stargate : Message: [stargate]
Do personal religious beliefs affect rving?
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/101)
11:21:05
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
A friend and I were sitting around talking about remote viewing and
religious beliefs. We wondered if a viewer, who was an aethist, would
react if they were given the target of the cruxification of Jesus? We
also wondered how those with structured religious beliefs (like in the
major Christian religions) deal with information from targets that do not
support their belief systems? For example --- the big bang and orgin of
mankind.
If you came across Archangel Michael, what would you do? Would your
belief hinder or help you view the target? When my friend found herself
face to chest with Michael, she let him make the first move. She was
curious as to what he would do. My friend did a slow merge with Michael
(which was obviously fine with him). He was a massive presence. If my
friend were Catholic or Mormon or whatever, would she had placed a lot of
religious significance to the encounter? My friend basically thought it
was very "cool" but did not wonder why he was appearing to her at the
time.
No, we were not drunk when we had this conversation. This idea came up
over coffee. However, my friend chooses to remain anonymous at this time.
Please address your comments to anonymous -- not to me. I am just the
messenger. Looking forward to an active discussion.
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Quantum and Psi
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/102)
11:21:30
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
> Dear George, To cut to the chase: What Joe McMoneagle and coworkers
> attempted was the classical double slit experiment that has been done
> for 60 years or so. Electrons are emitted towards two narrow slits one
> at a time. If unobserved (or whatever interpretation you apply to an
> observer) by the experimentalist the electrons will seem to pass
> through both slits at the same time and produce an interferrence
> pattern when they hit a second target. This occurs even when only one
> electron goes at a time. However, if an observer checks WHICH slit the
> electron goes through, then the electrons act like individual particles
> and NO interference is seen, rather a shotgun pattern is seen. The
> recent study in Nature demonstrates as never before that this observer
> induced change is not the result of any classical change induced by the
> observer { Nature , Vol. 391, pp. 871-874),.
A quantum system may be deterministically driven to a preselected outcome
by repeated resampling (checking to see if it is in the desired states).
This is the Quantum Zeno Effect, if memory serves.
> It is a typical quantum
> effect, non-local and very psi- like in terms that it is induced only
> by the seeming knowledge of which slit the elctron goes through. Joes
> group repeated this experiment and tried observing the electrons using
> RV and using instruments
IMHO they did not do enough thinking about how to construct a meaningful
psi experiment. Most experimenters use an obsolete Newtonian paradigm,
in which they assume that the experimenter and apparatus are Newtonian,
but the psi action is quantum!
> to determine if psychic knowledge of which
> slit the electron goes through was tantamount to a real knowledge of
> which slit the elctron goes through e.g. does Rving the electron cause
> the change tfrom interference pattern to shotgun pattern on the second
> target. AS mentioned above. Joe felt that determining by RV which slit
> the electron went through was not difficult, and that this observation
> did induce changes in the behaviour of the electron. However, no
> conclusive results were obtained before the budget ran out, mainly
> becasue of instrumental difficulties.
I wonder why they did this. There are many good psi studies which could
be reinterpereted from a quantum standpoint.
Now, some people believe that quantum effects occur only in very tiny
measurements. Henry Stapp (physicist) argued this point 5 or 6 years
ago. Henry thought that the macro Universe is classical and the micro
Universe is quantum. --I think that's silly & said so at the time.
Since that time I have come to believe that the Universe all works the
same way, whatever that is, and that the evidence for quantum effects is
really better than *the evidence for classical physics.* To get a good
classical result, the experimenters throw out everything else. Ask them
yourself! The weird stuff early in the experiment is written off to
startup problems and "gremlins". They run the experiment until their
values converge. This assumes that there is a true universal mean from
which their estimates differ by some error factor. *This may not be
true*.
[Note that I have not said the above is categorically true of
experimenters, but only that it is very frequently true.]
The location of an electron is not a quantity we-don't-know-and-must-
estimate-statistically; it is undefined.
Now I ( as best I can) have
> used the Bohr interpretation of the double slit experiment just to get
> this point accross. But I do not wish to get hung up on which quantum
> model is used here. The point is that it should be possible to
> determine definitely whether psychic observation equates to (or does
> not equate to) real obseration on the quantum level.
Shiva's teeth, how can anyone possibly doubt this? If you can *observe*
something and turn in verifiable results, you have observed it in the
quantum sense no matter what mode of observation you used.
I think that would
> be an enormous advance to the field. You are correct that it will still
> depend on measurements and statistics, but it implies a mechanism of
> psi ( and probably of mind) that at least interfaces with known physics
> and is testable. Now even if successful, one would have to be careful
> to see if the changes are similar to those induced by real observation.
You mean, observation by something that has a soul? Or maybe observation
by a human being?
I have always wondered why people don't think Schroedinger's cat would
know whether it was dead or not. My cat would know. I'd like to see a
decent proof that human consciousness can collapse the state vector,
whereas cat or screwdriver consciousness cannot.
> PK effects in this interpretation would presumably be do psychic
> observation of rare quantum events in the mind of the psychic, thus
> collapsing the quantum probablility towards the favored ( visualized)
> event. Thus precipitating the unlikely or miraculous from the
> mundane. Careful comparisons would have to be done to determine if the
> psi effects were justifiably interpreted as observer-like effects or
> were do to some other mechanism of PK.
What method would you use to distinguish them?
> That is all that Joe could
> tell me at this time. I have not been able to contact other members of
> his team. Sincerely, Bill Pendergrass
Shelley Thomson
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Jeffery's remote influencing
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/103)
11:21:46
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 Curran2106@... wrote:
> PUHHLLLEEEEZZZ!...I almost left PJ Gaenir's site because of this same sort of
> drivel. I find it really amazing that the military remote viewing team was
> organized specifically to test whether remote influencing were possible. With
> a staff of sometimes as many as a dozen viewers, millions of dollars worth of
> the taxpayers dollars and literally thousands of sessions, we were never
> REPEAT NEVER NIE, NADA..NICHTS etc...ever able to replicate any incident of
> remote influencing and we even brought in some of the most famous folks in the
> psychic business to see if they could do...same results....so with millions of
> dollars, the best facilities, thousands or hours of practice all of which was
> carefully monitored and recorded...not won bloodyu nose, not one
> headache...not one pencil raised and stuck into the wall and not won desk ever
> got levatated...
These were the remote influencing results you wanted to get? Bloody
nose, headache, pencil stuck into wall, and so forth?
It doesn't surprise me that you failed. The anthropological literature
and historical record are rich in accounts of remote influencing. The
suggestion that none of this actually took place *because you and your
cohorts could not do it* is absurd.
Can yu stick pencils into walls by thought power in ordinary situations?
If not, why should you popose this as a test for remote influencing?
There is a large collection of good laboratory studies of
psychokinesis. These are studies of remote influencing. Do you have a
problem with them?
> We wanted very much to use RV for influencing...the idea
> being that we could influence political thought in an adversary or reset
> guidance systems in missles...SORRY...none of that ever occurred nor could be
> ever EVER EVER even "influence" ourselves, lotteries (I say that now before
> someone comes on line and says they are winning the lottery with RV...another
> load of manure...)
Influencing lotteries is an entirely different problem than influencing
thought of a human being or sensitive electronics. Lotteries are hard
because a) the Universe doesn't care whether a given bit is a 1 or a 5;
and b) most state lotteries are crooked. Lotteries are a wast of time.
Remote influencing certainly does work. Psychokinesis and healing are
remote techniques.
Shelley Thomson
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Do personal religious beliefs affect rving?
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/104)
11:22:00
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
<< if a viewer, who was an aethist, would
react if they were given the target of the cruxification of Jesus? We
also wondered how those with structured religious beliefs (like in the
major Christian religions) deal with information from targets that do not
support their belief systems? For example --- the big bang and orgin of
mankind. >>
If a viewer were asked to view a ficticious target - something that did not
really ever exist - the viewer would not find it or as a minimum, while
thrashing around the ether, trying to find it..they may actually begin to
Psychic-Overlay the target...in other words go to only place it actually
exists, in the mind of the tasker. On the other hand, if the target did
actually exist in history - the Crucifixion of a man called Jesus ca. 20 BC -
30 AD, a viewer could view the event and view any phenomena which may have
occured, darkening of the skys, piercing of the chest and flow of
water...things described in scriptures. The fact the viewer was an atheist
would make no difference since they are operating in the right side of the
brain and only viewing and reporting what they perceive at face value. They
may even perceive emotional impacts of the gathered masses. This same
aetheist would perceive the impact and activities of a Buddha, a Mohammed etc,
in exactly the same manner. A spiritual encounter with something identified
as St. Michael would be more difficult to absolutely clarify. Keep in mind, a
name or even a title does not translate well in Remote Viewing although an
angelic perception may well overcome this phenomena. As to why a Christian
Saint would appear to a mortal has and will continue be a theological question
and certainly nothing which this poor ignorant Mick from the wrong side of the
tracks in Belfast would want to venture an opinion. A viewing of Apollo,
Zeus, Diana, etc..now that is something else...these were mythical deities
with no real or factual proof of actual mortal existence therefore, viewing
these fairy tales would bring into great doubt the veracity of the viewer. I
should add, that I feel essentially as shortsighted with most (not all)
reports of associations and psychic tea parties and conversations with alien
beings but please not I do not have a similarly closed mind when it comes to
Celtic spirits and Fairies...ironic..but like I said..I am Irish and we are
allowed to be a bit eccentric..it is in our blood...
Gene Kincaid...
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Jeffery's remote influencing
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/105)
11:22:19
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
<< Remote influencing certainly does work. Psychokinesis and healing are
remote techniques.
Shelley Thomson
>>
Myself, a couple dozen world class viewers working thousands a test under the
most amazing oversights and controls along with about 20M$ worth of taxpayer
dollars proved you to be wrong..but that is only my opinion...believe what you
will but I assure you, not even four dozen viewers and 40M$ worth of Uncle
Sugars money would have changed the results...sorry...but that is fact...and I
can be just as hard case about it as those who really believe in the parlor
tricks which they claim to be remote influencing...
Gene Kincaid...
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Jeffery's remote influencing
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/106)
11:22:34
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
> << Remote influencing certainly does work. Psychokinesis and healing are
> remote techniques.
>
> Shelley Thomson
> >>
> Myself, a couple dozen world class viewers working thousands a test under the
> most amazing oversights and controls along with about 20M$ worth of taxpayer
> dollars proved you to be wrong..but that is only my opinion...believe what you
> will but I assure you, not even four dozen viewers and 40M$ worth of Uncle
> Sugars money would have changed the results...sorry...
The fact that you could not do it certainly does not prove that others
cannot. Why don't you read the research literature? There are *many*
studies dealing with remote influencing. Rubik & Rauscher? Robert
Jahn? etc. There is no shortage of evidence on this issue.
Shelley Thomson
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Jeffery's remote influencing
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/107)
11:23:05
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
> the taxpayers dollars and literally thousands of sessions, we were never
> REPEAT NEVER NIE, NADA..NICHTS etc...ever able to replicate any incident of
> remote influencing and we even brought in some of the most famous folks in
the
> psychic business to see if they could do...same results....so with millions
of
> dollars, the best facilities, thousands or hours of practice all of which
was
> carefully monitored and recorded...not won bloodyu nose, not one
> headache...not one pencil raised and stuck into the wall and not won desk
ever
> got levatated...
These were the remote influencing results you wanted to get? Bloody
nose, headache, pencil stuck into wall, and so forth?
Gads . . . . thats not what he said . . . . read the letter again doll ,
use the left side of your brain . . . . . .
It doesn't surprise me that you failed. >>
Gene does not fail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ever.
stargate : Message: [stargate]
Psychic overlay
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/108)
11:23:17
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Gene wrote:
If a viewer were asked to view a ficticious target - something that did
not
really ever exist - the viewer would not find it or as a minimum, while
thrashing around the ether, trying to find it..they may actually begin to
Psychic-Overlay the target...in other words go to only place it actually
exists, in the mind of the tasker.
Gene,
My question is: did this happen to Courtney Brown? His book is kind of
off the wall. Was most of it psychic overlay, vivid imagination, or real
remote viewing? I mean is Buddha really governing the Galatic Federation?
Courtney self appoints himself to represent all of mankind! Underground
bases of Martians, etc. What is going on here?
I guess I just don't understand psychic overlay. Could that also be
what happened when he and others saw a companion object with the Hale
Bopp comet?
I hope my questions aren't too elementary. I appreciate your patience
with newbies! I highly value your opinion. Thanks.
Jane
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Jeffery's remote influencing
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/109)
11:23:45
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
It doesn't surprise me that you failed. The anthropological literature
and historical record are rich in accounts of remote influencing. The
suggestion that none of this actually took place *because you and your
cohorts could not do it* is absurd. >>
absurd? Woman.... who are you talking too?
"none of this actually took place *because you and your
cohorts could not do it* "
"Remote Influencing" works if both parties are agreered upon the influence ...
(do ya wanna be...) with the majority of the tested populace at 78-102 IQ
(MENSA) .... ya I would say that if you wanted to remote influence someone you
could ... but only if the recipient was in agreement to accept
suggestion...... Try a 75 IQer.....
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Psychic overlay
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/110)
11:24:00
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Jane--
I could tell from Gene's typing style that he was either: 1) Really wound
up and writing faster than he could think of the right words in one of the
various languages he knows; 2) Suffering from jetlag from one of his
junkets--er, "business trips to exotic areas of the world on the taxpayers
dime"; 3) A wee bit under the weather from too much association with this
Guiness fellow he's always metioning (no, folks, we ain't talking world
records, here); or 4) All of the above.
I shall therefore graciously undertake to answer for him! ;-)
What Gene was talking about is also known as "telepathic overlay." It was
the subject of much discussion some months back on PJ's VWR group.
