Remote Viewing Series Part 7.5: Gestalts, Hits, & Information Gathering

Instructor: Wayfarer
Date: January 24, 2019 (Thursday)

Seminar: LECTURE 58.5 The Impromptu RV Theory Lecture

Wayfarer: Based on a session run in #practice-annex on Thursday 24JAN2019 at 1132 EST by Indecisive as part of a bigger test on some other shit, the question is… [11:51 AM] Indecisive: ok, so lets acknowledge the hits on the last one; a spherical coloration and a line, a skyline, and a reflection (to some degree); those are for sure gesalt points in the scheme of things; how would you go about narrowing down the actual objects?

Indecisive: To add, maybe if you could share the points/stages of the protocol, as well as some reliable sources for it

Wayfarer: So, let’s talk briefly about what’s going on when we RV. Basically, we’re trying to gather information about a thing what we can’t see with our eyes, and we generally want that information to be in the form of actionable intelligence. In essence, RV protocol was developed to structure clairvoyance in a way that the results of that clairvoyance could be reported to powerful men in suits and uniforms so they could make decisions about killing people. So that focus on actionable intelligence is a big part of it.

Wayfarer: Oh necessarily.

Wayfarer: Secondarily (or primarily, depending on who you ask and how honest they’re being with themselves), the protocol formats information in a way that allows it to be scientifically assessed for accuracy such that definitive statements can be made about whether a psi effect has been demonstrated.

Wayfarer: So, when we look at a target (in the conventional sense, with our actual eyeballs), there are certain aspects that dominate any given image. We could say the same of non-imagery targets (if we were going for smells, or sounds, or so on). These are all dominated by a primary focus. There may be more than one major element, and these major elements are organized into a whole. This whole is called the “gestalt,” the German word for “form” and which can be defined as basically “the total thing that is the sum of its constituent elements”

Wayfarer: A target can have more than one “major gestalt,” for example, if there is a building in front of a mountain, both of these could be considered “major gestalts” depending on what we’re looking at – and both are wholes comprised of parts. A building has (presumably) at least three walls, a roof, an outside, an inside, means of egress, possibly windows, possibly multiple stories, possibly scifi greebles, etc.

Wayfarer: A mountain has angles, crevasses or crevices, a summit, steppes, ridges, outcrops, a base, crests, etc.

Wayfarer: The total site has two major gestalts that make for a “site.”

Wayfarer: Now, if all this information came through clearly and cleanly, there would be no need for structures or protocols or so on.

Wayfarer: We could just, you know, write down what it is.

Wayfarer: “A mountain with a building by it” bing bong so easy.

Wayfarer: But for two problems: one, it’s not like that. Two, that doesn’t deliver any actionable intelligence. We actually want more detail than that. As a side note, one of the pernicious problems RV hobbyists run into is that they are interested in RVing to the extent that it proves RV is possible. It’s said there’s a 60% accuracy rate in information gained through RV generally. That’s…not great. But we don’t improve on that by being satisfied by the effect.

Wayfarer: We actually want to get information that tells us information about the site – the kind of information that determines the best way to kill all the people there or whatever.

Wayfarer: So, it’s not just that we want exactly enough information to know we had a hit, and in fact that information is usually just confirmatory. We’re looking for more information. We want to know we hit the site, but we also want to know information about the site that couldn’t be attained via a normal method.

Wayfarer: How we get that information is by coaxing it out of the signal source. The RV literature will normally talk about a “signal line” and you’ll see me use that terminology a lot. I “prompt the signal line” or “query the signal line” or “tell the signal line to back off” or whatever it is. For examples of that happening you can look back at previous RV lectures which I’m sure @ShadowRain has kindly organized in the archives.

Wayfarer: So, the question was very practical and I’ve gone off into theory, let’s bring it back:

Wayfarer: When we RV, we generally get a disorganized jumble of raw information that our brains have to organize in some way into something useable. We then have to document that raw information in a format that makes sense and can be deciphered into something useful for, well, whoever is paying us.

Wayfarer: There are a couple of different ways this is accomplished, generally called “protocols,” but that’s not a great name and you could just as well call them “methods” or “systems” or “structures.” The protocol is actually the bit where you are maintaining a number of important, well, protocols, regarding keeping the tasker, monitor, and most importantly viewer blind to the target, how the session is conducted such that nobody who knows the target can interact in any way with the viewer, and so on.

Wayfarer: In general this is understood to be so that the experimental validity isn’t compromised, but that’s kind of just a scientific phone-in. It’s so the client doesn’t lead the viewer on in a confirmatory way and compromise the validity of the gathered intelligence. For training it’s so we don’t do self-deceptive fraud where we trick ourselves into thinking we’re viewing when we’re not. Basically it’s real important but we’re beyond that here so no need to labor the point.

Wayfarer: So, some quick source material: I am going to refer to stuff from a 1985 working paper put forth by the CIA in developing stages of protocol.

Wayfarer: There are a lot more comprehensive papers out there. I like this one because of where it falls in the development of the protocol and because it’s written by and for .mil guys and not for the scientific community, so they largely skip a lot of the necessary scientific jargon and mandatory research staples like “further research is necessary to…”

Wayfarer: Where it falls in the history of things is that SRI has already figured out most of the ins and outs of getting remote viewing to work for at least some of its subjects, some of the time, and now there is an effort being made to make it operational. It talks about different kinds of sessions, including operational and training sessions, and how they differ based on who knows what. It’s basically a real good, simple resource, written for dumb military guys and not for nerds.

