interesting forum - remote viewing - user

This forum is for the discussion of psychokinesis and extrasensory perception.

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

interesting forum - remote viewing - user

Postby dazdude » Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:48 am

Hi All,
My name is Daz and I have just joined. I would love to participate on this thread as its very relevant to me and I have seen errors here on both sides of the argument.

I am an active remote viewer - have been for eleven years. I was trained in and still use the military form of RV called CRV - which was created by Ingo Swann ( the CRV MANUAL wasn't - one of the previous errors).

I have thousands of rv practice and other experiments to my name - a handful of these posted online on my website. Pretty much everything I do Rv wise is double blind - meaning I know nothing of the target up front other than the usual eight digit random number.

I do operational remote viewing on request and have over the last year worked as a consultant on eleven missing persons cases for U.S police authorities - we only work a case when asked by he officials. These are front loaded due to the nature of the targets and the time-scales involved.

I also know a great deal about the history of PSI research which was actually started early in 1961 by the CIA department (OTS) - not the '70's - and this (officially) continued to 1995. I have read most if not all of the 89,000 Stargate CIA remote viewing program documents and I have also obtained parts of the UK MOD 1,000 page archived remote viewing information. I also own a vast library of books and every publicly available remote viewing film and audio footage. I personally know most of the Military remote viewers and a large number of both semi ambitious and pro remote viewers around.

The thread seems quite heated and hard to follow but I'm more than happy to answer any questions and comments about remote viewing, its history and its validity.

All the best...
Daz

My websites are:
www.remoteviewed.com & www.cosmicspoon.com/blog
Last edited by dazdude on Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:22 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
dazdude
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:23 am
Location: UK


just found your website yesterday......

Postby MikeJamieson » Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:55 pm

And, it was great discovering that other "manual". That you found amidst
all the Stargate material.

There will be lots of questions (directed your way)! (I'll probably have
some soon re: ideograms and aol.)

It was interesting (and great also) to see how you are putting RV to use.
There are an incredible number of potential missing persons cases
to be looked at......so, hopefully this tool will be adopted and used more
widely. Of course......that will happen only if it's seen to work!
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Postby dazdude » Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:00 pm

I'm not sure if you are aware of this but another document in the CIA archive - called the Gary Langford method - is also a very good method - i have heard a few people say that they found this a good approach to use.

http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/starg ... cedure.pdf


All the best...

Daz Smith
User avatar
dazdude
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:23 am
Location: UK

looks excellent!

Postby MikeJamieson » Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:14 pm

I have already learned some major things!

It's pointed out there that "correct RV data is impressionistic and
generally vague." ANd, that novice viewers find that valid information
(generally) is non-visual.

80 pages more to print out!
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Postby dazdude » Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:36 pm

when practising Rv we go by certain rules. Number 1 is describe everything - identify nothing. Once you have given something a name within your rv - you have fallen out of structure and its started to go wrong.

Rule no2 is - if you have a clear static image in your minds eye - its not real psi. rv data is fleeting, scattered, like a faint glimpse, a feeling more than a defiinate seeing - if its visuals and you can capture it in your minds eye its what we call an AOL - an analytical overlay form your mind in relation to the previous 'real' data that came in.

All the best...

Daz
User avatar
dazdude
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:23 am
Location: UK

Re: interesting thread - remote viewing - user

Postby Zep Tepi » Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:37 pm

dazdude wrote:Hi All,
My name is Daz and I have just joined. I would love to participate on this thread as its very relevant to me and I have seen errors here on both sides of the argument.


Hi Daz and welcome to the forum. Caryn first mentioned your name to me a while ago and I'm pleased you have signed up. I've had a look at your site and I must say I am intrigued!

I am an active remote viewer - have been for eleven years. I was trained in and still use the military form of RV called CRV - which was created by Ingo Swann ( the CRV MANUAL wasn't - one of the previous errors).

I have thousands of rv practice and other experiments to my name - a handful of these posted online on my website. Pretty much everything I do Rv wise is double blind - meaning I know nothing of the target up front other than the usual eight digit random number.

I do operational remote viewing on request and have over the last year worked as a consultant on eleven missing persons cases for U.S police authorities - we only work a case when asked by he officials. These are front loaded due to the nature of the targets and the time-scales involved.


Would you be prepared to take part in an experiment here? In its simplest form, I would pre-select a target (either physical or an image) and in order to make the experiment as transparent as possible, I would send an encrypted email with the name of the target to anyone of your choosing (no limit on the number of recipients) before the experiment begins. The email will be password protected and I will only reveal the password once you have named the target. If you are willing to participate (I really hope you are!), let me know what I need to do in terms of visualising the target etc.

If anyone else would like to participate in such an experiment, just say the word!