Telepathic overlay is tuning in on someone else's thoughtforms instead of
the desired target. This can come about in several ways. One is if the
viewer is undisciplined or inexperienced, and he/she just picks up on
someone's strong "vibes." Another is when several viewers are addressing
the same target, and the viewer's subconscious gets confused and picks up
on one of the other viewers. In this case, one might never know it
happened, if the other viewer was "on target." Very closely matching
reports is a POSSIBLE indicator in this case that TOL has occurred.
A third way TOL occurs is when the viewer is tasked against a target that
doesn't exist in reality, but only in the mind of the tasker. Perhaps, for
example, the tasker believes a certain UFO event occurred, though it turns
out the "event" was made up by someone the tasker mistaenly trusted. When
tasked, the viewer "goes out looking" for the presumed target, but the
subconsious finding nothing, it may sometimes latch on to the strongest
"psychic signal" available--the beliefs of the tasker. In which case the
viewer reports exactly what the tasker expected him/her to report, thus
confirming everything the tasker originally believed.
The irony is that telepathic overlay IS being psychic--it's just being
pyschic in an unuseful and (usually) unfortunate way. I should point out
that, though Ingo knows about this phenomenon, he did not teach us about
it. We had to find out the HARD way!
HaHa Gene--beat you to it!
Enjoy!
Paul
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Do personal religious beliefs affect rving?
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/111)
11:24:14
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
<< angelic perception may well overcome this phenomena. As to why a Christian
Saint would appear to a mortal has and will continue be a theological
question
and certainly nothing which this poor ignorant Mick from the wrong side of
the
tracks in Belfast >>
Well, having a wee bit O Irish blood in myself, most assuredly from the wrong
side of the tracks, guess I am entitled to be a bit eccentric also
(temper included)
Now ... just why wouldn't The Michael, come too, join with, mere mortals.
We are all immortal, as is Michael.... perhaps he has just just been around
the bigger block......?
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Jeffery's remote influencing
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/112)
11:24:53
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
I thought I would bring out a few fallacy in our arguments.
Gene...one of the first requirements in achieving or observing the reality of
something is *believing.* Granted, we don't necessarily believe ourselves to
richness necessarily, however *believing* does provide a healthy attitude to
allow
for *possibilities.* Your conclusion locks out all possibilities on scientific
method that STILL is unable to provide reliable and CONCRETE evidence on the
nature
of PSI.
But if you are making a formal argument whether Remote Influence is possible or
not,
regardless of whether it is an opinion (since an argument is either valid or
invalid, opinion or not), your argument goes like this:
1. World class (whatever that means) Remote Viewers weren't able to Remote
Influence.
2. Impeccable, strict scientific test with tons of money backing this
"laboratory
research" did not show Remote Influence results.
3. Therefore, Remote Influence experiments shows no results.
So, that was a valid argument.
But you extrapolated this valid argument into.... 4. Remote Influence is a like
"parlor trick." In other words, RI is not possible. THAT... is an invalid
argument. Since the two premises above did NOT indicate whether the nature of
Remote Influence exist or not.
So, the lab experiment ( probably conducted in isolation of other INDEPENDENT
labs
in virtue of its classified nature) ONLY proved that there were NO RESULTS in
the
experimentation process that was undertook at that particular TIME in your
presence
at that location.
I have taken the liberty of applying a philosophic conclusion on your comment.
I am
not stating that RI exist or not. To have a better impact in persuation, I
believe
you will have to look for a better premise to substantiate RI existence or
non-existence.
As for Shelley...as positive as she claims its existence, her only alibi is
research
made on the subject. We are not made aware of the conditions, so we are left
having
to research the material ourselves. That's fine and dandy, but is also doesn't
provide a persuasive argument in the NOW.
A psychic element like this is something I would prefer experiencing first hand,
its parameters defined, and full "statistical" interpretation of its repeated
results, and the players.
Thus, I am ambivalent in accepting either story, since the its much need for
proper
embellishment.
So that we "believe what we will" is a philosophical statement we can argue
forever. But our issue is scientific evidence openly displayed to establish
CONCRETE evidence. An issue like this is much too important and carries
tremendous
ramification for it to be stated dubiously to the readers.
Respectfully,
electrix
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Jeffery's remote influencing
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/113)
11:25:12
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
On Tue, 30 Jun 1998 AquaSerene@... wrote:
> "Remote Influencing" works if both parties are agreered upon the influence ...
> (do ya wanna be...) with the majority of the tested populace at 78-102 IQ
> (MENSA) .... ya I would say that if you wanted to remote influence someone you
> could ... but only if the recipient was in agreement to accept
> suggestion...... Try a 75 IQer.....
>
Ridiculous.
Untrue.
Shelley Thomson
stargate : Message: [stargate]
Psychic overlay
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/114)
11:57:05
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Hi Paul!
Thanks for providing an excellent definition of psychic overlay. Now I
have a better idea of what is going on. As far as Courtney Brown goes,
well, I guess I can reach my own conclusion based on his book.
I do have another question about psychic overlays and Jesus. A friend
viewed the cruxification of Jesus. She saw the man on the cross. He was
dying. All around his head was ALOT of energies. Are those energies
originating from the man Jesus or are those energies overlays from the
millions of people that send energy/pray to that image? Can current
energy be sent back to a previous event and appear as the original event?
Just wondering.... Thanks!
Jane
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Do personal religious beliefs affect rving?
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/115)
11:57:50
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Re Saints visiting mortals.
When first starting out in psychic phenomenae, but not really believing
it I took a class in psychic meditation in about 1977. It was sort of a
primitive RVing class..but an argument broke out about whether entities
that were contacted ( and people were claiming this) were trustworthy.
Well the instuctor got carried away about measuring the Love and careing
of the entity and whether it was just trying to boost your ego. He then
went into what I later found out was Pauls speech on Love in Corinthians
13. Suddenly a patch of light appeared next to the leader and formed
into the face of a beared robed man. Iwas nonplussed but silent. then
one of the others described the same face I was seeing and said that
Paul had the same message. Measure your worth by Love and Faith and Hope
but most of all by Love. Thank God he didn't evangelize..I might have
turned Catholic. But he didn't, just looked me straight in the eyes and
said, psychic things were fine but only Love could be ultimately
trusted. Everybody walked out in stony silence.
Thats it folks..honest.
Bill Pendergrass.
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Psychic overlay
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/116)
11:58:10
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Good one.....I definitely can relate to this one....
:-)
electrix
Paul H. Smith wrote:
> Jane--
>
> I could tell from Gene's typing style
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Psychic overlay
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/117)
11:58:20
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Dear Paul:
Since we are dealing with a lot of new participants in the new' wedded'
Lists, we might take the time to let them know that we were discussing
'Contamination of Targets' and 'possible contamination of remote viewing
targets' which is a subject of intense interest to us all.
It might be interesting for those who were not 'in' on the original
discussion to take a chogie to PJ's archived VWR and PSI Lists back a couple
of months. :)
Sincerest
Bevy J
stargate : Message: [stargate]
No More Remote Influencing Discussions
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/118)
11:58:32
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Dear List:
The debate over remote-influencing is causing evident tensions
on this list. Since it is such a hotly controversial topic, with many
heated opinions, I would like everyone to halt discussion of this
subject as of the date and time of this post. If you must continue
discussion, please take it to private e-mail.
Could everyone please, for the meantime, refrain from making any
further remote-influencing posts.
Some of the people on this list have made comments which could
be interpreted as offensive (or, perhaps just blunt to the extent that
they can easily be seen as offensive.) I am tempted to remove
access to this list for these individuals, but given the controversial
nature of the topic, I can understand why people may of become
agitated. I am also opposed to "authoritarian" solutions to problems,
so I will instead give these individuals another chance.
But be aware that anyone who makes a post about remote-influencing
past the posting of this message will receive a written email warning.
This will be followed by suspending of their access to this list if they
persist.
I would not like to have to switch this list to moderated discussion,
but this may become necessary if people do not calm themselves
down and try to discuss and debate subjects in a mature, calm
manner.
I am sorry this 'order' is necessary, but as List Owner/Moderator,
it is my responsibility to ensure this list operates smoothly. As I
have repeatedly said, I will *only* bring in rules and moderation
if I feel it becomes necessary. Until recently, I felt the list was
operating fine without the need for rules or moderation. I felt it
provided a great example of self-restraint and self-control on the
part of the contributors.
However, my opinion on this subject may change if people are not
prepared to exercise more self-control.
The offenders (you know who you are!) should feel ashamed for
their conduct. Some may be receiving private e-mails on this
matter.
Best regards,
Steve Crietzman
List Owner and "Moderator"
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Psychic overlay
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/119)
11:58:47
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
In a message dated 98-06-30 23:39:23 EDT, you write:
<< ases of Martians, etc. What is going on here?
I guess I just don't understand psychic overlay. Could that also be
what happened when he and others saw a companion object with the Hale
Bopp comet?
I hope my questions aren't too elementary. I appreciate your patience
with newbies! I highly value your opinion. Thanks.
>>
I become immediately suspect when a viewer begins coming across with great
amounts of very detail data...numbers, plans, constructions sites,
discussions, names, clothing, etc...when viewing, a well qualified and honest
viewer weill normally see bits and pieces of a site and after a while, these
bits and pieces will form a more concise whole but they never form a nice
DiVinci or Monet...they will always be just out of reach of full clarity...The
mind is a wonderful tool capable of building just about any image it wishes to
build. The whole Hale Bopp fiasco was - IMHO - a fine example of self
fulfilling RV prophecies...Some people desparately want a great conspiracy to
exisit in which governments / religious leaders / beings from the belt of
Orion etc, are all involved in some sort of mutually agreed upon situation.
It is always amazing to me that a standing President who cannot even conceal a
moment of passion in a private office within in the Whitehouse seems to be
able to conceal something so pervasive within the government that literally
thousands of officials would have to be fully aware of and participate in the
conspiracy. I DON"T THINK SO....So many people saw Hale-Bopp as some sort of
second coming, some sort of clever alien ruse or some sort of deeper alien
cover up that their minds simply made it so...I have told some of my old war
stories so many times, exaggerating and adding now and then to please the
audience, that I am not sure if I remember the real facts anymore...happens to
lots of old soldiers...it is quite understandable how vivid imaginations and
stray memories of old "B" grade black and white movies from the past could
cause even someone as obviously intelligent as a college professor could also
fall prey to the tricks of the mind...
Jane...I love your questions...do not stop...makes me have to think and old
worn out minds like mine need the exercise...hahaha
Gene...
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Psychic overlay
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/120)
11:58:58
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
<<
The irony is that telepathic overlay IS being psychic--it's just being
pyschic in an unuseful and (usually) unfortunate way. I should point out
that, though Ingo knows about this phenomenon, he did not teach us about
it. We had to find out the HARD way!
HaHa Gene--beat you to it! >>
Me Guinness...what...well maybe a bit in the morning just to help the economy
of my struggling homeland...
Yes...messed up my wording...and yes I did mean TOL...oh well...now you have
done it...you have ruined my reputation by forcing me to admit that I was
wrong about something...what will the net think of me now...no longer am I an
invincible icon...my guru status is in great jeopardy...oh no!!!!!!!
Thanx for pulling my irons from the fire...
Gene..
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Psychic overlay
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/121)
12:01:13
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Gene--
At 09:00 AM 7/1/98 EDT, you wrote:
>Me Guinness...what...well maybe a bit in the morning just to help the economy
>of my struggling homeland...
They tell me that something strange like "a bit of hair of the dog that bit
you" is standard tretment...
>Yes...messed up my wording...and yes I did mean TOL...
Not TOO bad--"Psychic overlay" works as well as anything!
oh well...now you have
>done it...you have ruined my reputation by forcing me to admit that I was
>wrong about something...
And what reputation might that be? ;-)
Enjoy!
Paul
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Psychic overlay
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/122)
12:01:26
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
hello paul
good post!
question : is the a way to check if there is an telepphatic
overlay occured or not ?
for example when remote viewing a target the tasker can
add to the target definition that if the target dont exist then the viewer
would get something else like the statue of liberty or will get nothing?
Eyal
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
innervision invitation
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/123)
12:01:36
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
The Inner Vision Research Institute is starting up a mailing list
at innervision@.... The list will primarily serve to: send
subscribers the Inner Vision Newsletter on a monthly basis;
inform subscribers about Inner Vision courses, dates and locations;
research; and details about Angela Thompson Smith's new book Remote
Perception's, which is to be published by Hampton Roads in September.
Angela Thompson Smith will be doing talks and book signings around the
country. The list will include dates and locations of these. The areas
covered by the list, for discussion, will include OBEs, remote viewing,
remote perception, PK, and many other topics of interest.
There are several ways to subscribe:
* If you send me an email, I will manually add your address to the list;
* you can send an email message to innervision-subscribe-makelist.com
Look forward to seeing you there.
Kind regards
Angela Thompson Smith
The Inner Vision Research Institute
Catalyst@...
http://www.paradigm-sys.com/innervision
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Moving arond the target?
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/124)
12:01:54
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
I hope some of you military guy's can help me with a few questions. I get
pretty good general session data during RV, but want to know if there are
better movement exrcises around a target. At the moment I move around like
this:
Move to target centre aquire, describe and sketch,
Move 100ft above target centre describe and sketch.
with exercises similar to these I get good data, but do you have any tips on
how to fine tune this data, possibly by moving around the target, or any
others?
Any help would be appreciated.
All the best...
darryl
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Moving arond the target?
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/125)
12:02:08
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
>>
Darryl...(Neat name....)...anyhow, movement at a target is a tricky business
at best. Not to be constantly tooting the horn of the monitors of the
world...a monitor in your sessions would be able to assist you greatly in
movement throughout the target areas...Now as to your own developed
protocol....it is your protocol...use it if it works and don't worry what
anyone else might say about it...too damned many experts in this business
already...what we need is some real honest talent...I would caution you,
however, not to become to rigid in your protocols especially those pertaining
to movements...I tell my students the little story that it is quite possible
for a person to eat a whole elephant but only if they eat it one small bite at
a time...try to swallow it whole and the whole thing goes to hell....While on
target, remember, it is not a liesurely tour through the park. There is
probably a central theme to the target...a specific element or item which
makes the target special. If you first focus on this element (while avoiding
"door knobbing" - getting so close that you fail to actually see anything else
....), and spend some time with the central element, filling in the others
bites of the elephant becomes easier and more clear. Try to take all of
Disneyland in with one blink of the eye and you will see nothing...They key is
to focus on key elements individually and then the peripherals and
shazam...the magic occurs...
