Remote Viewing PracticumWhat is Remote Viewing? Remote Viewing protocols allow an individual to perceive people, places, events, and objects by directing their consciousness to any destination or any time period via specified coordinates.
In 2002 I was very excited to see that Fred “Skip” Atwater was going to facilitate a new seminar at The Monroe Institute (TMI) on Remote Viewing. I couldn’t think of anyone better to provide a solid overview on the subject…in that he was heavily involved with the creation of the Department of Defense’s initial Remote Viewing program and promoted the idea of having future DOD Remote Viewers attend the TMI Gateway Voyage seminar.
I waited until the summer of 2003 to attend the seminar…figuring that the format and presentation glitches would work themselves out during the first couple of seminars.
This seminar is less of a “how to” workshop and more of an educational opportunity that introduces attendees to the basics and provides a solid foundation of what Remote Viewing is and is not.
The Remote Viewing Practicum seminars are held at the Nancy Penn Center rather than the Roberts Mountain Retreat. Although the Roberts Mountain Retreat is a very nice location, it was nice to return to the Nancy Penn Center. (I hadn’t been back to the Nancy Penn Center since my initial Gateway Voyage seminar.)
The seminar was full and the collection of attendees was reminiscent of the Gateway seminar: a lively mix of left-brained and right-brained folks. Some of the attendees (like myself) had already read every book published on the subject…while other attendees had no idea what Remote Viewing was…they just wanted to come to TMI and this was the seminar that was scheduled.
Unlike other TMI seminars, the Remote Viewing seminar offered attendees little free time and was scheduled with lots of presentations, practical CHEC unit sessions as well as the occasional practice target.
Over the course of the week, Skip Atwater presented a detailed history of Remote Viewing. Also, rather than teaching a specific Remote Viewing Protocol, Skip allowed the attendees the opportunity to become familiar with multiple styles and protocols: from the rigidly structured Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild (HRVG) protocols, to the highly unstructured Extended Remote Viewing (ERV) protocols…as well as several protocols in between with varying amounts of structure.
Toward the end of the week, there was also a presentation on the complex Associative Remote Viewing (ARV) protocol. For those of you who want to use Remote Viewing to play the stock market or lottery, this is the protocol for you. But be forewarned, it is a very complicated protocol and has the potential to either tire out your Remote Viewers….or bore them to tears….
Each attendee was encouraged to decide for themselves what style of Remote Viewing protocol would work best for their personal style.
(As for myself, I fell in the middle with regard to the amount of structure I felt comfortable with. I really identified with Lyn Buchanan’s Controlled Remote Viewing (CRV) protocols)
The common themes among all Remote Viewing protocols were what Skip termed the “Five Behaviors”. These Five Behaviors included: Relaxing, Connecting, Listening, Becoming Aware, Objectifying/Reporting
We were given a Hemi-Sync tool (as a take home CD) to assist us in letting go and turning inward. The hemi-sync tool was used throughout the week in our CHEC Unit sessions for use with our practice targets. The binaural frequencies on the CD are similar to the frequencies developed by Robert Monroe for Joe McMoneagle (aka Remote Viewer 001).
In addition, the importance of the team concept for Remote Viewing was discussed. In a Remote Viewing team, the key roles are that of the Monitor (or Interviewer), Remote Viewer and the Judge.
Contrary to what you might have seen in movies, the Remote Viewer is always (okay, 99.9% of the time) in control of the session. The monitor is there to guide, suggest, or cue the Remote Viewer, but does not lead or pressure the Remote Viewer in any specific direction. The Judge is the individual that is brought in after the session to determine if the Remote Viewer hit the target or missed the target.
The most important things I learned from the Remote Viewing Practicum seminar are as follows:
During the week the attendees were given a series of Remote Viewing targets in a variety of situations. The attendees were tasked with figuring out what was in the “envelope” or “box” by simply being given a randomly assigned target number.
Each time the attendees were given a practice target, the situation was designed to teach attendees how NOT to set-up a Remote Viewing session.
These practice targets gave the attendees the direct experience to understand:
- just how important it is to set-up the Remote Viewing targets correctly
- to always follow the protocols (whatever protocols they may be)
- illustrate the importance of correct feedback
- do not front-load the remote viewer
- do not front-load the monitor.
Frontloading is when the Remote Viewer or Monitor is told what the target is (i.e. a factory in Siberia) and the task is to provide detail about the target. The problem that results from frontloading…for beginning remote viewers…is that it is difficult to differentiate between the signal line and imagination or analytical overlay. Also, for the beginning monitor, it is easy to lead or pressure the remote viewer in an inaccurate direction. Lastly, there is the possibility of telepathic overlay between the monitor and remote viewer.
Telepathic Overlay is a very complicated subject. To the best of my knowledge, telepathic overlay is when the remote viewer is getting target information from the Monitor or other Remote Viewers (who are targeting the same target)…rather than actually making contact with the target itself.
