Lucid wrote:
If the only difference is your personal experience of one and not the other, then there’s absolutely no difference between the two for some of us.
I’ve seen plenty of people levitate, without even being TMers. Is it real? Of course not - they used wires and other tricks. What I saw with my own eyes was not real. It required facts not in evidence to my senses at the time to understand that. Are you absolutely sure that, when looking at those RV sessions, you had all of the facts?
Lucid, our only assumption here is the Number One Basic Assumption that the physical world behaves in known and quantifiable ways. We aren’t just automatically “assuming” that remote viewing doesn’t work–we are “assuming” that it’s up to you to prove it does work, because it goes directly contrary to our Number One Basic Assumption. Remote viewing has nothing that is “known” or “quantifiable”. All we’ve seen so far is wishful thinking.
Way back on Page 1, Saltire asked for “just one example of a remote viewer coming out of a session with an actual fact that applied to their target but not to 10,000 other things?” And Lucid responded with a link to Banshee’s viewing of “The person that shot and killed John Lennon at the moment of the shooting December 8th, 1980”. And after I criticized the methodology and said that in my opinion it didn’t count at all as a “hit”, Lucid said:
Well, if “a single session isn’t worth much”, then why did you immediately hold it up as an example to Saltire of an actual “hit”? And if it wasn’t even an actual “analyzed” session, but only a sort of “practice run” for Banshee, then that goes double–why point to it as an example of a success?
Lucid says, “Analysis and scoring a session are two different things.” Okay, then, explain this to us. This is exactly the kind of information we’ve been asking you all for, and which you are all refusing to give. How are they different, exactly? What does “scoring” entail? What does “analysis” entail? If Banshee’s session were going to be “analyzed”, when she came out of the room with the sheets of paper, what would she have done next? Given them to someone? Who? And what would he have done with them? Would the analyst have been alone, or would he have been working with a group of people? If he was going to be working with other people during the analysis, would the other people have been allowed to talk to him about the analysis? And, most importantly, would the other people have known what the target was, and so would be able to steer him in the right direction?
This is what I suspect is what goes on during “analysis”. The analyst sits with the sheets of paper, and while he himself may not know what the target was, there are other people in the room with him who do know, and who make helpful suggestions.
Also, if the analyst is working alone, thenhow does he decide which words to ignore? Banshee’s session has a lot of words that have nothing to do with the assassination of John Lennon, and indeed, they have words that seem to have something to do with the assassination of JFK instead. So Banshee decided herself that that was what she was viewing? I’d like more information on how she came to this conclusion, what her train of thought was.
I’d like more information on what happens when an analyst, working alone, comes up with the wrong answer. “The target was–the Eiffel Tower”, but oops! the target turns out to have been “Dinosaur National Monument in Colorado”. What happens then? Is the whole thing simply discarded, or is it “re-evaluated” by another analyst? Is it re-evaluated by the same analyst, who then goes back and picks out the words that do apply to Dinosaur National Monument, and discards the rest?
I’d like more information on how it was decided that the raw data from the September 10 viewing session indicated that the viewers had been viewing the 9/11 bombings. What was the train of thought? Who did the analysis? There ought to be raw data somewhere for at least 10 people. We’d like to see that raw data, please, and see for ourselves how much was in there that had nothing to do with jets, or bombings.
Petra said in the other thread:
And I said:
And Petra said:
So, okay, how did the analyst for the September 10 session decide which anomalous bits to discard, and which to keep? How did Banshee decide which anomalous bits of her session to discard, and which to keep?
Okay, we’d like to hear about these “constraints”. How DO you evaluate a session? How DO you measure the accuracy?
Please, pay attention now.
Nothing is discarded from any of the published sessions.
Analysis is not done on any single (“standalone”) session.
Analysis is a process which aims to come to conclusions about a target.
The analyst doesn’t know what the target is. He/she goes through a number sessions (single target worked by several viewers) collecting common data elements.