Wayfarer: It’s a little different from where things ended up by the 90s but that’s okay and good, I actually think the project went a bit away from the stated mission after a certain point. It’s worth noting that the cell we learned everything about STARGATE from was shut down, so, uh, you know.

Wayfarer: The core of it is all there. I will very quickly run down a session through stage 5 and then we’ll talk about why those things are done in that way and how that information can be unpacked to answer the question.

Wayfarer: The first stage is an ideogram and the major gestalt and its characteristics. This is called the “IAB format.” The ideogram is a person’s rapid, involuntary reflexive mark that represents in some way the target gestalt. In the initial training, where someone is learning to acquire a signal, you never go any further than this – because the monitor knows the target and if you whiff you whiff and you’ve got to figure out why and fix it.

Wayfarer: I don’t actually think that’s super necessary.

Flux: Why not? Do you think it’s better to do the full session in the early stages?

Wayfarer: Stage 2 you do general adjectival descriptors of the target. Stage 3 you do adverbial descriptors including motion and dynamics. This is also where a sketch is generally done. You also identify your major gestalts. Stage 4, you unpack major gestalts. This is actually basically more sessions, you’re in essence doing a session in and of itself of each of the components that makes up the site.

Wayfarer: I think that people overfocus on the ideogram and it was given more weight than necessary in the initial runs. Some people RV just fine without an ideogram. It does serve a purpose in helping reacquire the site after the signal has been suppressed when we take a break, but… you can accomplish the same thing by addressing the coordinates again.

Wayfarer: Aaand we’re gonna take a brief break because I have to go respond to an emergency at the meditation center, I’ll be back in a bit!

Wayfarer: (feel free to throw questions in here while I’m gone).

Wayfarer: Oh before I go so we’re at a reasonable point: Stage 5 the information from Stage 4 is reorganized into a complete report that is the final “site” analysis.

Wayfarer: Notably these things are often done over many hours or multiple days. They’re not necessarily done in one sitting and in fact that can be detrimental, but it is how we tend to do things on The Internet for some reason.

Flux: Hope all is well at the center.
The Internet’s immediacy encourages impatience. That’s my excuse.

Wayfarer: Okay all good, I’m back. Yeah just had a volunteer do a dumb thing is all, all taken care of. I’m heating up some food and then we’re back at it. Anyhow yes I think that’s a big part of it.

Wayfarer: Okay so

Wayfarer: What we see then is a step by step progression from a big gestalt to unpacking all of the smaller parts, then back to other gestalts and unpacking information about them. The stage 3 “widening of the aperture” is when we are able to go from whatever major gestalt we’ve been looking at to see “more” of the site and to get more details of the site.

Wayfarer: Now, throughout the process we also tend to get “analytical overlay.” These are fully formed images or concepts. “A house” “A rocketship” or whatever.

Wayfarer: When these form, we note them and take a break. Noting them is very important, because very often the AOL contains elements of the site. We don’t want to reject that information, we just want to acknowledge that it’s probably not in the right format.

Wayfarer: In the example session that this was based on, the viewer reported a big ol’ line that was very dominant. And that’s super right because the most dominant element of the image was a big ol’ line. One thing that was a problem was a lot of fixation on the orientation of that line, whether it was diagonal or straight or what. The fact is that that kind of information isn’t likely to come through immediately. The line itself is a bunch of information, and information about its orientation relative to the ground level is something I’d expect to see in stage 4, if at all.

Wayfarer: So, how could we get more information out of that session?

Wayfarer: Let’s step away from the structure I’m describing, because we already have an aptitude for viewing. It’s possible that we would gain something from doing an IAB and then doing a stage 2 and stage 3 etc. But it’s not guaranteed, and anyhow a structure is meaningless if it’s not used consistently.

Wayfarer: So, with that session, we have a line that keeps coming back very dominantly. Fantastic. Mark “a line” and sketch it however the first impression says and move on to other things.

Wayfarer: When we dwell on a piece of information we tend to start trying to analyze it with information that comes through “sub-threshold.” Much of the “correct information” from AOL is subthreshold information that’s coming down the signal line but not actually breaking through the noise.

Wayfarer: When we note a thing like “the line” because it keeps coming back up again and again that’s telling the signal line “hey, I want to know more about this but I need to get some other details first.” Mark it, label it as an aspect (a part of a gestalt; I tend to use alphabetical markers, so “A”), and move on with it.

Wayfarer: If something will simply not go away, you have to take a break. That’s fine. Breaks of 5 minutes or so are fantastic, because they let the unconscious do its thing and, importantly, it communicates to the signal line that you need different information. Now, what I mean by “communicate to the signal line” is basically “it tells your mind to cool it on that thing” but we don’t really know how it works so we should just go with what it’s like phenomenologically.

Wayfarer: I think that might address the question, so I’ll leave it open for questions and we’ll reopen this later to address @Indecisive ‘s questions when he wakes up an returns etc.

Flux: Because I’m impatient, have you found a quicker more direct way of grabbing the relevant info out of AOL?

Wayfarer: Not really. You can do it in post-analysis for training, but it’s not something that can be done easily in session. The problem is that it assumes the AOL information is valid and it dwells on the AOL which is already assumed to be not right but to contain some correct elements. You want to distance from the AOL information as much as possible and let the recurring elements guide things. You can get a lot of AOL for the same place and none of it can be right but the commonalities help. But you can’t analyze for that in session or you’re just doing analytical overlay drive and you’re not remote viewing at that point.

Comments are closed.