Warmest Regards...Gene...
P.S...I am being real nice and sweet ... make sure everyone knows...Steve
threatened to toss me off the net if I continued to be my warm obnoxious
self...hahahah
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Sweet Gene
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/126)
12:02:20
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
I for one am really enjoying this more human Gene. Good work Steve!
Bill
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Sweet Gene
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/127)
12:02:31
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
<< I for one am really enjoying this more human Gene. Good work Steve!
Bill >>
hahahahaahah "Sweet Gene" ? remindes me of a song....
"Sweet like candy to my soul... sweet you rock and sweet you roll...."
Yep... agreed, good work Steve. hmmmm or was the song "Sweet Jane" ???
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Moving arond the target?
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/128)
12:02:45
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
>I hope some of you military guy's can help me with a few questions.
>
snip
>
>Any help would be appreciated.
>
>All the best...
>
>darryl
>
Hi Darryl;
Liam here. It seems to me you have developed a method which works well
for you. Gene's answer was on the mark. I would like to expand on two of
his points.
First, at the military unit, determining when and where to move was the
monitor's
responsibility, not the viewers. The viewer might say " I think there is
something
important inside this structure."
The monitor then MIGHT move the viewer inside the structure. The monitor is
the one on the left side of his brain and capable of making logical
decisions.
The viewer is in contact with the signal line, and IMO is on the right side
of
his brain, and is probably incapable of rational thought (every notice how
your
spelling goes to hell when you are locked on a target. Of course that is
how I spell
normally)
. Of course all this does not help you, if you are working without a
monitor.
When I work without a monitor I try limit my moves to gut level. I move
where I feel I should
move. A second alternative is what you are doing, "rote moves" the same
for every target.
The second point Gene made was the nature of the tasking. Most stage 3
and above sites, IMHO, should be fairly specific. If the tasking is to
describe the
physical condition of the Prime Minister, then that is what, in theory, the
viewer will
focus on. In this instance a description and skecth of the parliament
building
would not be helpful, except to tell the tasker that the viewer was close to
the desired information.
A third point, and I expect to take some heat rounds for this, is you may be
expecting too much form a stage 3 skecth. IMO, the main value of a stage 3
skecth is that it puts the viewer in closer contact with the site. Some
elements in the skecth will
be correct, but others may be wrong or misplaced. The really amazing
skecthes
done at Ft Meade were done, not in stage 3, but at the conclusion of the
session.
After all this, I guess the only advice I have to offer is; If what you are
doing
works for you (and it seems to) then keep on doing it.
Best wishes
slainte
May the force be with you
Liam
stargate : Message: [stargate]
Gene
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/129)
12:03:16
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
>Thanks Gene,
>for your help, when a problem is staring you in the face it takes an
>outsider to give a much needed point of view.
>All the best...
Gene's not such a bad guy.. when he puts his mind to it
It's me you ought to be worried about! I believe Gene called me
"The English Oppressor" (ooh, the cheek of it, but how true -
perhaps Gene's onto something there! ;-) Or was that Paul..? Oh,
well whoever said it, was right ;-)
Jokingly,
Steve.
stargate : Message: [stargate]
session Summary!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/130)
12:03:33
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
>>done at Ft Meade were done, not in stage 3, but at the conclusion of the
>>session.
>
>
>Is it possible to clarify some more on these more detailed sketches. I get
>some good sketches in Stage 4 and 6. But are you talking about sketches as
>part of a session summery. I do not have much info on this part of the rv
>process, and by natural curiosity rush through a summery so as to open the
>target envelope. Any help on sessions summaries would be appreciated.
>
>th\anks in advance and for the previous help...
>
>darryl
>
Hi Darryl
Liam again. A word of warning. Everything I am going to say is strictly my
opinion. I have no scientific data to back it up.It is based on my
experience
at Ft Meade and later.
I believe we obtain information from the signal line by three different
ways.
The first is perception: You put your pen on the paper and take what the
signal line gives you.
This is the primary (maybe the only) way we get information in stages 1
through 3.
The second way is "cueing." In stage 4 you "perceive" a structure. You
then
place your pen in the proper place to cue in the dimensions, color,
construction, and purpose.
You are now "cueing" the signal line as to the type of information you
desire.
The third way we obtain information is "knowing." This is information about
the site that you "just know." You did not perceive it, you did not "cue"
it; you
just know it. How many times have you finished a site, looked at the
feedback
and said "I knew there was water at the site. You did not perceive it or
cue and you
did not report it. It was information you knew, but you were not aware you
knew
it. This is more obvious in ERV. an ERVer might report there is a second
man here.
When asked to describe the second man, the viewer might come back with
a whole string of data. This was information the viewer knew already. He was
not aware he knew it until the monitor asked him for the information.
A carefully written summary will produce a lot of that "known" information
that is not
available anyplace else in the session. A word of caution; the monitor will
need to decide if this is "known" information (in which case it is probably
correct)
or if this is post-session- analyses (in which case it is probably wrong.).
Sketches drawn while writing a summary tend IMO to trigger a lot of this
"known" information.
Stage 4 and stage 6 sketches tend to be more accurate than stage three
sketches
because you have more site contact and you have access to "known"
information
and you can cue information while you are sketching.
I did not mean to be so long winded. remember everything I said is only my
opinion.
Hope this helps.
warm regards
slainte
May the force be with you
Liam
The blues ain't nothing but a good man feeling bad
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Moving arond the target? and more!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/131)
12:03:53
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
>done at Ft Meade were done, not in stage 3, but at the conclusion of the
>session.
Is it possible to clarify some more on these more detailed sketches. I get
some good sketches in Stage 4 and 6. But are you talking about sketches as
part of a session summery. I do not have much info on this part of the rv
process, and by natural curiosity rush through a summery so as to open the
target envelope. Any help on sessions summeries would be appreciated.
th\anks in advance and for the previous help...
darryl
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Moving arond the target? THANKS!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/132)
12:04:04
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Thanks Gene,
for your help, when a problem is staring you in the face it takes an
outsider to give a much needed point of view.
All the best...
darryl
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
session Summary! THANKS!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/133)
12:04:14
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
>When asked to describe the second man, the viewer might come back with
>a whole string of data. This was information the viewer knew already. He
was
>not aware he knew it until the monitor asked him for the information.
Thank for the help and input, I know what you mean about just knowing parts
of the target but with nothing to back it up. Would this "known" info be
like stored info, like a cognitron as in stage 5 , I kind of get the feeling
that it's not and that its' direct signal line. Any thoughts on this?
Thanks for the info about cueing whilst sketching in stage 4-6, I never
thought about doing this, yet it seems so abvious now you've mentioned it.
All the best...
Darryl
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Steve!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/134)
12:04:23
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Steve, have you looked at that session yet? I have alot more that can go
online if it will help others with basics.
I can even supply them already typed up if youd prefer.
All the best...
Darryl
stargate : Message: [stargate]
Online Sessions
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/135)
12:04:35
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Darryl wrote:
>Steve, have you looked at that session yet? I have alot more that can go
>online if it will help others with basics.
>I can even supply them already typed up if youd prefer.
Hi Darryl,
I received your e-mail, have unpacked the file and taken a quick look.
I haven't been able to do much more with it until now. I'll take
a look at them tonight or tommorrow and will get back to you by e-mail
about it. Promise. I'm sorry about the delay up until now.
This brings up an interesting question: would anyone else like their
favourite xRV sessions (or "sessions of choice") scanned and put online?
I think it would be useful to have sample sessions online, and hopefully
in conjuction with the CRV Training Manual which PJ is due to put online
on the 5th June, should help to de-mystify CRV for many. Just a guess
there, since I've not had professional xRV training or seen the manual
yet. Naturally, I'm looking forward to getting to see this manual. I hope
it's on time. (Has anyone heard from PJ recently, BTW?)
Best regards,
Steve.
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
innervision invitation
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/136)
12:04:54
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
I'd like to subscribe, please.
Thank you,
Mary Stanley
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Online Sessions
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/137)
12:05:07
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
<< (Has anyone heard from PJ recently, BTW?)
Best regards,
Steve. >>
PJ is doing fine...we continue to correspond over her private E-mail
addresses...she accepts me for the gruff old Celtic bear that I am and manages
to live through it...
Gene...
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/138)
12:05:42
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
> >This is precisely what I like about the UT site.
>
> Gosh, Rich--where were you when I was getting hammered on PJ's list for
> cozying up to the nasty ol' skeptics?!? ;-)
> >Oh yeah....dont forget your t-shirts.... :)
Well.....I been hustling for demos for a long time. I'm sure I brought
it up on PJ's
once or twice...but also been at other sights especially where the
recent RV students
tend to tell how well it works for them. Almost with out fail....but
fail to get up on stage.
Needless to say that at one site all such discussions were deleted and
banned.
Lots of ways to look at it. You guys (and gals) who have been doing
RV/PSI for a long time and what could be called "professional" level
could reasonably get tired of doing "parlor tricks" I guess, but
where is a newcomer to go? The bigger question is where did the
"successful" newcomers go? Has anyone
ever met someone who took up golf.....became good at it from the getgo
and then went and played solo all the
time or just the same 4-some all the time? Down here the place is
teeming with golfers and every one
is on a mission :)
I want to make clear that I appreciate and am gratefull to all of the
participants of PJ's site and this one.
I just like my science books with pictures.
> Neat idea! Wish I'd thought of it first. Then I could open a haberdashery
> and forget about teaching this stuff. Save a lot of headaches... ;-)
Just got back from Orlando/Universal/SeaWorld.....I'm sure there is room
there for PSI_World. ...or some offshoot theme......Hale-Bopp Companion
ride.......grey/reptilian water show.....etc :)
Ohhh...Steve......is it ok to talk about RV/ET or RV/UFO ???
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/139)
12:06:09
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Shelia Massey wrote:
>
> Rich Krankoski wrote:
>
> > RV sorely needs some "down to earth"
> > publicity/demonstrations. Sensationalism has put things in a bad light and
> > there seems to be no one wanting/willing/able to fix it.
>
> This is more a matter of the public paying closer attention.
> giving you .... well I'll be polite and say the guys who are being
> honest give you a lower percentage of success (and that's only if you're
> really good).
Absolutely true as in anything else. The two people claiming the most
accurate and also the most far out
RV obtained information have pretty much gotten on the stage, did their
thing and came up with absolutely
nothing. Their live demos came up zero %. But notice that they still
have followers and student
practitioners who are echoing their claims. So what is going on? Ed
Dames claims years of experience. courtney
Brown is relatively new...student/teacher/author. Both of their
publicly proclaimed RV data have been
un - verifiable if not verifiably wrong. What is the problem? Their
choice of esoteric/future event targets?
Never mind the Martians under Mt Baldy or the pathogen from space. Let
me see them or their students OR ANYONE do some everyday real world
targets......practice landscapes or pratical problem
solving....whatever.
> > To add to the confusion are the ..... "revelations" that there were/are
apparently more than one people/military
> > groups/projects who were not aware of each other going back many years.
>
> What? Tell me more....I haven't heard anything about this.
Well, there is Glenn's group in Hawaii and Bevy's group in St Louis. I
believe both have said that they were in RV separately from the Intel
group and also earlier. And....according to Courtney Brown....there are
still
government RV groups. (...as I pour salt on my pretzel rods and potatoe
chips.)
>
> > In the long run, I think that "RV" will become more and more known as a
> > version of psi and not stand out so much.
>
> It does require consistent practice just as so many other disciplines do.
> And to tell the truth this is what I think will be the cutting point --
> there will be those who will persist...and those who don't. And
> of course, as so many of the scientists and psychologists have pointed out,
> those who consciously are willing to go there but whose subconscious fears
> block the way.
Don't all forms of psi require practice?
> > Its too much of a buzz word right now. But then that brings up
> > other questions for me. Why have not the other types of psi ever caught
> > on with the general public? Been around a lot longer.....astral projection
> > .....OBE....psychometry.....channeling....etc.
>
> Well,,,,,,where have you been hiding? I'm 52 years old and to my
> knowledge these things have been around and are accepted within their
acknowledged
> limits....
I've been around about as long and spent some time years ago looking for
"Mr Psychic",
the successor to Edgar Cayce, any successfull palm reader, ouija
boarder, astrologer,
etc. I came across ONE event that I would call a "hit". As long as I
can remember, there
were "fortune tellers"....even one of my aunts. ( She was indeed a
family favorite in the
parlor....but alas....to their credit no one bet their houses on the
fortunes told.)
Whatever the case, there is no widespread practice let alone accuracy
and usefull results
from any of these other forms of psi that I am aware of that has been
publicly documeted.
If there is please take my hand and lead me humbly to it.
RV came on the scene quite differently than other psi.....government
funded...documented
results....a "recently" designed methodology....scientific
studies.....widely listened to
radio publicity....and the internet.
I don't think any other form of psi has ever been given the same kind of
publicity.
Usually, it was that a specific individual could perform a specific kind
of psi exteremely
well. Here, it was the method that was given credit first and
individuals secondarily.
> > One reason may be that none of the others provide any consistency or
> > high level of success. The same may be true of RV once the wild claims of
100%
> > accuracy are disproved. And again I would like to see here or anywhere,
> > samples from those new or old to the ability...and who make the high hit,
high
> > data resolution claims to step foreward into this "parlor" or UT or anywhere
and strut
> > their stuff.
>
> Who EVER made this claim????????
100%.....Ed Dames.