A single session can be scored, that is, evaluated in terms of accuracy. Scoring could be applied to the result of analysis as well.
Duck Duck Goose:
No, the analyst does not get that kind of “help”.
Duck Duck Goose:
Yes, Banshee herself “intuited” that the target was John Lennon’s assassination. Only she could tell what her train of thought was.
Duck Duck Goose:
This is not a simple issue, but basically if the analyst comes up with a scenario or scenarios which do not match the target, then the project may indeed be a failure. But it could also be that the analyst hasn’t done his/her work properly.
It can be difficult to say exactly what the target is in many instances… but the result of analysis should tell something about the target.
In order to get substantial information through RV, it may be necessary to give the target to the viewers again (with a new random target id, of course) at a later date, and do another round of analysis.
Um, I thought that the whole idea of Scientific Remote Viewing was that it was “scientific”? That you had analysis procedures that were carefully controlled? How is it “scientific” if the viewer simply “intuits” what the target must be? If you’re just going to “have a hunch” as to what the targets are, you can’t then also have scientific, controlled analyses.
Okay, in what way could the analyst not have done his work properly? Here’s a session from your website. Target GOEQ-RMVD. Let’s use it as an example. There is no indication as to whether this session is supposed to be a hit or a miss. If it’s a “miss”, why is it posted? I therefore assume that it’s meant to be a “hit”. If it is in fact a “miss”, then in what way did the analyst not do his work properly?
If you want to click on this Photo you can see what the Target was. It’s a photo of four elephants, with men in yellow shirts riding them. They are posed, not in motion. There are mountains in the background. There are a few other people standing around.
The raw data.
The word lists.
Page 4.
Now, it’s abundantly clear to me that at some point in the analysis, a great many of these words were discarded or ignored by the analyst. As a matter of fact, I can only see a few words that could possibly apply to the target photo: feces, animals (although not carnivores, and not snarling, and not furry), outdoor, barnum, scenic, rolling hills, land, grass, possibly excitement or euphoria, although the people in the photo don’t look particularly excited.
However, some of the words are just plain wrong. There’s no water, frozen or otherwise, visible in the photo. There are no cold clean mountain streams feeding into a larger body of water. There are no cheering crowds. There are no snarling furry carnivores. There’s a structure, way back in the background, but it isn’t circular, it’s rectangular. There’s no fog or mist. It doesn’t look lonely at all–it actually looks quite cozy.
And what about all the completely irrelevant words on Page 7? “Cathedral”? “Coffin”? “Sophocles”?
The final page, page 17, gets it nearly right, except for the tiny niggling detail that there’s no water visible in the photo. It gets it so nearly right, as a matter of fact, that I really wanna know how the analyst came to that conclusion. Or was this another “intuited” session? Was there an analysis, and an analyst? I’d like to see his worksheets for this session. How did he decide that “animals” was important and “carnivores” wasn’t?
And I have now read the official “Original DIA/Army Coordinate Remote Viewing (CRV) Manual”, a link to which is posted on the HRVG Home Page, with a view towards finding out some information about the analysis process.
You know what? There’s not a single solitary word in there about the analysis process. There’s plenty of “definition of terms”, and loads of jargon. But the only reference I could find to “analysis” was this.
http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/answers/crvmanual/crvmanual-02.html
Uh huh.
The CRV manual is a description of the CRV methodology only.
It does not cover analysis and I have never seen a published analysis “how to” manual from the Stargate people.
As you can see, the CRV methodology is very different from the hrvg methodology as far as the remote viewing process.
I am not sure to what extent hrvg uses monitors. Ideally, the monitor does not know the target and this would be a mandatory protocol for any test or evaluation of RV.
Operationally, there are/were times when a monitor did have some or complete knowledge of the target. There also were/are times when the viewer operates with some knowledge of the type of target…a person,…an event, …a location,…a structure. This is referred to as front loading.
