"I of my own knowledge…"

Remember the old announcement, “we are experiencing technical difficulties”?

I don’t mean to keep you hanging but I am having trouble posting my Remote Viewing sketches, and then the four target photos. There’s no point in posting the text without the illustrations, so we’ll just have to wait till I get it right. Sorry about that.

My notes and sketches
I see that the scanned pages didn’t display. I will try to fix that and post them separately, as these notes won’t mean much if you can’t see the sketches. But I’ll leave this as it is and if I can get the pages uploaded correctly you will be able to compare.
I know you cannot read the written words on these pages. Don’t worry about it. Look at the sketches, and after each page I will type out what the words on the page were.
Armed only with these sketches and words, and this summary, the eight-Judge panel had to pick one photo of four printed in color on an 8 1/2 x 11 piece of paper. Do you think you could have done it? You will get your chance when I upload Folder J.
http://hologrambooks.com/hologrambooksblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/sketch1.doc

(more…)

Last year I participated in a six-day Remote Viewing program at The Monroe Institute. I wrote it up at the time for the blog I had just started. I will reprint the series of posts here, with this as the first installment.

An examination in four parts
The best way that I can think of to give you the flavor of the process of remote viewing is to examine in detail the remote viewing exercise I engaged in on Wednesday, March 21, 2007. (At other times in the day I served as monitor or as one of the panel of judges, as we all did.)

(more…)

This originally posted as four posts between March 26 and 29, 2007. Reposted here as one post for your convenience.

An examination in four parts

The best way that I can think of to give you the flavor of the process of remote viewing is to examine in detail the remote viewing exercise I engaged in on Wednesday, March 21, 2007. (At other times in the day I served as monitor or as one of the panel of judges, as we all did.)

The remote viewing session involved doing the viewing, with the assistance of a monitor, and then being judged by a panel of eight judges who had to decide which of four possible targets in front of them was the one I had attempted to remote view. I propose to examine it in four pieces:

This first entry talks about the process as I experienced it.

The next will consist of my notes, sketches, and summary produced during and after my viewing. (However, this entry will have to wait until I figure out how to upload scans of my notes! It could be years!)

A third entry will consist of the target pool — the four photos before the judges – to give you an opportunity to examine the photos in light of my sketches and commentary, and see if you could have picked out my target. (This, too, will depend upon my being able to figure out how to upload images.)

Finally — assuming I do figure out how to upload images — a fourth entry will display the target, and will discuss why the judges were able to identify it as the target. (more…)

I found this via Wikipedia, of all places, which referenced, in an article about Bruce Moen, this write-up of Bruce’s afterlife knowledge workshop that I had placed in the Hampton Roads blog.

July 21, 2005: Exploring the Afterlife – Successfully!

By Frank DeMarco, Editor-in-chief

Bruce Moen‘s “Exploring the Afterlife” workshop, the second in our series of Applied Learning Series workshops, was held in Charlottesville on July 18 and 19^th. I was one of those attending, and the workshop demonstrated what I’ve always thought, that Bruce would be a great teacher.

Starting with 10 people he didn’t know, and me (I’ve known Bruce for nearly 10 years, and edited three of his five books) he set out to teach us, in two days, how to explore the afterlife, contact people who are deceased, and bring back verifiable details to demonstrate that the contact was not just fantasy.

Big ambition! And he succeeded, as I’ll show. (more…)

One of the attractions of the Monroe Institute, beyond the content of whatever course you happen to be taking, is the other participants. No matter how busy the course keeps you — and Skip and Carol certainly kept us busy enough — there is always time to talk, if only at meals or during the breaks between formal sessions. And although you might think that people sharing such an unusual common interest would tend to be all of a type, you would be wrong. Not only do people come from “all walks of life” as they say, but — or perhaps I should say therefore — all varieties of political opinion are to be met. Naturally, these opinions are not front and center during the week. Still, they come out.

(more…)

In this Email, Nancy, one of the RV class at TMI, discusses the relative value of sketches and words in remote viewing. I agree with her, actually, and did not mean to imply that words had no value, only that sketching was far less likely than words to convey inaccurate “story.” - Frank

I just read your last blog on the importance of sketches, and not words, in doing remote viewing.

Skip certainly knows tons about this subject. However, he did read several of my “words” from my CRV protocol to the group, and it has been my experience that the more CRV I do, the better I get at words and sketches. Rambling can lead to lots of “castle building or stray cats,” but there is not much rambling in my sessions.

I find that the structure of CRV uses a lot of paper, but leads to more specific data, not just good sketches. So, I hate to hear the notion that following a good procedure to do Remote Viewing means throwing out the words and only looking at sketches. That’s throwing out the baby with the water. Sketches may be very important when trying to eliminate three other pictures, but sketches and “words” are helpful in trying to provide good information on a singular target that may need more accurate and detail information. Monitors often record words, and I imagine they have an impact on the outcome.

You don’t need a lot of in-depth information to throw out three other target pictures, but many targets require much more information than sketches. This has been my experience after “years” (three) of Remote Viewing studies. I prefer good sketches and good words.

- Nancy

Part four. The target, and why

This is the target.

CANTERBURY, New Hampshire

The Shaker dwelling-house bathroom at Canterbury bespeaks communal life. The sister who lives there placed the rocking chairs in front of sinks perhaps on a whim.

Does this look like the Alamo to you? If so, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. And yet, look at how many elements that I had described are in this picture.

(more…)

Part three. The target pool

Can you pick the photo that best matches my remote viewing? None of these pictures looks much like the Alamo to me! And yet, concentrating on what I had perceived — as revealed in my sketches, rather than in the story I attached to them — the judges were able to pretty easily conclude what it was I had perceived, however little I had been able to put it back together.

I was not privy to the deliberations or reasoning of the judges (ordinarily a viewer never gets to see the other three photos in the target pool) but I would make a small bet that they were able to eliminate one of the photos pretty quickly.

My next posting will show the picture that had been my target, and I think you will agree that this particular picture is the only one containing most of the elements I described.

(more…)