100%.....Courtney Brown
near 100%....various recent students of RV (mostly SRV and TRV ) and
several who have recently opened
their own schools.
near 100%.....I believe some who are/were in the e-mail group. (I may be
confusing with some who use other
methodologies....not "f(RV)". )
> This is the attitude that baffles me the most. If we are waiting for
> someone to prove high hit rates, and not willing to take say even a 30% rate
of
> success, which is an improvement over our normal state of consciousness, what
is
> this game about?........Whether it's RV, OBE, meditation, psychometry,
scrying, etc. it's all
> about knowing yourself enough to trust that you can move outside of the
> normal boundaries of self and make it home again.
I'll buy that.....really....I spent a few bucks years ago in search
of...and again recently. It was
worth it both times in that it satisfied my curiosity.....left me
somewhat disappointed....
added to my knowledge.....and gave me a perspective that kept me
interested. Now, if anyone can
tell me the significance of the names Nelek and Tibif......they will
perhaps close the circle on
some "knowledge" obtained years ago.
> Shelia
Rich
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Rich on salt and potatoe chips.
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/140)
12:06:18
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Hi Rich, all very good points on RV and psi and ED Danes etc. But youve
got me really guessing on this paragraph. Is there a secret metaphore
here, or are you the only other human being I know that puts salt on his
potatoe chips. We definitely need to start a support group if so.
What? Tell me more....I haven't heard anything about this.
Well, there is Glenn's group in Hawaii and Bevy's group in St
Louis. I
believe both have said that they were in RV separately from the
Intel
group and also earlier. And....according to Courtney
Brown....there are
still
government RV groups. (...as I pour salt on my pretzel rods and
potatoe
chips.)
Bill Pendergrass
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Rich on salt and potatoe chips.
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/141)
12:06:28
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Aloha Guys,
Saw my name mentioned and thought I would say hello. I have worked pretty
hard with the help of several others in putting the website up showing
exactly what we are all up to out here in the Islands.
We have tried along the way to look at everything as well as do our best to
entice some of the CRV folks out for a working vacation.. We make no claims
about unrealistic accuracy or the future of the world.
A trip to our website should show we are trying very hard and producing
some fair results. We have about 40 active members in the Guild and the big
plus is that we get to train, evaluate, retrain, and practice practice
practice.
Currently we find that communication between ourselves, meeting, classes,
email, phone etc is a very good support base for results. The feeling of
being a part of a team or group makes a comfort zone for us to tackle
problem solving. Any specific inquires just send us some email.
Aloha Glenn
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Rich on salt and potatoe chips.
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/142)
12:06:47
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
> government RV groups. (...as I pour salt on my pretzel rods and
> potatoe
> chips.)
>
> Bill Pendergrass
>
Well,
Some things require much more than just A grain of salt. One of those
being Margaritas.
Just don't pour salt in my Augsburger.
Rich
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/143)
12:07:02
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
On Sat, 4 Jul 1998, Rich Krankoski wrote:
> Absolutely true as in anything else. The two people claiming the most
> accurate and also the most far out
> RV obtained information have pretty much gotten on the stage, did their
> thing and came up with absolutely
> nothing. Their live demos came up zero %. But notice that they still
> have followers and student
> practitioners who are echoing their claims. So what is going on?
It's called "advertising."
> Never mind the Martians under Mt Baldy or the pathogen from space. Let
> me see them or their students OR ANYONE do some everyday real world
> targets......practice landscapes or pratical problem
> solving....whatever.
I agree. Practical problem solving is a worthwhile use of psi skills.
If one had the help of an MD or a psychiatrist, it would be quite easy to
set up exercises along this line. I am thinking of remote diagnosis,
which can yield information that is helpful to all concerned.
Now, if you check out "Mind Reach," by Targ & Puthoff, you will see a
well written and extensive description of the first SRI remote viewing
studies. There is a large collection of research literature on remote
viewing--try your local university library, under the heading
"parapsychology."
Re. practical problem solving, I can offer two examples. (Please bear in
mind that most of my rv work is either astronomical or, if related to
people, confidential.) First, when the Hale-Bopp Companion photograph
was published and Courtney Brown announced he had rv'd it, and identified
it as an alien object, I rv'd the comet myself to see if he was right. I
hoped it was true. (I've seen amazing things in space and I've always
hoped that something large would come close enough to be photographed by
astronomers.)
I was disappointed to find that there was only ordinary comet material
present. There was a lot of this material, because it's a big
comet...but there were no alien artifacts.
Then I rv'd the photograph and saw the hoaxer gloating about his
success. I thereupon sent Art Bell an email informing him that
there was no Hale-Bopp Companion and the photo was a deliberate fraud.
Bell never answered my email. He continued to have Ed Dames on his show,
for reasons that appear to be related somehow to money.
Want a copy of the email? --Re the cylinder filled with brown substance,
the plant pathogen Dames has mentioned, don't worry about it. It isn't
there.
Item 2. It's undignified, but well, here goes. When the Paula Jones
story *first broke* months ago, it was mentioned that in her deposition
she described the President's intimate anatomy. I was curious & rv'd the
situation. I sent emails to a few women friends about the result, because
I thought it was funny. I'm sure they'll remember this email and at least
one of them would be kind enough to serve as a witness if required.
Eventually an English tabloid broke the story. I was right.
It's not hard to get good rv results if the problem is of intrinsic
interest.
> Don't all forms of psi require practice?
Sure. Every skill requires practice.
> Whatever the case, there is no widespread practice let alone accuracy
> and usefull results
> from any of these other forms of psi that I am aware of that has been
> publicly documeted.
> If there is please take my hand and lead me humbly to it.
Try a good university library. Psychokinesis has been very extensively
studied, for instance.
If you want to see good rv accuracy, and don't feel like reading about
the research, you should come up with a worthwhile problem whose answer
is of intrinsic interest, where some kind of verification will be
available in the future. (Don't ask viewers to guess lottery numbers;
alphanumeric information doesn't make transit reliably in rv mode.
Nobody cares whether a number is a 1 or a 4, anyway...) Get people to
view something that is of interest to them. Then you'll see good
results.
Shelley Thomson
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
RV numbers
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/144)
12:07:16
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
> you should come up with a worthwhile problem whose answer
>is of intrinsic interest, where some kind of verification will be
>available in the future. (Don't ask viewers to guess lottery numbers;
>alphanumeric information doesn't make transit reliably in rv mode.
>Nobody cares whether a number is a 1 or a 4, anyway...) Get people to
>view something that is of interest to them. Then you'll see good
>results.
>
>Shelley Thomson
>
hello shelly
do u think nobody care a number is 1 or 4 if they know its worth alot of
mony?
i belive number can be seen in rv steel didnt got to that stage to prove
it, but for those who cant rv numbers what about ingo A.R.V method wich
developed in SRI?
Eyal
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/145)
12:07:30
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Hi Rich, Shelia, List,
>>Whatever the case, there is no widespread practice let alone accuracy
>>and usefull results from any of these other forms of psi that I am
>>aware of that has been publicly documeted.
>>If there is please take my hand and lead me humbly to it.
>RV came on the scene quite differently than other psi.....government
>funded...documented results....a "recently" designed methodology....
>scientific studies.....widely listened to radio publicity....and the internet.
Which all makes this subject a lot more interesting to the general
public and science-minded folks - we're not talking your average psychic
here, we're talking about a long-term project, funded by government
agencies with millions of dollars of tax-payer money, to research,
develop and use psychic ability under a strict, scientific protocol
developed in some of the most prestigious scientific institutions in
the US.
It gives the subject a lot more credibility, and was no doubt enough to
make even the hardened skeptic sit up and pay attention.
Where I have a problem, and perhaps you'll share my concern here,
is that so much of this data isn't out on the table yet. Rich, you are
always calling for demos, and this is exactly what I'd like to see too.
It's not considered to be "doubting" a musician if you use them to
demo their talent. You want to see a demonstration, to gauge it
for yourself, and have them show off their skills. Granted, it's a very
different field, but the principle is still the say: show me the goods,
I'm interested to see how you'll do! Asking a person to perform is not
to imply they can't do it any more than asking the musician to do it.
But perhaps we like to see it for our own eyes, rather than rely on
second-hand stories.
I've read through a lot of the scientific papers that have been
published about psi (what I could understand of them! ;) While they
are fascinating, and if confirmable, offer extremely compelling evidence,
I have one nagging problem with accepting their findings, and that's
we have to rely on the word of the scientists' conclusions and papers.
There is no way to independently verify their findings unless we own
our own lab. We can't get ahold of the data they used to reach their
conclusions - we can only see their conclusions.
Because we can't take a look at their FULL data, we can't do what
so many researchers, including Joe McMoneagle, has said is
important in this field, which is they need to be open to peer-review,
criticism, etc. We can't do that by looking at their conclusions alone.
We can't critique the conclusions (and so "test" them) because we can't
see the "working out", so to speak. We can only see half the deck,
we only know the end-result of their research, and we have no way
of telling if their research was conducted properly, without error,
until we get to look at EVERYTHING, or have that possibility for
people who do want to obtain it.
FAILING THAT, I think the only remaining option is the one that
Rich has been calling for, for god-knows-how long: demos! Public,
open, demos!
So we set up our *own* lab, online. A demo lab. We have protocols,
we have viewers, we follow a set of lab protocols to perform all
the tests, sessions, collect all the data, and work with whatever we
find. Just like a real lab would. Except it'd be an online lab. Okay,
so perhaps it'd be a little more amateurish, but at least we'd all get to
see everything. The entire process should be open to criticism, peer-
review, etc. and should adapt and evolve as people throw criticism it's
way, until the point where there's no more criticism because nothing
wrong can be found in how the experiments are being done.
Then, the real "fun" begins - people do their sessions, and the
hits and misses start to be tallied. We start to build up our very
own statistics, we can make our own conclusions from it, perhaps
write the odd report of our own summarising how things are going
and what we've found so far, etc. The most important thing?
Absolutely everything, from drawing board to all the
conclusions we make, will be on the website (or wherever),
for all to see, to examine, to criticise, etc. No holes barred.
I think if this sort of project existed, and we started to get the
higher-than-chance results that the labs are claiming, we can
say fairly safely "something is happening, and it's got nothing
to do with our procedures etc." We can't say this about the
labs because we can't see how the experiments were run. We
have only the faith in the scientists to go on. But scientists
are notorious for not trusting each other. Why do you think
there are other labs out there trying to duplicate other lab's
finding? Because they don't trust, or distrust: they're repeating
the experiment so they can "see all, know all" and thus be
able to tell if the *original* lab's data/conclusions was accurate.
I've heard that oftentimes sloppy procedures have been used
in the past that allow room for possible fraud, although I am
not making these charges against the labs we're all familiar
with. The point is, that until the entire process is openned
up to proper peer-review (examination by peers) and criticism,
we only know what the labs tell us. That's not comfortable
for people who like to "know all, see all." In other words,
scientists (whether they have a Ph.D. or they're just sitting
at home reading science books, visiting websites and
wanting to do their own bedroom experiments.)
>> This is the attitude that baffles me the most. If we are waiting for
>> someone to prove high hit rates, and not willing to take say even a 30% rate
of
>> success, which is an improvement over our normal state of consciousness, what
is
>> this game about?........
Actually, I'd be satisfied with a demonstrable and consistent above-chance
accuracy
rate *where the entire process has been fully open to examination and
peer-review*,
although if it is dangerously close to chance levels, I'd be more inclined to
suspect the possibility that perhaps some unknown, unseen methodology errors
may be responsible. As the controversial Ray Hyman stated, methdological flaws
are often never spotted, and have assumed to all have been eliminated, only for
years later a flaw is discovered, casting doubt on earlier experiments and
results.
The further from chance, and if protocols are virtually waterproof (I doubt it
is
possible to eliminate every possible vulnerability, all the time), then the more
inclined I am to suspect some kind of paranormal functioning is really at work.
Right now, I am painfully trying to tight-rope between the 'skeptic' and
'supporter' position of remote-viewing. I see merit in both arguments. I
believe
more information is needed before we can settle the debate for good, which is
why I
have so forcefully and brutefully pursued the Freedom of Information Act,
and have attempted to gain information in other ways as well (such as
requesting further information from labs involved in this research, and
being cautiously supportive of projects such as the UT Skeptic site.) I hate
not having solid answers, and I really don't feel there are any water-tight
answers yet. Some might say I'm asking for the impossible. Well, if that's
true, I'm going to lead an interesting life, on a constant quest for new
information.. :-)
>I'll buy that.....really....I spent a few bucks years ago in search
>of...and again recently. It was worth it both times in that it satisfied my
>curiosity.....left me somewhat disappointed....added to my knowledge.....
>and gave me a perspective that kept me interested.
I wish I could afford CRV training. I really do. (Is this some suttle
hint to CRV trainers? No, I don't think so ). Rich, I envy you
here. You're got some training I would love to have. Hopefully
the CRV manual, due to be published tommorrow at PJ's site,
will have some of those answers I've been seeking.
Here's to the search..
Best always,
Steve.
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
CRV Stage 5 queries!!!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/146)
12:07:40
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
I have a query I hope all you CRV'ers, and military guys can help with:
At stage 4, alot of good info comes through from the target, But then for
stage 5, the signal line is broken and info then comes from storage within
the brain synapses. After this Do we go back to the signal line for stage 6
or is all the information from stage 5 onwards from the synapses?
For me it kind of feels like stage 5 is a hiccup between the flow of info
that seems so flowing in clusters in stage 4 and 6. How important is stage 5
to the whole process?
thanks for any help...
All the best...
Darryl
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/148)
12:08:17
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
In a message dated 7/4/98 1:16:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
sthomson@... writes:
<<
Item 2. It's undignified, but well, here goes. When the Paula Jones
story *first broke* months ago, it was mentioned that in her deposition
she described the President's intimate anatomy. I was curious & rv'd the
situation. I sent emails to a few women friends about the result, because
I thought it was funny. I'm sure they'll remember this email and at least
one of them would be kind enough to serve as a witness if required.
Eventually an English tabloid broke the story. I was right.
>>
Let me get this right...you say you used RV to view the structure or alleged
abnormality of the penis of a perfect stranger...then based on a story which
appeared in a British tabloid...you now believe you are correct...and your
prurient viewing was a success...I think Mr. Clinton should have to
opportunity to view you naked body and to make comments on it to the net as
well...fair is fair...I will not even begin to discuss the perversity of what
you did...which would have gotten you a nice personal sex offenders card to
carry with you in many of the United States had you used your true eyes...but
if you think this was a valid use of this thing we call RV...I would caution
those of you who meet Ms. Thomsons students in the future to expect your most
intimate and private thoughts to be fair game according to the way the
instructor uses this gift..My students on the other hand are told that such
prurient use is not only crass and boorish but is gournds for immediate
cessation of instructions...of course I do not charge my students therefore I
guess I am not obligated to come up with slick methods to encourage others to
attend my training....Shame on you Shelly...and if you want ot view my old,
decripit body...save the energy...I will scan you a photo...
gene..
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
CRV Stage 5 queries!!!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/149)
12:08:26
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
>It depends on your purpose, and what the overall task is. If you need
>great detail about something, Stage 5 can be invaluable. It can also help
>you break out useful info that is locked up in AOLs. However, not EVERY
>session requires that you take the detour to Stage 5.
>
>Enjoy,
>Paul
>
Hi paul Thank for the help. I am using Thge classic style from The CRV
(Coordinate) manual that I have had for a while. But as you know a manual
does not tell you everything. Am I right in assuming that it is not
necasarry to use stage 5 in all sessions and that you can skip from 4 to 6.
All the best...
Darryl
stargate : Message: [stargate]
Military CRV Manual Online
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/150)
12:08:45
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Hi All,
PJ Gaenir now has the full Army CRV (Coordinate Remote Viewing)
manual available for free download. The address to her site is:
http://www.paradigm-sys.com/firedocs/
(Archivist's note: that became http://www.firedocs.com later. -- PJ Gaenir 6/2006)
Comments on the manual are welcome on this list.
Enjoy!
Best regards,
Steve.
stargate : Message: [stargate]
Hi...
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/151)
12:09:50
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
I would ask Steve to pass on to the rest of the folks on the net...after a
fairly exhausting review of candidates for my next student...I have settled on
one person...we will begin formal instructions in a month perhaps six
weeks...and for Liam and the other guys from the old unit...No it was not
based on bust size...
Thanx for the response from all of the other applicants...please note I still
have your little notes and will keep them handy on my screen in case this
student finally comes to her senses and tells me to go to hell...I would ask
those of you who were seeking instructions to keep an eye on the
Stargate...ask questions, read books and articles and if you can put the
ducets together...STRONGELY recommend you arrange formal instructions from
Paul in Texas...his one and two week classes are pricey because he is greedy
but when you leave..you are a good Remote Viewer...then you can come to me and
I will make you a GREAT remote viewer (if I have the space open)...
Warmest Regards...Gene...
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/152)
12:10:13
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
> <<
> Item 2. It's undignified, but well, here goes. When the Paula Jones
> story *first broke* months ago, it was mentioned that in her deposition
> she described the President's intimate anatomy. I was curious & rv'd the
> situation. I sent emails to a few women friends about the result, because
> I thought it was funny. I'm sure they'll remember this email and at least
> one of them would be kind enough to serve as a witness if required.
>
> Eventually an English tabloid broke the story. I was right.
> >>
> Let me get this right...you say you used RV to view the structure or alleged
> abnormality of the penis of a perfect stranger...then based on a story which
> appeared in a British tabloid...you now believe you are correct...and your
> prurient viewing was a success...I think Mr. Clinton should have to
> opportunity to view you naked body and to make comments on it to the net as
> well...fair is fair...
Listen, fella, this response is disgusting and completely out of line on
this list. I did not flame anyone. I offered an example of a remote
viewing in which I announced the result before the information was
publicly known, and confirmation was subsequently available.
I point out that I did not describe the information gained by the viewing
on this list, or in any other public place. The Presidential privacy was
not invaded by my disclosure of the fact that I was able to rv him.
This is again, out of line. Where is our list moderator?
Shelley Thomson
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Hi...
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/153)
12:10:24
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Gene--
At 09:28 PM 7/5/98 EDT, you wrote:
>weeks...and for Liam and the other guys from the old unit...No it was not
>based on bust size...
Yeah, right!
>ducets together...STRONGELY recommend you arrange formal instructions from
>Paul in Texas...
That's "ducats." Gene, you never were any good with money ;-)
Enjoy,
Paul
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/154)
12:10:38
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
On Sun, 5 Jul 1998 Curran2106@... wrote:
> My students on the other hand are told that such
> prurient use is not only crass and boorish but is gournds for immediate
> cessation of instructions..
Well, you can order people not to think certain thoughts or entertain
certain images, but you'll have just as much luck ordering bees not to
buzz.
I think it is more important to educate students in the value of privacy,
and the appropriate use of any information they may obtain. You are not
committing an error by obtaining information, because we can all do that
by reflex when we learn proper techniques. But if you learn someone's
secrets you are responsible for what you do with them.
Note that the chain of circumstances that led me to rv the President
started when he displayed himself to a woman who did not want that to
happen. He is a public figure and not an inhibited man in any case.
Furthermore, elements of Ms. Jones's description have become public
knowledge without any effort from me, so my remarks on the list do
not further infringe his privacy. And I point out again that I did not
describe the anatomical feature--I merely mentioned that I had rv'd it and
I was right.
With reference to my "slick methods"-- I knew I'd get
recognition if I hung around this list long enough--very early in
my lessons I teach students how to preserve their privacy against remote
viewing by other persons.
I'd like to see a discussion on the list, of methods of defending
against remote viewing.
Is anyone up to this?
Shelley Thomson
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/155)
12:10:50
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
shelley thomson wrote:
> I think it is more important to educate students in the value of privacy,
> and the appropriate use of any information they may obtain.
excuse my confusion .... but how is it that you exemplify this directive with
posting yourinformation on the world wide web?
> You are not committing an error by obtaining information, because we can all
> do that
> by reflex when we learn proper techniques. But if you learn someone's
> secrets you are responsible for what you do with them.
my point exactly.
> Note that the chain of circumstances that led me to rv the President
> started when he displayed himself to a woman who did not want that to
> happen.
You're buy in to the media.......
> He is a public figure and not an inhibited man in any case.
> Furthermore, elements of Ms. Jones's description have become public
> knowledge without any effort from me, so my remarks on the list do
> not further infringe his privacy.
Although I personally think you had a major AOL drive going, since I'm from
the gateway of the wild west excuse my comment, but BS!
> And I point out again that I did not describe the anatomical feature--I
> merely mentioned that I had rv'd it and I was right.
You assume you were right. Short of a photo you have no real feedback.
> With reference to my "slick methods"-- I knew I'd get
> recognition if I hung around this list long enough--
gag!
> very early in my lessons I teach students how to preserve their privacy
> against remote
> viewing by other persons.
Geez!.... let's see, if we cultivate constant vigilance against intrusion
where do weend up folks? Same place as any abused child: paranoid,
dissociative, and confused.
> I'd like to see a discussion on the list, of methods of defending
> against remote viewing. Is anyone up to this?
WELL, I thought you were the master.... lead the sheep....
Shelia
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/156)
12:11:01
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Perhaps, the topic should be Ethical Responsibility in Remote Viewing or the
Code of a Remote Viewer. Then perhaps people wouldn't have to be "defending"
themselves against unathorized intrusion in a person private life. I
mean...if I find myself intruding on someones lifestyle, it should be equally
fair for someone to intrude on mine, wouldn't we say? But since I wouldn't do
that...I would like to think the same privacy is due me.
This kind of mentality only serve to foster tresspasing and espionage (which
I am sure there is enough of it going around already) and rampant degradation
of a tool that could be utilize for the "benefit" of Mankind. I don't think
scanning the Prez helps in this regard. And so that we know that I am
biased...I am a supporter of the Man, whether is sexual appetite is verocious
or not. I couldn't think of a "better" Presidents that could be in the White
House today. But the Man is what we have. Why degrade what is in the tabloid
and newspaper already. By the way, I am not here to argue politics.
I believe Gene has properly address this invasion of privacy...as much as he
considers himself a "Celtic Bear." At least he knows where to curbs his
limits. This issue (Ethics), of course, falls under philosophy, and as we
know...philosophers have flogged this horse to death and arrive at no
pragmatic conclusion. I don't see this being resolved anytime soon on a
mailing list like this. But before establishing a "defensive" posture and
start the RV Cold War...it would be nice to codify the "proper" behavior for a
Remote Viewer. That would be far more rewarding. And sure, just like there
are "evil" doctors out there who would violate their Codes of Ethics, at least
it serves to maintain balance and differentiate the bad apples from the good
ones. The Code of a Remote Viewer would serve the Remote Viewers of the world
just as well.
electrix
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/157)
12:11:31
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
> shelley thomson wrote:
>
> > I think it is more important to educate students in the value of privacy,
> > and the appropriate use of any information they may obtain.
>
> excuse my confusion .... but how is it that you exemplify this directive with
> posting yourinformation on the world wide web?
I didn't post my information. I said I had done the viewing and could
produce a witness if asked; and that a tabloid had subsequently disclosed
the information, which agreed with my viewing.
> > Note that the chain of circumstances that led me to rv the President
> > started when he displayed himself to a woman who did not want that to
> > happen.
>
> You're buy in to the media.......
Not at all. I rv'd the event and concluded that Paula Jones was telling
the truth.
>
> > He is a public figure and not an inhibited man in any case.
> > Furthermore, elements of Ms. Jones's description have become public
> > knowledge without any effort from me, so my remarks on the list do
> > not further infringe his privacy.
>
> Although I personally think you had a major AOL drive going, since I'm from
> the gateway of the wild west excuse my comment, but BS!
>
I see. I can't help wondering what our list manager thinks of remarks like
yours, which are rude and devoid of information value.
> > And I point out again that I did not describe the anatomical feature--I
> > merely mentioned that I had rv'd it and I was right.
>
> You assume you were right. Short of a photo you have no real feedback.
>
But you had no problem characterizing my remark as "BS". What's your
basis? Do you, perhaps, have a photograph?
> > With reference to my "slick methods"-- I knew I'd get
> > recognition if I hung around this list long enough--
>
> gag!
>
It's called humor. Have someone explain the concept to you.
> > very early in my lessons I teach students how to preserve their privacy
> > against remote
> > viewing by other persons.
>
> Geez!.... let's see, if we cultivate constant vigilance against intrusion
> where do weend up folks? Same place as any abused child: paranoid,
> dissociative, and confused.
You are mistaken. There are techniques for this purpose. I tried to
invite discussion of this area. So far I've received only this silly
flame.
I'd like to see a discussion with some substance.
Shelley Thomson
stargate : Message: [stargate]
President Clinton, Shelley and Gene
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/158)
12:11:42
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
List:
>This is again, out of line. Where is our list moderator?
I was lying on my bed with my eyes closed! Believe it or not,
we do sleep here in the UK! It's now 7am and I've just woken
up. I can't be expected to be awake 24 hours a day. And
please remember this list is unmoderated - I do not screen
posts. I did not think it would be necessary. I am starting
to have second thoughts.
When I went to sleep, there was Shelley's post and Gene's
post. I very nearly posted a message asking everyone to
stop and now regret not doing so earlier. I am now doing so
Please, everyone, stop the President Clinton discussion. I do
not feel we can learn anything worthwhile from this discussion
at all, and since there is no verifiable feedback, discussion of
RV sessions about him don't add anything worthwhile to
anything at this point.
Shelley, I do not like you telling me how I should run my list.
Let me do that. Just a few days ago, you, in your own words,
"attacked an innocent". Now, yet again, you seem to be in the
center of a flame war, and Gene is also again involved with his
razor-wit.
Shelley and Gene, I do not like to do this, but considering that
you have both been at the center of two provokative arguments
lately, I must ask that in future you send mails to the list to
steve@... for review first, until further
notice. I will notify you if/when I feel this is no longer necessary.
In the meantime, *everyone* - halt discussion on this topic. Anyone
who persists on this subject line will be warned privately by e-mail,
and/or have their subscription immediately revoked. You have
been warned.
Now, let's get back to: the recently posted CRV Manual, and
to serious RV/psi theory and discussion.
There will be no further discussion on the matter of President Clinton
in public. If there is, you can expect to lose your subscription.
Shelley and Gene, please e-mail your posts to the list to me for
review in future - do not post them directly to the list in future (until
further notice), or your access *will* be revoked. Likewise,
everyone should end this topic be prepared to lose their access
to the list.
Regards,
Steve Crietzman
List Manager
stargate : Message: [stargate]
Psi-Blocking
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/159)
12:11:56
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Shelley,
> I'd like to see a discussion on the list, of methods of defending
> against remote viewing.
>
> Is anyone up to this?
You can try, it can't hurt! We need some new brain food after recent
events, that's for sure.
I already realise that some people may want to turn around and say
"this is not possible, case closed", but we have to allow discussion
on this topic, even if it's controversial. I do not want to get to the
situation where controversial topics are being banned because some
people over-react when the subject comes up. I encourage critical
questions to/about remote-viewing and remote-viewers on this list. I
do not expect anyone to have to accept the validity of psi based on
'faith in experts', and would rather people ask the difficult questions. (I
see 'faith in experts' tantamount to the problems of scientism, as
discussed earlier. When it comes to RV, I encourage people to have
faith in facts and figures, not people.
Everyone, keep replies polite, and if you've got something to say that
you are not sure about posting (possibly offensive? Possibly impolite?),
first send it to the list moderator for review: steve@...,
and I will let you know if I feel the post is appropriate for posting.
[--All the below is not to be quoted in public replies--]
I would like to add that this is how I see the (previous!) situation, an
elaboration.