Some partial examples of CRV student work is available at:
http://www.rviewer.com/main/sessions.html
Some comments on the CIA/AIR report are here:
http://www.crviewer.com/crviewer/crvpage/mxnews.htm
An example of CRV scoring is here:
http://www.crviewer.com/crviewer/crvpage/siscore.htm
An example of a search project is here ( summaries of the RV sessions)
I will try to find a complete CRV example.
“So Banshee decided herself that that was what she was viewing? I’d like more information on how she came to this conclusion, what her train of thought was.”
In CRV the session ends with a summary written by the viewer. Examples are in the first link above.
How does a person sitting down to do an RV session “find” the object to view? There is supposedly a published ID on it, but couldn’t there be more than one piece of paper in the world with the same eight-digit number?
In those CIA sessions that were so amazingly successful (that they’re not doing them anymore), how would a viewer find a picture in the world that didn’t have an ID on it?
CurtC, according to Glenn, on page 3 of this thread,
The IDs, then, are just for record-keeping. I don’t get the impression that the viewers are meditating on the number or anything. Of course, why they’re in such a format and random, I couldn’t even guess. A simple sequence number would have worked just as well.
[sup]I might as well finish this up: 47IE-95TS was Woodstock. 4925-LVR1 was Chernobyl. 2PTV-13XA was the Apollo 11 Moon Landing Site. I don’t even have the will to go look at my word lists again.[/sup]
DDG,
Scientific Remote Viewing (SRV) is only the name of Farsight Institute’s methodology.
HRVG has it’s own methodology. I think “methodology” could be defined as a collection of methods employed by a viewer (during a session) to collect data from his/her subconscious.
I’m not a member of HRVG or any other RV group, and I can’t tell why any particular session has been published, but I consider them as real examples of remote viewing. Nothing is discarded, so that you can see exactly what the viewer has produced; the good, the neutral, and the bad.
Hey, guys, guess what? The Better Half is psychic! That’s right, on October 25 he predicted:
And just now, Lucid proved him right! I’m so excited. Gotta go call Art Bell…
Lucid, yes, things ARE discarded, even though the entire sessions may be posted on the website. What I’m talking about is the way that somebody, somewhere, when deciding whether the viewing was a “hit” or a “miss”, decides at some point to ignore all the words that don’t fit the target. Those words may be said to be “discarded”. And yes, we can see exactly what the viewer has produced, but what we are NOT allowed to see is how it’s decided whether he hit the target. Somebody sits down with those worksheets and makes a decision. We want to know how that decision-making process works. That’s what all you remote viewers are consistently refusing to explain to us. We are coming to the inevitable conclusion that, as was noted at the very beginning of the other thread, the interpretation of the results is 100% subjective and is up to the individual analyst, and also that it’s susceptible to heavy feedback from other people in the room who DO know what the target is.
Okay, you wanna talk about the HRVG protocols, we’ll talk about HRVG protocols. Here’s an original data worksheet from one of Lyn Buchanan’s sessions. Evidently it refers to “scoring”. Am I correct in assuming that the purpose of the Scoring section is to come up with as close to a score of 100% as you can? And that if the final total is 100%, that that “proves” that the viewer scored a “hit”?
Lucid, I’m sorry, but if that’s it, then I have to say that your “scientific scoring” system is laughable, to say the least. All you have to do to make Line 6 come out at 100% is keep going back up the top section and adding “Yeses” and “Nos” and “Unknowns” here and there in various categories until you get to where the total on Line 4 equals the total on Line 3, until you get Line 3 and Line 4 equal to each other, so that when you divide Line 4 by Line 3, as instructed in Line 5, you get “1”, and when you follow Line 6’s instructions and multiply Line 5’s total by 100, you get 100%.
This would explain why five marks that were originally put in “Emotions” under “Yes” were crossed out and moved over to “Unknown”, and why “Sizes” looks like it originally had three “Yeses” and no “Unknowns”, but which was changed to two “Yeses” and one “Unknown”.
I’m seriously math-challenged, and even I can understand this.
Well, that chart is Lyn Buchanan’s, not HRVG’s.
I don’t know if there is any example of HRVG-style scoring online… possibly not. Wouldn’t hurt to have those of course…
Lucid, that just sounds silly. Lyn Buchanan’s “bikers camping out” session is prominently featured as the centerpiece of the April, 2001, issue of the Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild’s own newsletter, the On-Target News, “published by the Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild, Dick Allgire, editor.”
http://www.hrvg.org/newsletter/2001-04/home.html
If Lyn’s methodology differs from what the HRVG uses, then why isn’t that fact noted in the preface to the article? The only disclaimer or explanation I can see from Dick Allgire is the fact that because Lyn’s handwriting was so bad that he couldn’t read it, he had to ask him to resubmit his report as typewritten copy.
http://www.hrvg.org/newsletter/2001-04/feature.html
If his methodology did differ, I would expect there to be a certain amount of discussion of that fact. You all claim that remote viewing is “scientific”. Well, when scientists work separately and then get together and discuss their results, the first question on everybody’s lips is, “How did you get those results? What tests did you do?” And if they achieve similar results, the logical question is whether they did it by doing similar tests. And if they got similar results, but with wildly differing test methods, then that’s cause for a big discussion. “Hey, how’d he do that?” But I don’t see anything like that in the HRVG newsletter, nothing along the lines of, “Well, Lyn has his own methods, and they seem to work for him, but here at the HRVG…”
Nope, I’m going to have to assume that the HRVG methods are very similar to what Lyn uses. But, you know, you can easily refute my assertion, by posting what method the HRVG does use…
And no, there isn’t any explanation on your entire website of either the scoring or the analysis or the protocols that the HRVG uses, except for Glenn’s rather murky and jargon-y explanation in the Library FAQ under How do you read the session data? He actually doesn’t say anything at all about “reading”, i.e. “interpreting” or “analyzing” the data. It’s all about Cascade and Blackboard and Playfair.
And I would lay dollars to doughnuts that if you suggest posting more precise explanations of the HRVG’s protocols on the website to Glenn, he will politely but firmly put the kibosh on the idea. It’s not in his best interest, as leader and “high priest”, to allow the knowledge of how the “magic” works to become public.
I agree with you on the part that there should be more information readily available… Some good stuff has been posted on the bulletin board down the years, but it’s all sort of wasted in the archives.
Everything could always be better, but time is limited. I understand that. The way I see it, HRVG’s focus is (still) mainly on training, with some steps taken on operational work. It is surely not a path everyone can “accept” and they are well aware of it.
Aloha DDG,
Thanks for the chuckle; it was a refreshing break from some of the less than favorable postings.
You spend the majority of your time caught up in the minutia of the microcosm when you should consider the theory of the macrocosm first. You keep harping on the issue of Analysis and what gets thrown out and why.
The HRVG has about 8 active analysts. All were trained by me and I was trained at FT. Meade by the National Security Agency. Let me give you an Idea of what Analysis actually is and is not in regards specifically to RV data.
There are 3 basic analytical formats used to evaluate RV data. These are (1) Low Level Analysis. (2) Intermediate Analysis. (3) Critical Analysis.
Low Level Analysis (LLA) consists of the generation of 3 documents by the analyst. The documents are (1) The Data Extraction Matrix. (2) Working Notes. (3) Scenario.
LLA is employed when more than one session is conducted on an RV Target. This means when multiple viewers work a target LLA will determine what the analyst can actually say about the target. This is to prohibit an analyst from fabricating his or her own ideas about what the data means. They cannot wax poetic on the value of the data through their own eyes and analytical voice. LLA produces common results on target data. If I gave the same batch of target work to 3 different analysts they should all generate the same basic LLA results.
The Data Extraction Matrix (DEM) is a spreadsheet style matrix where corroborating information from within the sessions is consolidated. As an example if multiple viewers reported in their session data that some gestaltic aspect at the target was moving at a high rate of speed or velocity then that would qualify as an entry in the DEM. The entries would identify which viewer reported the data and what other viewers’ work corroborated it. Entries in the DEM then generate a single working note.
