Instructor: Rainsong & Wayfarer
Date: April 28, 2017 (Friday)
Note: This class was conducted in the Order of the Golden Pyramid community’s chatroom
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.
Welcome to another installment of our Remote Viewing seminar series.
*bows to Wayfarer* As usual for the Friday-night sessions, Wayfarer and I will be co-presenting this evening.
We have a bit of a mixed bag tonight, because it would be best to not immediately proceed to Stage 5, yet.
So, first up… we’ll start with a review/Q&A session.
Are there any questions or concerns arising from earlier lectures, reviews, or practice sessions?
This is my first lecture :((
Mario: Not to worry. 😀
Do you happen to have the pastes of the earlier lectures on hand? It might be good to post them a bit before the lecture. Didn’t think about it before now.
I don’t have them ready to post. Still cleaning them up (and left the cleaned ones at work… had been doing them at lunchtime, and realised I hadn’t sent them home, after I was already home for the night this evening.)
*waves* I am here, I am eating but also I am here.
I expect to have the first four or five ready to post sometime next week.
Would it be useful to post them in the RV room, too, or would that just waste space?
I have a question to AOL and the various kinds of it. Intuitively it would seem like there are several layers from “it looks like <line drawing>” to “there’s a kind of two bowl shapes laid together with bars” to “it’s the taj mahal”
And no, it would be very useful to post them all together, as one message (use shift-enter for newline), in order, in the RV room, and then we can pin it.
Indeed. And sometimes it’s complete scenes from movies.
Do these different “kinds” of AOL have different names?
Is there a checklist or something of stages?
I remember Wayfarer having posted an interesting image where you have to fill in blank spaces in a matrix of implied questions, which looked kind of similar, but I didn’t see many terms(edited)
You can safely call them just “AOL” at this point. There are several names for different kinds. For example, “Peacocking” refers to your mind taking one significant detail and running with it so the imagination adds increasing amounts of detail around it… like a peacock unfurling his display feathers. … for example…
Let’s say the detail is an impression of “stony.” It may or may not be AOL itself, depending on how it comes it (a clear image of shallow water running over pebbles would be AOL).
So, pebbles with water.
Wouldn’t “stony” be more AOL than “shallow water running over pebbles” if that’s what you see?
Or am I misunderstanding your sentence
Yeah, I think I misunderstood, nevermind.
“Stony” could go either way. “Shallow water running over pebbles” is definitely AOL at Stage 2.
A mental image of those pebbles under shallow running water with the sun low in the sky, and an impression of Alaska in September…. that would be peacocking.
A more common example would be something like: S2 – grey hard flat rough … AOL A building…. (S2 again) red green blue bright shiny AOL church stained glass windows… Cathedral…
“AOL driving” is basically the same concept.
Sort of the reverse would be “door knobbing” (Wayfarer: Do you recall the other word for it? It’s escaping me at the moment)…. In this case, the mind is fixating on a tiny detail, and ignoring the rest of the signal.
I don’t recall the other term, I think the technical term is aspect fixation? Something like this. “Narrow aperture.”
I am here, a few minutes late but very much paying attention.
Thanks, Wayfarer. The technical terms are also useful, of course.
Anyway, if it seems AOL like, if it seems like it might be AOL, or if there is any question that it could be AOL, list it as AOL and take an AOL break.
You might notice a theme there. 😀
Azarea: Does that answer the question? Or is there any follow-up questions to it?
Yes, it kind of does.
No followup questions at this time
Fair enough. If a follow-up question occurs to you, please do share it. Thanks. 😀
Any other questions arising from earlier stuff (AOL question, or previous classes, or practices)?
None here. I’ll wait to catch up on the other lectures before asking.
Rainsong is going to proceed onto some history discussion, we’re taking a break from the next operational stage so we can spend some time in practical practice on Stages 1-3. We covered stage 4 last week but will not be proceeding there practically.
I’d like to briefly redirect once more your attention to the #remote-viewing room, available to members and associates, where we have a bot that can assign targets and accept URL links to runsheets. The few of you who have been actively practicing I would encourage to run a few runs over the weekend or early next week so I can review them.
On Monday, *probably*, in the evening, *probably*, I will run a voice review of the protocol from stages 1-3 and then we will do some practice and I will choose one lucky student to review the run and debrief so everyone can get a good feel for what we’re looking at.