Shelley posted a post, in which she may or may not have been referring
to the President's private parts when she said she'd "viewed the case."
I would consider it impolite and offensive to talk about people's sexual
parts on this list, even if they *are* in the public eye, but even worse so
when remote-viewing is brought into the fold. She certain *did* refer to
the Prez's private parts, but did she *view* them? Her language on that
part is difficult to decern.
Gene's reply, while heated, is certainly understandable. If we take that
small step and say that Shelley was not posting about having viewed the
Prez's private parts, just the case in general, and Gene misunderstood
(giving both the benefit of the doubt), then that would just about "clear"
both individuals from causing deliberate harm. But if we take a different
small step - that Shelley *was* saying she'd viewed the Prez's private
parts, then Gene's reply is tolerable and understandable under the
circumstances, but that Shelley's was suspicious to say the
least. And finally, if Shelley's post was meant innocently enough, just
bringing the subject up under perhaps the assumption that people might
get a quick smirk out of it and the subject would drop, then it would be
Gene who really started off the fireworks, by turning around and calling
Shelley many nasty names. So: we can see all as innocent, just
Shelley as innocent *or* just Gene as innocent. Are any "proven
guilty"? I'd say no.
So, who to "blame"? As List Moderator, what matters to me is the
smooth running of this list, not in casting blame or in dishing out
punishment. I feel it necessary to air on the side of caution, without
being too harsh, in order to keep this list from going down a
questionable path.
Shelley and Gene must now have their posts
screened before posting to the list. This will continue to be the
case for at least a couple of weeks, maybe later. After a certain
amount of time, and I feel their posts have all been non-
objectionable in that period, I will probably allow them to post as
everyone else does - unscreened - until/if another problem
arises. I will do the same for any other questionable subjects
and posters that arise here. This is now official list policy
for dealing with "a situation," although by no means do I
relinquish the right to use a different judgement in different
circumstances, with perhaps varying degrees of harshness.
I have not banned anyone, I have not suspended posting
privilleges for anyone. I am merely keeping a closer eye on
Shelle and Gene's posts by pre-screening them, and this
situation will probably be temporary. I think this is reasonable.
My hope is that this will restore the list to normal, without having
to resort to more drastic measures. I hope everyone will allow
this topic to end now. Discussion of RV ethics is welcome to
continue, if no mention of sexual behaviour is included. People
who are submitting possibly controversial posts are asked to
send them to the list moderator for review. This will reduce or
eliminate any risk of action being taken against you, instead of
having posted the post without screening, with it later deemed
to be inappropriate.
[-- End non-quotable part of post. -Private- feedback welcome.--]
Regards,
Steve Crietzman
List Moderator
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
President Clinton, Shelley and Gene
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/160)
12:12:04
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Steve Crietzman wrote:
>
> Shelley, I do not like you telling me how I should run my list.
> Let me do that. Just a few days ago, you, in your own words,
> "attacked an innocent". Now, yet again, you seem to be in the
> center of a flame war, and Gene is also again involved with his
> razor-wit.
As you know, I apologized for my rude remarks to AquaSerene. I failed to
read the header and thought it was an inappropriate remark from someone
else. This was, incidentally, a transaction in private email, which you
have seen fit to publicize on the list. This cures me of sending private
mail to you.
Please unsubscribe me. This is a waste of time.
Shelley Thomson
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Military CRV Manual Online
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/161)
12:12:37
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
As one who is a great believer in the ability of people to train
themselves, and as one who has had up to Stage 4 training with Paul, I
can say that if I had had the manual I would have 'gone it alone' and
as a result would have missed a whole world of information that is
just not present in the manual.
If you are in the position of having to forgo training at present, I
would
encourage you to go to PJ's site and scour all the additional
information
available there in the archives to add to the information in the manual.
Pay particular attention to what Paul, Gene, Joe, and Lyn have to say
in response to questions, and continue to ask your questions here.
Note that even though PJ has discontinued her public work re: RV, she
is continuing her training with Lyn.
Thanks to Steve, the process is ongoing.
Shelia
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
President Clinton, Shelley and Gene
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/162)
12:12:49
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
>Please unsubscribe me. This is a waste of time.
Per Shelley's request, she has been unsubscribed from the list.
Comments on this matter from now on should be addressed to the
list moderator by private mail, or taken to the Star Gate Discussion
BBS at:
http://www.progressiveweb.net/local-cgi-bin/config.pl
I do not feel that they are either appropriate, or productive for this list.
Discussion on this matter is welcome at the BBS - I certainly don't want
to be unaccountable for my actions as list moderator. I believe in
accountability, and I have often stressed how important this is in
science. Comments of all types, supportive or not, are welcome at the
BBS above, just not here.
Thank you.
Now let's get back on track, folks. Comments on the CRV
manual, anyone?
Best regards,
Steve Crietzman
List Manager
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Science vs. Scientism
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/163)
12:12:58
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
electrix wrote:
> Perhaps, the topic should be Ethical Responsibility in Remote Viewing or the
> Code of a Remote Viewer. Then perhaps people wouldn't have to be "defending"
> themselves against unathorized intrusion in a person private life.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply to this issue. And I do apologize to
the list
members for my spontaneous and quite visceral response in my earlier
message.The
ethical issues are many and provide endless food for discussion.
When is it appropriate to intrude into another person's space just
because
you can without their knowledge? I can not think of very many instances.
It is something each of us has to think about seriously and answer. I do
think that the greatest protection lies in one's own ethical behavior.
(Steve just woke up and now it's 3:30 am here and I'm headed for
sleep...) but I agree, it would be productive for us to discuss this
topic.
Shelia
stargate : Message: [stargate]
Red and Black Cards
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/164)
12:13:08
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Hello everyone,
I was just going through my drawers today and came across.. some playing
cards! My mind immediately flitted back to when Lyn, Paul and Joe were on
the Art Bell show, and Lyn was talking about his success with black and red
cards (so-called "binary" experiments because there are only two possible
answers, with a 50% chance of each card being red or black.) I remembered
Lyn claiming he'd managed 58.?% accuracy, and Joe McMoneagle once
scoring 100% on 52 cards.. versus the average Joe's 50%. As a "semi"
skeptic, I would find this kind of clear-cut demonstration/test of psi,
showing these kinds of high scores, accuracy, VERY impressive.
Then my thoughts flited to the UT skeptics site and all the criticisms that
had surrounded it, plus all the confusing statistics we're always hearing
about psi when it comes to remote-viewing distant targets: something
(statistically speaking) that is far more difficult to analyse and understand
for the laymen.
So I thought.. what about trying a real, online, binary, black-or-red card psi
test, which we can all take part in and contribute in? So no one could accuse
me of cheating, I could encrypt the answer to the sequence of red and
black cards into a file, and provide the key to unlock it after everyone had
submitted their results. (Does anyone here use PGP who can vouch for
this?)
How about it? Anyone game? If enough people are interested in participating
in these experiments, I'll look into drawing up some basic protocols to make
sure the experiment is conducted fairly and properly. I'd welcome comments.
And as for those of you who'd like anonymity - people can choose to be anonymous
if they like, just like the UT skeptic site. I would like to be able to give
people
ID numbers though, like in the former RV unit. This will allow
us to do experiments and better analysis later, e.g. focusing in on those
people who seem to show a special talent at this, and perhaps working with
them separately. It also allows us to refer to people individually without
naming
them, e.g. "viewers #4, #7 and #8 seem to have some very significant scores,
obtaining a fairly consistent 60% accuracy rate. Viewers #1, #2 and #6 are
getting ambiguous scores of 53%, while viewers #3, #5 and #9 are getting
scores of between 48-52%."
But why black and red cards? Because it should be an easy enough experiment to
run,
and the results shouldn't be too ambiguous. If the averages all point to a
sum of 48-52%, with no exceptions, we can rule out that psi has been
sufficiently demonstrated.. but that doesn't necessarily mean psi won't work
in a different situation or different experiment, etc. It just means we
wouldn't
of had luck demonstrating it in this experiment.
And if it shows a higher score than, say, 55% consistently? Well, I'm be
blown away by it :) But I would encourage others to do similar
experiments. I wouldn't want people to take my word for it. I'd welcome
other people running experiments of their own, which they're in charge
of and can be confident of the results of. Or perhaps we can change
Experiment Managers after a certain number of trials, and someone else
gets to randomise their cards, type it up, encrypt it, post it, etc.
Any comments or suggestions on this idea would be welcome. Anyone
interested? Would anyone like to take part? Anyone got any comments or
ideas they'd like to share on this idea?
(Note to Viewers: Would this kind of test be in the domain of Associative
Remote Viewing? My point of view is that people should be allowed to
use whatever methods they like. The interest will probably be on those
who are scoring the highest marks, and from a scientific point of view,
method is not important: results are. People will probably be monitoring
those who are scoring continuously higher than 50%, and whatever form of
psi is being used seems here to be unimportant, although declaring what
method they are using might be interesting for those of us who are monitoring.
Comments, suggestions anyone?)
Best regards,
Steve.
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
President Clinton, Shelley and Gene
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/165)
12:13:20
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Re: [stargate] President Clinton, Shelley and Gene
End of steave list
your acting like a brutalik censor
mailing should be owned by their members
we arnt in miletry its the internet
Eyal
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Red and Black Cards
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/166)
12:13:38
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Re: [stargate] Red and Black Cards
please remove me thanks
stargate : Message: [stargate]
"China's Super Psychics"
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/167)
12:13:51
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Howdy Stargators,
I just got on this list in the last couple of days so it may be that the
aforementioned book by Paul Dong and Thomas Raffill has already been
discussed... If it has not, I'm curious about the thoughts of any others
who have read this. (ISBN 1569247153, Marlowe, 1997, $12.95)
From the back cover:
"China's vast population, encouraged by a government that assiduously
promotes psychic research, has developed an unusually high percentage of
practitioners with psychic abilities. It is estimated that China now has
five thousand psychic children, three to five-hundred psychic adults, and
more than thirty super psychics who can be categorized in three essential
ways:
Healing Psychics (including cancer and AIDS healing)
Predictive Psychics (able to envision the past and future)
Regular Psychics (includes the ability, for example, to stop running carrs,
walk through walls, change colors and molecular structures; it includes
also telekinesis and unobservable flight.)
These powers naturally came to the attention of the Chinese government, who
wish to exploit psychic energy for military purposes."
Regards,
TB
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Military CRV Manual Online
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/168)
12:14:07
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
>As one who is a great believer in the ability of people to train
>themselves, and as one who has had up to Stage 4 training with Paul, I
>can say that if I had had the manual I would have 'gone it alone' and
>as a result would have missed a whole world of information that is
>just not present in the manual.
Hi Shelia,
Thank you for your thoughtful post. I am glad that the CRV Manual
is finally online. If anything, I think it has reassured me a little on
CRV and convinces me that training is probably a good idea
But I am VERY glad it IS online. At least I had a rough idea of what
CRV is about now, and have a good idea of what I'll be paying for.
I'm a "try before you buy" kind of person, or at least, a "show me before
I buy" person :)
I think three things would convince me to pay for RV training (IF I
could afford it):
(a) knowing what I was paying for (which I now do,
thanks to the manual being online - - PJ has been ever-lasting
thanks :)
(b) seeing example sessions and good recommendations so I know
what the training and teacher are like (recommendations from friends
are always helpful if you're not sure what you're getting yourself into..),
and
(c) Seeing a demonstration - "try before you buy." This is the one thing
I'm still waiting for. Hopefully, if the Red and Black Card Test/Binary
Test idea picks up, is workable, and enough people show an interest
to make it worthwhile, it won't be long before I get a chance to see a
test being performed.
Then I'd be prepared to fork out my cash and get the professional tutoring.
The CRV Manual has reassured me that professional training is important,
the kind of reassurance that I needed. I wasn't convinced until now that
CRV could not be lead from a manual. Even now, I think, given enough
practice, it's still possible to learn CRV from the manual, albeit very
difficultly..
>If you are in the position of having to forgo training at present, I
>would encourage you to go to PJ's site and scour all the
>additional information available there in the archives to add to
>the information in the manual.
I would have to agree with this. From my point of view, it was always
the case I knew what to do, what not to do, what to look out for,
what to avoid, what I should expect, what the limits were, what
the weaknesses were, etc.. just.. not HOW to do it! :-)
The CRV Manual answers that one, final, nagging question. Even
if it does take a bit of work to understand it in places ;-)
PJ's Viewer List was an invaluable tool (here in the UK that means
"more than just valuable", BTW), and with the publication of the
CRV Manual, I expect there would have been a barrage of new
posts from new CRVrs who are manual-trained.. or are being
manual-trained and need some help.. :)
>Pay particular attention to what Paul, Gene, Joe, and Lyn have to say
>in response to questions, and continue to ask your questions here.
>Note that even though PJ has discontinued her public work re: RV, she
>is continuing her training with Lyn.
She's helped us so much in moderating a forum where everyone can
develop their CRV skills, that I think it's only fair we give her the time
to develop her own skills now. But she'll be missed.
>Thanks to Steve, the process is ongoing.
Well I try my best, even though my stubborn "no moderating
posts" policy occassionally causes problems.. :-) I think there
may be a temptation when moderating posts, to get into a situation,
where you are making judgements on what is an appropriate
or non-appropriate post, though your opinions might disagree
with other people's. And if you're not sure if a post is
appropriate, and you have high traffic, it might be tempting to
put it to one side 'for now', and then just never get around to it
again, as you start dealing with lots of other peoples you have
to accept/refuse, accept/refuse, accept/refuse.. etc.
I would like to try and keep this list open and unmoderated for
as long as possible, and only made requests for topics to
end if I think some list members are straying from discussion about
serious psi/rv discussion. Not only does that save me from a lot
of bother, but it means the list is somewhat more liberal, even if
that makes it a little less secure. But after having a 'secure'
list for over a year, I thought it would be interesting to try cracking
open the floodgates a little, and allowing people to exercise
their good judgement in deciding if their post is acceptable or not.
I'll only complain if I think things are straying too far (such as
the recently shot-down topic..)
Best regards,
Steve.
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
President Clinton, Shelley and Gene
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/169)
12:14:20
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Ditto from me Steve....open forums are just that...opportunities to express
ideas in an open manner....Unsubscribe me...
BTW...Shelly...lets continue this face off privately...I am at
CURRAN2016@... have much more in common than most of the net
believe...
Gene...
It's been nice Stargate...sorry if I offended your sensibilities...
stargate : Message: [stargate]
Open Forums and Larger Universe
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/170)
12:14:41
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
>Ditto from me Steve....open forums are just that...opportunities to express
>ideas in an open manner....Unsubscribe me...
Gene,
You should have been at Larger Universe if you want to see "free and open
debate." Dozens of people digging at each other, making constant insults
and personal threats, being rude and offensive, hurting people's feelings, and
frightening off a lot of people.
If you want a list where there are no rules, where people can insult others
freely, be downright rude, and talk about everything from psi to UFOs,
to alien abductions, government conspiracies, paranoia, big foot, Yeti,
ghosts, .. go ahead and unsubscribe. This list *does* have boundaries:
that is: polite and intelligent debate, not down-and-dirty insults.
Am I alone in thinking this? Do people really want a free-for-all
flamefest mailing list with no boundaries?
Or would people rather I only limit posts that are off-topic or
offensive? Because that's all I've been doing. Trying to keep
things stable, friendly, and intelligent.
I do not operate a moderated board. I let posts through. But when people
like you and Shelley start insulting each other in public, talking about
sex scandels etc.. on what is supposed to be a list about psychic
functioning and professional remote-viewing procedures and methodologies,
scientific protocols, etc.. it affects the entire list. I have received quite a
few
emails from people who have been upset by all this already.
Does anyone here remember Larger Universe's BBS? It turned into
a grave yard and was closed down because of heavy and constant
abuse. It was a "free board." No rules. It died because of insults
and abuse.
Do you really want a list where people can freely and willingly
insult others? That's not intelligent debate. Or where the signal-to-
noise ratio is about 5:1? Then try a Usenet newsgroup.
If you do, perhaps you should leave. I do not want to be seen
running a BBS like that. I want this to be a professional forum for
serious, intelligent, adult discussion on psi and RV topics. I
would hope I'm not alone in that opinion.
Comments are welcome at the Open Chat BBS, but *please*
le's try and get back on-topic folks?
Open Chat BBS:
Http://www.progressiveweb.net/local-cgi-bin/openchat.pl
Regards,
Steve.
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
The CRV manual!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/171)
12:15:01
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Hi Darryl!
>I can say that I am more than happy to see the CRV manual online where it
>should have been at laest a year ago. But I would like to say to those who
>are seeing it for the first time, that You will still need help and teaching
>from those who have been doing this for years.
After reading it, I have to say I agree with you completely. The manual uses
very technical language, and there was more than a few times I felt like
turning around and asking "how do I do this part..? Do I learn this in stages?",
only.. no teacher was standing behind me :)
I think the publication of this manual will, in anything, *encourage* people
to seek training - because they know what they'll be buying, and why the
training is important, after reading/skimming through the manual.
>I have been taught basic CRV,
>and have had the manual for nearly a year now, but still have hundreds of
>questions that unfurl the more you practice. But don't be put off, the most
>important things are structure and practice.
I'm hoping, if things get back to normal around here, that people will be
able to ask structure-related questions and seek half the answers they need
to "learn" CRV, from this list. Although I by no means expect the CRV
manual or an email group to "replace" professional training; I believe that
if anything, it will encourage more people to seek training, now fully
aware that learning it from a manual is neigh-on impossible, certainly
very tough.
>The best thing the manual can
>achieve are stopping some of the fraudulent people starting to take over the
>RV field.
Here's hoping!
Best always,
Steve.
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
The CRV manual!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/172)
12:15:15
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
I can say that I am more than happy to see the CRV manual online where it
should have been at laest a year ago. But I would like to say to those who
are seeing it for the first time, that You will still need help and teaching
from those who have been doing this for years. I have been taught basic CRV,
and have had the manual for nearly a year now, but still have hundreds of
questions that unfurl the more you practice. But don't be put off, the most
important things are structure and practice. The best thing the manual can
achieve are stopping some of the fraudulent people starting to take over the
RV field.
All the best...
Darryl
We came...
We saw...
We wrote a session summery...
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
"China's Super Psychics"
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/173)
12:15:24
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
>I just got on this list in the last couple of days so it may be that the
>aforementioned book by Paul Dong and Thomas Raffill has already been
>discussed... If it has not, I'm curious about the thoughts of any others
>who have read this. (ISBN 1569247153, Marlowe, 1997, $12.95)
>
>>From the back cover:
Hello,
I just saw that Ingo Swann reviewed this book on his Web-site.
You can check it out at:
http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/9-ChinaPsychics.html
Frank V
stargate : Message: [stargate]
Signal direction
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/174)
12:15:40
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
[stargate] Signal direction
Dipstick question. You'll get used to them folks....
Never one to make my own life easy, I always thought the viewer sent their
awareness _to_ the target to get the information, presumably as a result of
the bilocation stuff I have heard mentioned. The CRV manual implies the
information (signal) comes to the viewer.
Could this be another reason for my wondrous "fubar" rate?
In Friendship and Light. MaryD
stargate : Message: [stargate]
Red and Black Cards
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/175)
12:15:49
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
[stargate] Red and Black Cards
Dear Steve and List,
An interesting idea, especially for this novice. I am interested!
Oddly, I've been playing a similar game with myself lately with a
software CD called Avery Cardoza's "Casino". In it is a roulette game
which basically mimics the real thing. I stink at the numbers part of
this game, I can assure you. One day however, I was astounded by how
many times I was able to "hit" with betting the color black vs. the
color red. (I almost wrote Cardoza himself to ask if the software is
'fixed'!)
Here is a question to put in the back of your mind regarding red vs
black, at least in terms of roulette...do you suppose that because
black attracts, and keeps HEAT that this would be why the blacks
overwhemingly appeared as I mock-played?
With cards, it would be different, yes?
At any rate, I'm still testing this out....perhaps I can give more
feedback as I progress.
Best to all, Laura
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Signal direction
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/176)
12:15:59
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Re: [stargate] Signal direction
Actually, Mary, this is interesting as I'd never given "travel" much thought
when it comes to doing this. For me the senses of space and distance
disappear and are irrelevant. There is simply a tuning into "something"
which is neither near nor far.
I've heard CRV' ers refer to the "signal line", a metaphor which, to me,
suggests distance. I imagine pluggin myself into a cable which feeds me a
signal from some distant point. I like the metaphor but it's not my experience.
I don't know if your thinking that the viewers "send" their awareness
somewhere could have anything to do with the viewing anomalies you've been
experienceing lately. After all, each of us has to have _some_ kind of
simplistic model to explain something which is probably ineffable. No matter
how we conceptualize it (within limits, I suppose), it works. May as well
agree with Liam that it's magic. It's as good as any other theory. :<)
By the way, never heard a "dipstick question" from you on VWR. Don't expect
to encounter them here either.
>Dipstick question. You'll get used to them folks....
>
>Never one to make my own life easy, I always thought the viewer sent their
>awareness _to_ the target to get the information, presumably as a result of
>the bilocation stuff I have heard mentioned. The CRV manual implies the
>information (signal) comes to the viewer.
>
>Could this be another reason for my wondrous "fubar" rate?
>
>In Friendship and Light. MaryD
Rick Stordeur
Vancouver Island
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Red and Black Cards
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/177)
12:16:12
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
An interesting aside:
When my children were young (ages 10-12) I did an experiment with them to
see if they could "feel" color. I placed a series of 8 different colored
cards face down and asked them to hold there hand over each one and tell
me what color it felt like. I cued them that the greens to blues and
violets felt cooler than the yellows, oranges, reds. They all (my neice
also participated) had high hit rates of 70-80% on three runs each. They
being young and enthusiastic and having been told by me that it was
possible to feel color did not approach the task with any skepticism and
I believe that partially explained their success rates. (By the way, I
was blind to which color was where in the sequence).
Just a fun thing to try.
Shelia
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Signal direction
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/178)
12:16:21
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Having experience two aspect of RV...TDS and Workhop RV Healing, I have "felt" a
type of spatial sense. In the Workshop scenario I had an impulse to "go
somewhere"
instead of maintaning the Workshop RV static type movement in having someone
enter
my space. In TDS RV The images pops and hovers slightly above and outside my
head.
I kind of envision this as an extroverting experience. In the Workshop RV, I am
"looking at the inside of the mind."
Biofeedback meditation provides even more of inner spatial field more so than
the
above. There I learn what it is to experience fleeting images with the intention
of
"grabbing it" before it evanesce, but way inside my head.
One of my favorite exercises is visualizing. My objective is to find out the
qualitative difference of imagination vs. memory vs. flash of insight.
electrix
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Military CRV Manual Online
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/179)
12:16:43
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
> Pay particular attention to what Paul, Gene, Joe, and Lyn have to say
> in response to questions, and continue to ask your questions here.
> Note that even though PJ has discontinued her public work re: RV, she
> is continuing her training with Lyn.
> Thanks to Steve, the process is ongoing.
> Shelia
I completely agree. The day before I started Paul's course, Courtney
Brown
put his SRV manual on the web and I said "Do what ????". Imagine my
surprise
when CRV turned out so similar, but with the added info and insight
obtained
in class. Yeah, even with all the info available thanks to PJ's site and
all
the contributers I think that some kind of personal instruction from an
experienced person is invaluable.....especially for us less talented
folk.
I would think that there ought to be a way/market/opportunity for
individualized
classes/guidence/evaluation for those who start with the manual and
cannot
spend the time away from home or bigger dollar commitment.
Rich
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
President Clinton, Shelley and Gene
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/180)
12:16:57
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Sorry to loose 2 interesting and valuable members of the group.
Rich
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Signal direction
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/181)
12:17:07
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Mary D
lol which end of the pencil writes?
Picture a fisherman wetting his line. The fish strikes the hook. Who has
hooked whom? ;)
The 'signal' line is already in existence. We access it. There is no to and
fro in actuality, imho. Whether it extends itself in space, or in time, we
just 'tap' into it.
We will let the physicists amongst us do the explaining as to who holds the
hook and who bites it.
lol
Bevy J
http://www.slipstrym.com/uspsisquad/
http://www.slipstrym.com/remote-viewing
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Red and Black Cards
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/182)
12:17:22
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Hello,
My 14 year old son and I have frequently played a game suggested by Rob
Abbot where you place 5 cards in a tableau and one turns his back and
the other visualizes which card hes thinking about. My son and I both
scored with p values < .01, but he was usually < .00001 using the
binomial theorem for stats. Also if the sender "gazzed" at the card like
in mirror gazzing "burning" in the position it got higher p values. If
we used colors instead of postition to identify the cards the pvalues
dropped to almost insignificant. So for us the color was not as strong a
signal as was the relative position in the tableau.
Bill
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Signal direction
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/183)
12:17:42
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Hello Electrix,
John Grimes posted on psi list one time a report from a schiztophrenic
who grew up with such severe delusions that he could not tell reality
from imagination. However, he was able to finally screen his
hallucinations by testing there content for stability and something else
he did not clarify to well. This way he taught himself to functiontion
in the normal world, AND ALSO he found that a third class of object
exhisted the precongnitive vision. This was qualitatively different from
hallucinations and from reality. It was much more stable and
unchangeable than imagination, but not as much as reality. I am still
trying to find him to get more incite into this fascinating screening
process, which is at the heart of determining a true signal from noise.
Bill Pendergrass
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Red and Black Cards
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/184)
12:17:52
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
> My 14 year old son and I have frequently played a game suggested by Rob
>Abbot where you place 5 cards in a tableau and one turns his back and
>the other visualizes which card hes thinking about. My son and I both
>scored with p values < .01, but he was usually < .00001 using the
>binomial theorem for stats. Also if the sender "gazzed" at the card like
>in mirror gazzing "burning" in the position it got higher p values. If
>we used colors instead of postition to identify the cards the pvalues
>dropped to almost insignificant. So for us the color was not as strong a
>signal as was the relative position in the tableau.
Thanks for sharing that here, Bill. I'll get to your own experiment
a little further down this post. I just wanted to make a few statements
re: red and black cards first, to explain why I was interested in this
kind of test.
I based my own comments about colours on something that LynB
said on the Art Bell show near to the beginning of the show (I know it
was in the first hour, I believe the first 30 minutes.) Lyn mentioned he'd been
doing an experiment involving red and black cards, and I'm sure
the number he mentioned was 58.3% The amount of times I've
re-listened to that Art Bell show! (..Mostly because only about
10% of his shows are credible, if that.. with 90% gone, it's
either listen to repeats all the time, or tune into his usual array of
sensationalism and fear-mongering to kill time..)
Re: Your own experiment. I'm not sure I completely understand.
Perhaps I'm just being a dumb Englishman and not listening/
reading closely enough.. ;-)
What's a "tableau"? I'm sorry if this sounds like a dumb question -
I've -heard- the word before, but don't know what it means or
is refers to. Sorry. Perhaps it's an American/English cultural
difference of some kind?
Could you tell me a little more about this experiment? Was the
name of the game to guess the colour, a symbol on the card?
Perhaps if I knew what a tableau was, I'd have my answer. So,
what's a tableau, Bill? Over to you! :)
Best regards,
Steve.
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Summerys and profiles!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/185)
12:18:05
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
I'm hoping some of you long time viewers can help me out with a few
questions. i have until recently always written a session summery, and a
very basic profile just listing all the corrects against all the
non-corrects. I have seen the profile on pj's site and decided to give it a
try, BUt it was real hard, I could not decide where to put things like
dimentional data. My sessions contain clusters like:
layered, structured, beams, supports.