The Working Notes (WN) are a series of single statements generated by separate entries in the DEM. As an example the previously stated “Some gestaltic aspect at the target is moving at a high rate of speed or velocity” would generate a simple declarative statement to that effect in the WN.
Once the WN are complete then the Scenario is formulated. The analyst will review the WN and construct a declarative paragraph consolidating the information from the WN.
LLA cannot be conducted on a single remote viewing session.
Intermediate Analysis (IA) is conducted when multiple sessions have been conducted on a target multiple times. This allows the formulation of an Analytical Assessment from the compiled data as well as the isolation of themes that surface in a body of analysis.
Critical Analysis (CA) is minutia extreme. It requires an extensive library history on everything a viewer has produced in session work. Let’s say a viewer has worked 41 targets in the last 6 months. Of those targets how many contained the gestaltic aspect of “Fire”. Of those targets that contained that aspect how many were actually reported by the viewer? What imagery or words did the viewer use to record the data? This can be very detailed analysis and is the only analytical format suitable to evaluate the value of a single RV session on a target.
No prudent analyst would rely on a single session to make a judgment. In the absence multiple sessions on a target CA is the only method used to generate a probability of accuracy.
This forum is not intended to be an instructional forum in our analytical procedures. I have provided you an overview of the aspects of our analytical process. If you really want to understand analysis you would have to enter into some school of training dealing with intelligence data analysis. A good starting point would be FM 34-3 Intelligence Analysis published by Headquarters, Department of the Army.
You raise an issue of what gets thrown out and it is not really a consideration. All remote viewers generate session work that is a combination of three (3) things. (1) Good target Data. (2) Contamination or Bad Data. (3) Neutral Data, or data that is congruent but not specifically able to be identified to a relationship to the actual target.
No prudent analyst would use data from a single intelligence discipline to make recommendations or take action. A certain amount of collateral analysis is also required.
Analysis is its own little world and good analysts just don’t exist in the wild. They have to be made. Analysis of RV data is difficult and takes time. The many sessions you see posted at our website are submitted in their raw form for public consumption. Published analysis is restricted to projects or work done by the working groups within the guild.
As to your contention that I have some cult leader status that is fairly laughable. The Guild is an approved non-profit organization and has a board of directors and different committees to manage guild activities. We have members from all over the world, many of which are trained in various methods of RV whose desire it is to participate in the research of RV.
I find it a bit hard to believe that you could view all the published session work at HRVG and not see evidence of an RV Effect. I would invite you to consider Valtra’s Moonville Tunnel session. If you cannot assimilate a curiosity from that session then I have indeed wasted your time, and mine…
Aloha Glenn
Posters are not allowed to change their username, to do so you would have to send an e-mail to one of our administrators, for example tubadiva@aol.com
But if you’re not posting at the SDMB any more it probably doesn’t matter.
I had to go look at all your posts to find the one where you checked the “Email Notification: emails sent to you whenever someone replies.” box. I finally found out and unchecked it. I hope that you will no longer be receiving these e-mails. Sorry it took so long but I missed your request. If you want a moderator or administrator to do something else for you please send us an e-mail, you will get a faster response than if you post a request on the message board.
moderator, «Straight Dope Message Board»
DDG asked:
If Lyn’s methodology differs from what the HRVG uses, then why isn’t that fact noted in the preface to the article?
Answer:
The newsletter is geared toward RVers most of whom are familiar with the various methodoligies especially CRV.
DDG said:
If his methodology did differ, I would expect there to be a certain amount of discussion of that fact. You all claim that remote viewing is “scientific”. Well, when scientists work separately and then get together and discuss their results, the first question on everybody’s lips is, “How did you get those results? What tests did you do?” And if they achieve similar results, the logical question is whether they did it by doing similar tests. And if they got similar results, but with wildly differing test methods, then that’s cause for a big discussion. “Hey, how’d he do that?” But I don’t see anything like that in the HRVG newsletter, nothing along the lines of, “Well, Lyn has his own methods, and they seem to work for him, but here at the HRVG…”
Nope, I’m going to have to assume that the HRVG methods are very similar to what Lyn uses. But, you know, you can easily refute my assertion, by posting what method the HRVG does use…
Rich_rv says:
I am not sure what differences you are wondering about. As you have seen from the CRV manual and Lyn’s session, the CRV data entry style is much different from hrvg’s.
You will also find differences in Lyn’s terminology. He uses Stray Cat instead of Analytical Overlay. TRV and SRV are modifications of CRV, some steps deleted, some added. Ed Dames (TRV) and Courtney Brown (SRV) each believe that they have made improvements. There is no proof of this nor are their any scientific studies of the individual methodologies or whether one is better than the other. On the contrary, the public results of TRV and SRV have been notorious failures dealing primarily in sensationalism, aliens, gloom and doom.
If you are asking about differences in analysis procedures, I do not know who does what, how. I imagine there are differences, especially the one relating to aliens stealing fertilizer from earth. and
Rich
A skeptic is someone who refuses to believe something is real before he’s seen the evidence. A skeptic is also more willing than the credulous to say, “I don’t know,” instead of leaping to a conclusion for fear of appearing ignorant or stupid. Sounds pretty wise to me.
There is only one reality. However, each of us perceives it in a slightly different way.
I find it difficult to respect those who believe in things that I think are utter garbage. Sorry, but that’s MY “personal reality.”
All I ask is that people not believe everything they hear about.
Same here.
The only fear I have about RV is that the government will spend WAYYYYYY too much tax money on a technique that is doomed to failure, and that the people who spend their time on this bunk would be better off trying to become plumbers or some other more useful profession.
And I say it’s something NO ONE can do.
Sounds like you don’t have much confidence in it.
Czarcasm wrote:
I think you gotta use a Stern-Gerlach apparatus.
Er, excuse me – a consciousness Stern-Gerlach apparatus. (What are the base-state Hamiltonians for a consciousness, anyway? How many spin modes does it have?)
Excuse me, tracer. Everyone knows that that would work only if you could guarantee there wasn’t Lorentz force present, which would mask any separation that the inhomogenous field effects on the spins.
Glenn:
The reason I keep harping on the issue of analysis is because, basically, I think you guys are all fudging your results to get what you want. I want to see some serious information on your analysis procedures to prove that you guys aren’t cheating. I want to see some serious scientific procedures laid out in words of one syllable, and jargon doesn’t count.
Okay, here’s my understanding of your post supposedly explaining the HRVG’s analysis procedures.
The analyst uses 3 formats. The actual names of the formats are so unimportant as to be stunning. It does not make one itty-bitty whit of difference whether you call them Low Level, Intermediate, and Critical, or Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail.
In Low Level, or Flopsy, the analyst generates 3 documents. The actual names of the documents are so unimportant as to be stunning. It does not make one itty-bitty whit of difference whether you call them the Data Extraction Matrix, the Working Notes, and the Scenario, or Moe, Larry, and Curly.
Flopsy is used when there’s more than one session conducted on a target. This means when multiple viewers work a target Flopsy will determine what the analyst can actually say about the target. This is to prohibit an analyst from fabricating his or her own ideas about what the data means. They cannot wax poetic on the value of the data through their own eyes and analytical voice. Flopsy produces common results on target data. If I gave the same batch of target work to 3 different analysts they should all generate the same basic Flopsy results.
Flopsy cannot be conducted on a single remote viewing session.
This is all very nice, wonderful, wonderful jargon. I’m sure it impressed the hell out of the CIA. However, I am not being paid by the taxpayers to sit here and listen while you spout off. You still have not told me doodly about exactly what Flopsy entails. When Flopsy is used, what happens, Glenn? How exactly does Flopsy prevent the analyst from fabricating his own ideas about what the data means? What do you mean, “Flopsy produces common results”? How does Flopsy do this, exactly?
Bibbedy-bobbidy-boo. Moving along…
Moe is a spreadsheet style matrix where corroborating information from within the sessions is consolidated. As an example if multiple viewers reported in their session data that some gestaltic aspect at the target was moving at a high rate of speed or velocity then that would qualify as an entry in Moe. The entries would identify which viewer reported the data and what other viewers’ work corroborated it. Entries in Moe then generate a single working note.
This is all very nice, wonderful, wonderful jargon. However, you still have not told me doodly about exactly what Moe entails. When Moe is used, what happens, Glenn?
Bibbedy-bobbidy-boo. Moving along…
Larry is a series of single statements generated by separate entries in Moe. As an example the previously stated “Some gestaltic aspect at the target is moving at a high rate of speed or velocity” would generate a simple declarative statement to that effect in Larry.
Once Larry is complete then Curly is formulated. The analyst will review Larry and construct a declarative paragraph consolidating the information from Larry.
Bibbedy-bobbidy-boo. Moving along…
Mopsy (M) is conducted when multiple sessions have been conducted on a target multiple times. This allows the formulation of an Analytical Assessment from the compiled data as well as the isolation of themes that surface in a body of analysis. You still aren’t telling me anything at all. But you know that, don’t you? And the CIA guys knew it, too, but they didn’t care if it didn’t make sense. They were still getting paid either way.
Bibbedy-bobbidy-boo. Moving along…
Cottontail © is minutia extreme. It requires an extensive library history on everything a viewer has produced in session work.
No prudent analyst would rely on a single session to make a judgment. In the absence multiple sessions on a target Cottontail is the only method used to generate a probability of accuracy.
And there you have it! A complete rundown on the HRVG’s analysis procedures. What could be clearer than that…
Glenn, when you say to me, “I find it a bit hard to believe that you could view all the published session work at HRVG and not see evidence of an RV Effect”, you sound exactly like those people who see the Virgin Mary in a knothole in a tree, and who drag you over to it, gesticulating. “There, there, don’t you see? It’s the Virgin Mary, see, there’s her nose, and there’s her hair…” You’ve dragged me all over your website for the last couple of weeks, pointing at the “RV effect”. “There, there! Don’t you see?” No, Glenn, I don’t see. Not only do I not see the Virgin Mary, I don’t even see the knothole, and even the existence of the tree itself is highly questionable.
Um, yeah, you have made that abundantly clear, Glenn. My congratulations on having gotten the jargon thing down pat.
BTW, I looked at Valtra’s Moonville Tunnel session. She has lovely handwriting. If you can explain to me–
[ul]
[li]why her session work has the words Chernobal, crevice, ravine, rolling hills, rural, hooting, toxic, noxious cloud, toxic air, high pitch, release of pressure, imminent danger, vegetation in it, when[/li][li] none of these has anything to do with the target, which is a photo of the entrance to a tunnel. A very small tunnel. A target that is not Chernobyl. A target that has no crevices, ravines, rolling hills, rural hooting, toxic or noxious clouds, toxic air, no high pitched release of pressure, no imminent danger, no vegetation, and[/li][li]why this viewing is considered a “hit”, and[/li][li]why you are directing my attention to this specific session as “evidence of the RV effect”, then[/li][/ul]
I will come back and talk to you some more. Otherwise, I’m outta here, 'cause this is getting old, and, may I say, rather discouraging. We have had other “paranormal” spokespersons come onto the boards who were more than happy to explain how their particular hobby worked. You are an exceptionally close-mouthed group of people. I can only chalk it up to your CIA experiences, and a vigorous fantasy life concerning conspiracy theorists, the Gray Men, the importance of this remote viewing information, and the peril to Western Civilization if it should fall into the wrong hands.
And no, I don’t want to join you over on your website and sign up for courses.