Tonight’s bit of interesting history actually predates Remote Viewing per se.
In fact, it goes back to the 1930s.
In 1937, some Russian explorers became lost in the High Arctic of northern Canada, when their plane went down.
Hubert Wilkins – also an explorer – prepared to travel up north with his team in hopes of finding and rescuing the Russians.
What does this have to do with remote viewing?
Well, he and a friend of his had an interest in psychical research, and his friend proposed to conduct an experiment while Mr. Wilkins was up north.
His friend was a fellow by the name of Harold Sherman.
Back then, communication in the tundra was not entirely reliable, and was almost exclusively conducted by means of short-wave radio.
Conditions were not always conducive to good – or any – reception.
What Mr. Sherman proposed was intended as a study of telepathy.
Each night at a particular time, Mr. Wilkins would sit and think about what had happened that day.
At the *same* time, Mr. Sherman would quiet his mind, and attempt to “sense” what Mr. Wilkins was thinking of.
He wrote down his findings, and mailed them by registered mail to a third party… If memory serves, the third person was the radio operator who was in contact with Mr. Wilkins.
The United States Postal Service served as the proof of time the data was sent. And obviously, it was written down before it was sent.
Mr. Sherman often described pictures, impressions, and sounds.
The radio operator would compare what he described to what Mr. Wilkins reported by radio when he checked in.
You can see how that makes a good guard against “cheating”, if nothing else.
He couldn’t exactly check Wilkins’ Facebook wall… seeing as Facebook wouldn’t be invented for a few decades yet…
Sometimes, he got some very strange impressions, and figured he’d missed.
On a particularly memorable occasion, he thought Wilkins was dancing in formal dress.
Turns out, Wilkins had needed to make an unexpected trip into Edmonton, and went to a party in a borrowed suit while he was there.
Always interesting when your misses aren’t misses after all.
The radio operator was often stunned by the data Sherman was getting, because Sherman often had more information about what the explorer’s party did than the “ground control” group did
Shard: quite so
Pop quiz: What protocol do you think this experiment might have influenced?
(This experiment ran for several months, starting in October of 1937)
Marcus: Indeed, but which type?
Good guess, but no. This would be the basis of “outbounding.”
I cannot guarantee that it was in fact the origin of it. However, Mr. Swann was very well-read in psychical research and would have been aware of this experiment. I’d be willing to lay odds that the outbounding experiments were a direct result of this.
Good job in taking a stab at it, though. 😀
Any questions or comments about the Sherman-Wilkins Experiment?
It strikes me that a lot of these experiments go from a perspective of testing
Employing as many anti-cheating measures as possible
Makes me wonder whether this Sherman practiced using a very different process, because I can’t imagine this being the optimal way to practice
Mr. Sherman was already very well practiced.
He and his wife Martha “played” with it regularly.
As I understand it, Mr. Wilkins was more of a hobbyist than a serious psychical researcher, but had also already had some pretty good results.
Not at all optimal, very much about “proving it.” Most psychical research is more about proving that it’s real, and worthy of funding, as well as validating or invalidating various spiritualist notions, in the 1930s.
But Mr. Sherman saw an opportunity for scientific research, as best he could devise, given the circumstances in which his friend was planning to be travelling. And the few minutes a night “thinking” wouldn’t interfere with his SAR mission. After all, if he missed a night or two of “thinking”, there was no real harm done.
I don’t know if they paid the radio operator for his time and record-keeping for their experiment (probably?), but beyond that, the only cost was the postage and stationery.
Incidentally – and not RV-related exactly – Mr. Sherman also provides some of the earliest records of deliberately using “visualization of the desired end result” for psychical healing. He used it primarily for “helping” friends survive surgery, and in his own case for curing a case of gangrene and preventing an amputation.
I heartily recommend his books, if you happen to come across them. His writing style is relatively formal, and will strike modern American readers as almost quaint, but it shouldn’t be difficult for those reading English as a second (or fourth) language.
Thanks for participating, everyone. 😀
Thank you so much for teaching this lecture 😀
Thanks from me as well. Always nice to pick up new knowledge 😀
We’ll be continuing to include history bits and such in this course, because it’s important to know the background and derivations and such.
Not that my approval means jack shit, but that was a good lecture even though it went over things I was already familiar with.
Thanks, STLICTX 😀