Very solid, thick, surface, floor.
how do I break this down for profileing. Do I break it down?
Any help on this would be greatly appreciated as at the moment I am finding
profileing harder than learning Rv itself.
All the best...
Darryl
We came...
We saw...
We wrote a session summery...
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Summerys and profiles!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/186)
12:18:52
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Darryl--
At 11:09 AM 7/8/98 +0100, you wrote:
>I'm hoping some of you long time viewers can help me out with a few
>questions. i have until recently always written a session summery, and a
>very basic profile just listing all the corrects against all the
>non-corrects. I have seen the profile on pj's site and decided to give it a
>try, BUt it was real hard, I could not decide where to put things like
>dimentional data. My sessions contain clusters like:
The session profiling you find on PJ's site is not something we did at the
RV unit, but rather something Lyn Buchanan later developed as a way of
making it possible to create data-bases to help track viewer performance.
As such it is very useful, and you are certainly free to try it. I
recommend to my students, however, that they NOT get involved in it until
they are well advanced--not because it isn't useful, but because I think it
gets in the way of learning to RV. It's hard enough to get around to doing
the session. When confronted with the further drudgery of analyzing it all
and breaking it down into various categories, you end up with two problems:
1) a great deal of inertia to overcome and a procedure that takes a lot of
the "fun" out of RV; and 2) too much of an emphasis on analysis, when the
whole idea is to get AWAY from analysis. This is not meant as a criticism
of Lyn, merely an explication of my own assessment of this feature.
I'd say I hope that helps, but it probably doesn't ;-)
Enjoy!
Paul
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Signal direction
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/187)
12:19:04
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Bevy--
At 04:00 AM 7/7/98 EDT, you wrote:
> The 'signal' line is already in existence. We access it. There is no to
and
>fro in actuality, imho. Whether it extends itself in space, or in time, we
>just 'tap' into it.
> We will let the physicists amongst us do the explaining as to who holds the
>hook and who bites it.
Cleverly put! I suspect the answer is somewhere in the neigborhood of
where you've placed it. Ingo theory has it "coming to" you, whatever that
means, but I think your expressions here are close to capturing the essence
of what he meant by it!
Enjoy,
Paul
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
CRV Stage 5 queries!!!
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/188)
12:19:14
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Darryl--
At 10:08 AM 7/6/98 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi paul Thank for the help. I am using Thge classic style from The CRV
>(Coordinate) manual that I have had for a while. But as you know a manual
>does not tell you everything. Am I right in assuming that it is not
>necasarry to use stage 5 in all sessions and that you can skip from 4 to 6.
Exactly right!
Paul
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Red and Black Cards
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/189)
12:19:24
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Hi Steve,
I'd be happy to explain the experiment a little further. It's not mine
though its Rob Abbott a psychic in Portland, Ore. He said this was the
easiest way he knew for beginners to demonstrate psi. And it certainly
was for us.
you place 4-5 cards in a geometrical arrangement.
x x x
x x
for instance. then one partner turns his back closes his eyes and on
signal thinks of NOTHING. The other partner focuses 100% of his
intenstion on one of the 5 cards at the same time he says "blank your
mind" ( its hard to keep a blank mind for to long even for Americans).
The "receiver" then turns back and points to the correct card. You can
use the bionmial theorem for calculating your probability. The sender is
just as important as the receiver. My Son got the first 5 trials right
and a longer series gave very small p vales (< .00001 that it was
chance). I was a little worse p<.01-.001.
Now repeating the experiment with red and black playing cards and cueing
on color only gave worse results p<.05 at best. Cueing on numbers alone
was also bad, whether or not it was a face cards gave intermediate
results. So it seemed that geometrical position was an easier thing to
cue psi with than color to us. Of course I did not try feeling the
colors as temperature variations as Sheila suggested, and color
differences on playing cards are not as extreme as one might wish, but I
think there is some basis for thinking geometry is an easier cue than
color.
Yours Warmly,
Bill Pendergrass
Is that clear now Steve.
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Signal direction
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/190)
12:19:48
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
That is interesting...hopefully John gets on this line so that I can bug him to
post the report again. I find this area to be very key in determining signal
from
noise. As a musician, I remember having to learn scales, intervals and certain
tones. That part of my "hearing" at first wasn't there. So I had to learn how
to
listen to tones in my head to differentiate. I was able to establish relative
pitch, although I understand some people are able to attain perfect pitch. This
would imply that if we can attain command of frequency sound vibration by
extended
our Musical Hearing perception....perhaps we are not too far in determining
Image
Visual vibration by extending our Visual Image perception potential. I am
exploring... who knows.
electrix
Bill Pendergrass wrote:
> Hello Electrix,
>
> John Grimes posted on psi list one time a report from a schiztophrenic
> who grew up with such severe delusions that he could not tell reality
> from imagination. However, he was able to finally screen his
> hallucinations by testing there content for stability and something else
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Signal direction
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/191)
12:19:58
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Dear Electrix,
the music analogy sounds quite cogent, but you lost me with that last
bit. Could you expand on it . Also the self healed schizophrenic said
that stability of a vision was not duration, but rather changeability.
REmember in a dream looking at your dream watch. the face will always
change and be nonsense, never stable. But true psychic visions, were
essentially unchangeable for as long as they lasted. Ring any bells you
RVers?
I would love to hear him expand on that concept, and also on the effect
of various treatments and drugs on the psychic as opposed to the
imaginary visions.
Bill Pendergrass
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Red and Black Cards
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/192)
12:20:07
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Hi Bill!
>Is that clear now Steve.
Yes thanks, I understand now :) I know now what you mean by "position",
and I think that psi is probably better at doing certain things better than
others, or at least.. we're better at interpreting/receiving/understanding
psi data better on certain assignments then others, such as pointing
to a correct card - identifying by position - than by, say, choosing the
right colour between red/black.
But I also had another reason for proposing the red/black card experiment/
test, and that is I would like to construct some clear, straightforward,
black-and-white demonstration/test/measurement of psi, that can be
performed online and in which everyone can participate.
Red/black would seem to be a simple and effective way of testing psi,
which shouldbe useful/interesting *whatever* "side of the fence" people
happen to be on. Skeptics get to monitor a mini "test for psi", though I'd
hope skeptics would not base their entire belief/disbelief in psi on one
online experiment :)
And supporters (and open-minded skeptics who become convinced/
supportive of psi through all this), get to see the difference between
chance vs. actual accuracy in the experiments. I've ever heard
statistics of 25%, 30%, 33%, 35%, 40%, 50%, 75%, 85%, 100%
(and probably a few I've missed) referred to as "the accuracy of remote-
viewing." To make things even MORE confusing, the particular
answer you choose for accuracy depends on how you wish to view
the results. (e.g. is it 35% accuracy overall, or just 70% accurate,
half the time? etc. etc. ad infinitum)
I think, for skeptics and supporters alike, a way to reliably measure
and test for psi, in a way we can all participate and be involved with,
wouldbe very beneficial. An online system to explore the
boundaries, abilities, weaknesses and short-comings of psi,
I believe, would be useful and interesting, whatever 'side of the
fence' you happen to be on.
Would anyone be interested in taking part in such a 'exploring
the boundaries of psi' online test?
Thanks for your contributions, Bill. I'll certainly be considering
everyone's ideas about how we could do this, and if there's
enough support for the idea of some kind of online testing
system, I'll get to work on setting one up, in which we can
all be involved, at each step of the way. But of course,
it depends how interested people are in the idea first.
Anyone interested out there? Or even intrigued? :-)
Best always,
Steve.
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Signal direction
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/193)
12:20:19
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
To expand on it would be pretentious of me since I am still a baby crawling
in imagery. But I have notice that their is a difference between fleeting
images (as in observing images during biofeedback) and let's say picture
memories (when someone ask to remember something recently). For lack of
better word...one seems to be "lighter" the other more "concrete"...or more,
let's say "present." I am assuming there is some kind of frequency level
resonation to these imagery. The reason the ear can perceive different
tones is because they are resonating at a certain frequency level. Middle
tone "A" is vibrating at a 440Hz. or there abouts (if my memory serves me
right).
Dreams, on the other hand, is a type of memory which has the quality of
etherial...imagination. Turns out that I am also a natural artist
(although, I have abandon exercising that aspect of me). But in developing
a painting, I would imagine scenes , scenarios...which remind me of
dreaming. Come to think of it, one of my favorite painters is Salvador
Dali. He used hypnogogic state to paint some of his masterpieces. He would
device a way of alerting him just when he was about to fall asleep and then
visualize what he was about to paint.
So, I think where I lost you is in the arbitrary assignment of frequency
level to each mode of mental imagery. Presently, I don't think that kind of
stuff can be measured. I can only go by "texture" at this point.
electrix
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Red and Black Cards
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/194)
12:20:28
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Hello Steve,
I'm definitely interested and would participate ( along with my more
psychic son). The simpler the test the better, than statistics can be
uesd to assess the results relative to chance. Terms like 25% , 50%, 75%
etc. don't mean much statistically. Even 1% success could be way above
chance and 95% could be only chance depending on the way the experiment
is set up and the number of possible answers. Also you need almost
immediate feedback to keep the players going, and computation of odds.
Also, a comparison of scores with other RVers, and psychics might be
challenging. It could be called "Beat the Psychic--challenge". Hey I'd
even donate in on the winning pot!
Good Ideas in my book,
Bill
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Signal direction
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/195)
12:20:43
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Hello Bevy,
I owe you an e-mail, I believe...but I am getting swamped with mailing list
communication, I am unable to get around to every posting. Each day, it seems
acknowledgements fall behind. I have Steve to blame for my resurgent activity in
posting..rats! I was suppose to be on a sabbath.
I sent for your Correspondence kit just the other day. I also listen to your
interview at Sightings. Your views align very well with mine regarding ESP.
Through out these years I have developed ideas that are in tangent with things
you
said in the interview. It is always great to hear that I am not the only looney
in town, LOL! So, I am looking forward in exploring the path you have already
set.
A friend of mine once did a Psychometric reading on me. I was astounded at what
he could tell about me from holding my watch. He dipped in the present (about a
certain person in my family and my feeling and relationship with her) and then
told me about my future. Although, I can't say it was a concrete (it was
somewhat
general) future reading, I can say that what came to pass was not so far off.
Of
course, at the other end of the skeptic stick, we can say it was
self-prophecy...but no doubt, he had me convinced that our vibration embeds
itself
in what we wear.
The signal direction...logically stated, would necessarily have to be static.
Of
course all this is irrelevant to the results and more of interest to
anatonomist.
electrix
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Red and Black Cards
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/196)
12:20:53
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
lol the color-sensing experiments was one of the basic skills being taught by
the Soviets where I came in in their training processes.
It is still one of the mainstays in thepractical training process of PSI we
use, as it is a 'doorway' to the extended sense of touch.An extended version
of this color experiment is in my next book as well.
Aries Productions has just completed a new 25 card Color-sensing Deck which
is available from Aries, Inc. Dept. L, POB 29396, St. Louis, Mo. 63126 USA at
$6.50 plus $1.75 postage US, $3 foreign. for these very interesting
experiments.
Working with children is rewarding as they tend to DO what you tell them they
can do. It is best to explain that it is merely a game, however, for obvious
reaons.
Many who are working on developing the PSI abilities from telepathy and
psychic touch to remote viewing can work with a child quite easily. Keeping
it on a 'game' footing helps to allow them to regard the 'games' as normal.
Having done this many years ago, I can verify that it works very well done in
this way.
Bevy J
U.S. Psi Squad
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Red and Black Cards
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/197)
12:21:06
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
imho working the red/black online might be a big bite for some people. It is
an extremely efficient way of learning touch-sensing when you use an ordinary
deck but remove all the Court cards. (they include yellow too)
When in my learning phase in the early 60's I kept a deck on the bedside table
and made myself 'do' ten every night.
The experiment you are proposing here is similar to one of Rhine's where the
shuffled symbol deck he used (confusing as 2 of the figures are composed of
right angles) was to be predicted, as it would appear in order.
I think some experiment involving red/black might work on the Stargate List,
but I think the one you have had in mind is probably a bit advanced for most.
Why not just start with 5 of them, and go from there?
Bevy J
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Signal direction
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/198)
12:21:39
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Thank you Paul. I appreciate your comments.
Although there are numerous 'ideas' and 'conclusions' about the 'signal line'
I believe that my explanation is the most realistic.
Bevy J
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Signal direction
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/199)
12:21:51
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
owing me a letter is not a big problem. Sometimes I am offline for days
myself.
By the Way, it is not 'vibrations' that affect what we use, wear, hold, it is
the energies of our atomic structure. you'll find out a lot of that when you
get your Course. :)
Everything is energy, Einstein said that and he was right. And energies do
'throw off ' or radiate and affect other types of energy, and these throwoffs
are what affect and interpentrate the supposed 'solids' around us, rocks,
soil, etc.' and our own non-solid bodies throw off the same, which is captured
'inflight' so to speak, in these things we use, wear and hold. This is why
your ring can provide solid information about you to a touch sensitive. Or a
rock can provide information about seismic events in its former position in
space and time. Or as in one of our current experiments, a dinosaur bone can
hold the exact appearance, habits and living routines of its former owner...to
be relayed to a remote viewing experimenter and/or touch sensitive.
If you want to Post any of this on Stargate, feel free.
Glad you ordered the Course. It's basic stuff. Have fun with it and let it
take you wherever you want to go with this. After you learn what it teaches,
just go on....and on...for this journey has no ending, there is always
something else to study and learn. I've been on this journey for 36 years and
no end in sight.... lol. ;)
Bevy J
stargate : Message: Re: [stargate]
Colored cards
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stargate/message/200)
12:22:02
~~--------ArchivedPostFollows_Yahoo-StarGate_group-000101-000200---------
Hello Bevy!
I will soon be getting your colored cards from your starter kit and
will be anxious to compute stats on that method vs the placement method.
I'll feed back, Perhaps Electrix will also.
Best Regards,
Bill
|