shape graphics were correct (see above), and of the descriptive attributes, all correct except for "soft". At the end the other 5 boxes were not opened nor their objects shown to us, in order to prevent temporal target displacement and overlay (a kind of results pollution).

The inside of the shell was absolutely smooth (though it may not be apparent from the photo). Even the outside felt smooth as a material texture, despite the striation lines. But where did "soft" come from? That came to my mind when the the instructor, acting as "monitor" for the session, asked us to access the purpose/nature of the object. Then I got an impression of internal softness or squishiness, presumably the original sea animal housed in this shell.

Room for improvement: obviously it would have been much better if I could have:

(a) drawn the complete unified shape as a single unit

(b) added the internal broad striation lines in detail instead of representing them as the sharp top spikes along the upper edge of the second drawing

(b) understood that "soft" did not apply to the current state of this object.

Still it's pretty good for a five minute session, viewing something from an infinite field of open future possibilities that had not happened yet. But yes there's room to improve a lot, that's what makes this a fun skill to work on.

Now I know exactly what you are thinking: if I "saw" it's basic shape and nature so well, why didn't I actually just go ahead and label it as a "shell", write that down? That gets us into way deep water, of what is called in CRV "analytical overlay" (AOL).

In training CRV, they drill into us: describe don't name. It's considered better in training to end up with a basically accurate dominant graphic and somewhat accurate attributes list, rather than trying to apply a higher level concept or build up a whole interpretive story. As we get more experienced that can be attempted of course, but in initial training, that kind of AOL is almost always the left brain getting carried away, going hog wild as ever with it's naming, labeling, interpreting, and story-telling function, doing its little job of explaining the world to us instead of letting the world subtly hint itself out to us. And the AOL stories of beginners are almost invariably wrong.

So this was an interesting short RV session, illustrating a number of different key points. I understand that RV people in the early stages  (like me) can be accused of so-called "data fitting". That's where you take generic attributes of a fairly skimpy transcript such as this and "find" them in the target object or scene, kind of over-forcing the claims of correspondence. That's just yet one more thing to grow past as the overall RV skill develops.

Don't buy it? Think I'm nuts or just trying to scam you for the Tabby Cat Gamespace $0.00 blog subscription fee? That's fine. I understand. Stay in your little shell (haha) because you obviously aren't one who can easily handle the fact that the world is more than we know.

Sky's the limit

 I'm thinking of scanning and posting some of my pictures and transcripts from Remote Viewing training intensive (just returned, that's why this blog was dead in the water for past week). Just feeling a bit lazy to do that right this minute.

I know you can read skeptic reports about Remote Viewing on the web or anywhere. It seems like just another scam akin to ordinary mediumship or any other crazy thing that James Randi would chew up and spit out. But no. RV is for real, absolutely. The only way you can doubt it is if you've never tried it. Anybody who thinks RV is fake is like a 15th century European denying that Columbus could possibly have "discovered" a "new world". That's just because such a whiner never made the trip himself.

Most people will never become great viewers because they won't practice enough at it, work hard enough to overcome some of the inherent difficulties with this mode of perception. But it's absolutely real, just another human sense or inherent faculty.

The first time you do RV, that first time you "notice" the picture forming in your mind, and you sketch it, write down its attributes, and then get your feedback afterward by seeing the target picture or visiting the target site (ordinary seeing, for  confirmation) - it'll totally blow your mind. You'll be like "Wha ... what the FUCK... ?? ... is going ON here?? How can this be possible? How can it be real?"  Yet - it is.

The first experience of confirmed RV is soul-shattering in a way that could almost be compared to ... how can I put this delicately, let's have a distinguished guest author step in for a moment to give me a discreet hand:

It resembles strangely, and it certainly akin to, that psychical shock which comes with the first experience of love (Lafcadio Hearn)

See what I'm getting at here? It's like the first time you realize "Whoa! There's a whole other thing going down here that nobody ever told me about!" And though RV isn't quite that much fun *smile* it is undeniably a mind-blowing experience, your analytical/rational part will be left on the sidelines, spluttering and red-faced, desperately  expostulating and remonstrating - to no avail. The thing is what it is. It works as advertised.

Be seeing you

 Like some bold seer in a trance,
Seeing all his own mischance

- Alfred Lord Tennyson; The Lady of Shallot

Towards the end of the coming week I'll head out again for advanced training in Remote Viewing. I have done the basics before. Now time to amp it up. The program follows the military protocol of the Stargate program. In fact the trainers are mostly the designers of the original Stargate USA military remote viewer training.

I may blog about that at some point, it's usually interesting.