The concept of Feedback is similar to the idea of Future Memory. Feedback occurs when the remote viewer opens the envelope is finds out what the target was. This act performs two functions.
1) It gives the remote viewer closure as to what the correct target was.
2) Allows the remote viewer to create a correct future memory. After the session, if the Remote Viewer sees a single correct target, the remote viewer can create a correct future memory that assists the remote viewer to acquire the correct target in the past. However, if after the session the Remote Viewer sees not only the correct target…but also the other targets that “could” have been in the envelope, this creates a fuzzy future memory in which all the targets kind of bleed into each other.
Let me give you an example. Let’s say that each attendee is going to get a practice target to remote view. The target is going to be 1 of 4 photographs. At the end of the session, the correct thing to do is allow the remote viewer to see the photograph that was in his/her envelope.
The incorrect thing to do is to allow the remote viewer to see not only the target that was in his/her envelope but to also allow the remote viewer to see the other 3 photographs.
When this happens, the Remote Viewer will most likely have drawn and/or described elements of all 4 target photographs rather than the single correct target photographs.
It sounds crazy, but after having the direct experience of correct Feedback and Incorrect Feedback…I have to say, that there is some truth to the concept of Future Memory.
Another concept I learned from attending the Remote Viewing Practicum is how difficult it is to determine whether the remote viewer hit or missed the target.
Here is a non-remote viewing example: Let’s say you have a dream that when I get on Flight #1234 tomorrow, the plane will crash and I will be killed. Okay, so you tell me your dream and I delay my travel by a couple of days and take a different flight. Well, we find out that indeed, Flight #1234 crashed on take-off on the date you predicted in your dream.
Was this a hit or a miss? Yes, the plane crashed. (hit) But I was not on the plane so I did not die. (miss)
The data gathering technique described in the Remote Viewing Practicum allows for fuzzy data. Rather than going with a 100% blanket hit/miss analysis, the technique presented allowed for a tally of descriptors that the Remote Viewer reported during the session and then a statistical analysis of the final tally of hits and misses is performed.
Here is an example. If the target is a horse in an outdoor muddy corral in daylight, the correct descriptors might include: organic, dirt, wet, wood, outside, musty smell. Incorrect descriptors would include: salty, grassy, night. In this simple example the final tally would be 6 hits and 3 misses.
One final lesson that really hit home with our group was with regard to how to correctly number your targets. For our seminar, Skip chose to number our targets in a manner that was different than the way the targets were numbered in previous seminars. This numbering decision created some really bizarre results for our Remote Viewing sessions with our final practice targets.
All of the attendees were separated into groups of 3. We each rotated the position of Monitor, Remote Viewer and Judge. In the end, most of us completely missed our targets. However, we missed our targets in a really bizarre and statistically significant manner.
The way Skip set up the targets was as follows: There was the possibility of 4 photographs printed on a proof sheet. Plus, there was the actual target that was printed on a separate sheet of paper. Both sheets of paper were put in envelopes with the SAME target number.
The result was that most of the attendees ended up describing elements of all 4 target photographs in a statistically significant manner.
Again, this direct experience provided the necessary impact for the lesson: it is very important to set up targets correctly.
While waiting for Skip to put together an Advanced Remote Viewing seminar (which he has not done yet), I decided to continue with Remote Viewing training. Last year I attended Lyn Buchanan’s Beginning CRV seminar and intend to follow-up with his Intermediate CRV seminar later this year.
Always remember:
1) anyone can learn Remote Viewing
2) stick to the protocols and
3) practice, practice, practice...
References
Atwater, F.H. (2001). Captain of My Ship, Master of My Soul: Living With Guidance. Charlottesville, SC: Hampton Roads Publishing Company.
Buchanan, L. (2003). The Seventh Sense: The Secrets of Remote Viewing as Told by a "Psychic Spy" for the U.S. Military. New York: Paraview Pocket Books.
HRVG (2006). Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild. Retrieved April 24, 2006, http://www.hrvg.org/
McMoneagle, J. (1993). Mind Trek: Exploring Consciousness, Time, and Space Through Remote Viewing. Charlottesville, SC: Hampton Roads Publishing Company.
Monroe, R. (1971). Journeys Out of the Body. New York: Doubleday.
Monroe, R. (1985). Far Journeys. New York: Doubleday.
Monroe, R. (1994). The Ultimate Journey. New York: Doubleday.
Problems Solutions Innovations (2006). Controlled Remote Viewing. Retrieved April 23, 2006, http://www.crviewer.com/
Ritchey, D. (2003). The H.I.S.S. of the A.S.P.: Understanding the Anomalously Sensitive Person. Terra Alta, WV: Headline Books, Inc.
Targ, R. & Katra J. (1998) Miracles of Mind: Exploring Non-local Consciousness and Spiritual Healing. Novato, CA: New World Library.
TMI (2006) Remote Viewing Practicum. Retrieved April 23, 2006, http://www.monroeinstitute.com/program.php?program_id=17
No comments:
Post a Comment