Cheers,
Steve
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Postby ryguy » Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:51 pm

Steve...this is a brilliant idea.

A true double-blind test. I think even one success here would convince a large number of people "out there"....

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Zep Tepi » Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:54 pm

It would certainly convince me!
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Postby ryguy » Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:57 pm

Actually - if it's a true hit, we could write up an article with the RU "This is not a Scam" stamp of approval, right up on our front page.

Skeptics - watch out! lol

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby dazdude » Thu Mar 13, 2008 1:09 am

Would you be prepared to take part in an experiment here? In its simplest form, I would pre-select a target (either physical or an image) and in order to make the experiment as transparent as possible,


Possibly!
I need to think about this - why I hear you ask.
A problem with remote viewing is that the tasker is as much a part of the remote viewing process as the actual viewer. We have found that when a tasker is unsure or negative in their intent when tasking the target then this has an adverse effect on the target outcome. The intent of the person who tasks - drives to some extent the quality of data that the viewer gets.

It might work with a quick lesson in the best way to task and rv target - can i think on this for a day or so. No offence but I get asked this all the time - every time I go on the radio i get can you tell me how many people are in the studio next door - or something similar. Most of all I get asked - can you find my cat.

I know this may be new to you guys but after eleven years of 'well show me' it gets a little tired especially when I have examples on my webby showing bets placed and won weeks and months in advance using predictive RV.

But Im not saying No - let me dwell on this and also look at my workload as its not a short sharp thing. for me to do a remote viewing session it generally runs like this, time wise:

30 mins cooldown
1-1.5 hrs in session
30 mins on a review and summary
30 mins to scan the session

and then if needed I may have to go back in and get more data if asked :(
But it might be cool - im just not sure what it would achieve that all the other examples cant.

All the best...

Daz
User avatar
dazdude
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:23 am
Location: UK

Postby Zep Tepi » Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:55 am

dazdude wrote:
Would you be prepared to take part in an experiment here? In its simplest form, I would pre-select a target (either physical or an image) and in order to make the experiment as transparent as possible,


Possibly!
I need to think about this - why I hear you ask.
A problem with remote viewing is that the tasker is as much a part of the remote viewing process as the actual viewer. We have found that when a tasker is unsure or negative in their intent when tasking the target then this has an adverse effect on the target outcome. The intent of the person who tasks - drives to some extent the quality of data that the viewer gets.


Excellent! I am willing to do all it takes in the attempt. Any guidance you can give would be extremely helpful.

I understand there are different methods and "types" of remote viewing. What method is used in missing person cases, or in cases where the objective is a specific target/location (a submarine for example)? In those cases there are no taskers per se so I was wondering if that is something else entirely?

Cheers,
Steve
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Postby Zep Tepi » Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:02 pm

(Just saw the addition to the post above)

The main thing it would achieve in this instance is clarity and understanding of the phenomena from a perceived skeptic lol. I tend to distrust things when provided with information that is difficult to verify for myself. An experiment such as this, in a quasi-controlled environment, would help enormously.

Cheers,
Steve
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Postby dazdude » Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:28 pm

The main thing it would achieve in this instance is clarity and understanding of the phenomena from a perceived skeptic lol. I tend to distrust things when provided with information that is difficult to verify for myself. An experiment such as this, in a quasi-controlled environment, would help enormously.

Cheers,


I honestly kind of understand your comments - but if the weight of 20 years of evidence doesn't persuade you -im not sure an rv session by me will :)

Heres a recent target i did blind for a person (who I can get to give a witness testimony that this was all don blind) This has not been made public before - the main reason is that I don't have full feedback yet as they target has not yet been found. Without feedback you cant see how accurate you are - hence it cant be accurately called remote viewing until feedback exists.
I am showing it here - because it was done blind Sept 7th 2007. And you will see that there is a high possibility that this matches the target - although without feedback its not certain - but at this stage there is a probability.
Im not using this as a good example of remote viewing or anything like that - just sharing a typical target I get and my results.

Please do not post anywhere else on the internet.

The tasking - which I only received after supplying the tasking person with my data - http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/tasking_sf.pdf

My rv data - http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/daz_sf.pdf

all the best...

Daz :)
User avatar
dazdude
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:23 am
Location: UK

Postby Chorlton » Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:35 pm

So how do you explain the actual mechanics of RV?
I mean, how is it supposed to work?
'Seeing; via what ?
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Postby ryguy » Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:53 pm

My understanding then, from your response, is that the phenomenon, while real, is not ever very repeatable under controlled conditions?

For example, a trained "RV'er" might have a slightly higher percentage of "hits" than someone who doesn't have the training or ability. But the trained RV'er never gets it right 100% of the time.

Is this a fair assessment?

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Next

Google

Return to PSI / Mind Control

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron