Date: June 30, 2017 (Friday)
Note: This class was conducted in the Order of the Golden Pyramid community’s chatroom
@here If folks are interested, there’ll be a seminar on RV in the Lectures room starting in ten minutes… And if folks aren’t interested, there won’t be. 😀
@Aureum Animus Was that just verifying data, or are you interested in learning about RV?
It appears this will be a semi-private tutorial, then….
Are you “up to date” on the RV classes? And, either way, do you have any questions at this point?
(My planned topic was an overview of Stages 5 and 6, but that doesn’t make much sense if you’re not already familiar with the stages before those.)
Not really, no
I was busy with life as the lecture series started
nods “Life” stuff can take up a lot of time…
The previous class logs are posted, but it’s a lot of reading, so it’s understandable if you’re not caught up. Have you read any of them?
Most of the first one I think, not enough of later ones to understand what was going on
So, a bit of the terms and some history?
Remote viewing protocols are useful for sussing out useful data “signals” from the notorious amounts of “noise” common to psychic perception.
Associative Remote Viewing is a specific usage of the protocols, as opposed to being a protocol set itself, strictly speaking. It’s handy for things like answering binary or multiple-choice type questions: playing the stock market, gambling on horse races, and the like. 😉
You’ll sometimes encounter people debating or arguing about whether RV is better than (for example) scrying or Tarot readings, or the reverse.
Leaving aside the fact that some remote viewers use scrying and Tarot readings within RV protocols, those arguments are kind of like arguing over whether a screwdriver is a better tool than a hammer.
Or if moonmist is an objectively superior ice-cream flavour as compared to bear-paw.
(For those who haven’t encountered either ice-cream flavour, moonmist is a combination of banana, grape, and bubblegum flavour – or blue-raspberry, depending on the dairy –, and bear-paw is a vanilla base with caramel swirls and chocolate-covered-peanut-butter pieces.)
The main advantage of Remote Viewing lies in the viewer not knowing ahead of time what the target is. This allows the analyst to compare the data to what is “already known” to estimate how accurate the rest of the data is likely to be.
That advantage is not useful for some tasks. And it takes up too much time and resources for some other tasks.
So, it’s not that it’s “better”… It’s that, for some purposes, it’s the right tool for the job.
…the “job” being things like military and industrial espionage, some kinds of palaeontology, and some archaeology.
Nope, I c
Ideally, the person doing the psychic-stuff part of remote viewing doesn’t have any idea what the target is, before the session starts.
Practically speaking, if the viewer is a military person running an operational target, and -for example- there’s a hostage rescue operation going on, there’s a fair chance that he or she might guess that the target might be related to that. But still…
That guess can really mess up the results of the session.
During a session, anything that seems or feels like it might be a guess of “what it is” should be declared as “AOL”, which stands for “Analytical OverLay”…. presumably corrupted data caused by thinking it through instead of just reporting data bits.
AOL happens a lot. It’s not uncommon to have 20 or more declared AOL “breaks” in a session. And if you don’t have any, you’re not doing RV right.
Declaring an “AOL break”, writing down “AOL br” and a very brief description of whatever the guess-like data was (on the righthand side of the page, incidentally), putting the pen down, and starting again after a moment or two,… that’s important, to let yourself get back on track.
Most protocols involve writing on plain white copy paper with a black pen.
Some involve verbal description and a voice-recorder.
It’s perfectly normal for the written version to be barely legible and badly spelled, and for the verbal version to be hard to hear clearly.
That’s nothing to worry about. (The latter is doubtless annoying for the transcriptionist, however.)
Expect most of the words to be adjectives, for the first few stages. Nouns are suspect.
Anyway, enough rambling.
http://psc-online.org/doku.php?id=class_logs:anomalous_cognition:remote_viewing_class_1(in case you want to find the logs again)
This makes sense
Like seeing bark texture and smooth or serrated leaf like textures and the you AOL forest
That’s the idea, yes. 😀
Sometimes, it would even be a specific spot in a specific forest.
Or, you see bits of colours and light, and rounded rough textures, and you AOL a local church and it turns out to be a particular mosque or temple (local or otherwise).
And sometimes, it’s a matter of scale: the details you “see” are all connected to a tiny part of the target (just one leaf….) or, the imagination grabs a detail and imagines a larger scene around it, usually prompted by a memory of some kind.
One of my favourite examples of the “tiny part” type, was from an Associative Remote Viewing project… a good decade ago.
The target picture was from a printer advertisement. The paper coming out of the printer in the picture showed a picture of a weasel poking his head out of the end of a hollow log.
I got the face and the log, but nothing at all of the printer.
Because of how Associative Remote Viewing works, that was still useful for the purpose at hand, but in most cases, that data would be misleading at best.