IN 2017 I participated in an IRVA conference discussion with Pam Coronado and John Cook or the possible role of Telepathy within remote viewing.
I collected examples of RV sessions that seem to indicate that the connection and communication between Remote Viewing taskers and viewers may be more complex and intimate than previously thought. These examples generally include targets that do not physically exist, and some ONLY exist in the mind of the tasker. Yet, talented Remote Viewers can accurately describe these targets in great detail, with no discernible difference in the feel or the quality of the data in comparison to normal or actual physical targets.
This started with a 2008 HRVG experiment called Tanner Dam. In this experiment, ten remote viewers worked a remote viewing target and all described a location with people and structures in a natural environment. The problem was that the target was a mental construct of Dick Allgire (formerly of HRVG). It didn’t physically exist anywhere except his mind and imagination. Yet all viewers accurately described it and they didn’t know it was not real.
The IRVA discussion in 2017, continued this thread, we discussed other example I had collected of similar projects and experiences and also one of my own that I recently ran with a group of Facebook volunteers. I too created a fictional UFO event that only existed in my mind, ten remote viewers participated and they all to one degree or another described this fictional event. (see Issue 17 eight martinis for the full article).
The remote viewing of TWA 800
In the many years I have both followed and practiced remote viewing. During this time I have seen time and time again examples whereby the reported remote viewing data seems to be flawed. The remote viewing data for example on projects set and worked by different project managers but on the same projects, garner different remote viewing data. How can this be?
For example (and this goes back some years) TWA800. Over the years we have seen different remote viewing luminaries task this as a project to remote viewers, yet the data reported back is completely different depending on who’s running the project.
Why and how? IF remote viewing was actually getting data from the ACTUAL target event?
On a set event like TWA800 we know a plane destruction event happened. Yet the RV data on this from three differ project managers, differs immensely in the reported conclusions. As remote viewing hence amateur scientists we have to ask – How can this be?
It seems to me that remote viewing data isn’t garnered from actual target/event/location – but that it’s in some way tailored to whomever creates the targets and who wants the information, maybe even their own theories and intentions? Let’s look at these previously published examples to explain.
Remote Viewing TWA800 – conclusions
David Morehouse remote viewing team concluded:
//TWA 800 was accidentally shot down by a high powered Microwave SDI weapon* developed by Phillips labs at Brookhaven NY.//
Ed Dames Remote viewing team (with RV work done by Paul H Smith for Dames) concluded:
Ed Dames: //Where we said that the air driven pump in system three, that is the right inboard engine, that pump shattered and the shrapnel punctured the fuel tank – that it was indeed a mechanical error.//
From a Art Bell radio show discussion with Paul H Smith on TWA 800;
ART – Has anybody remote viewed Flight 800?
PAUL – Well, this is Paul, I have. In fact, I did it, did that in support of a project that Ed Dames had, I’ve done some freelance remote viewing for Psi-Tech. And in fact, the drawings that — I forget what program Ed was on, but the ones he showed to the camera were sketches that I had made in the course of my sessions.
ART – Oh they were — that was of the uh, I think it was a fuel pump or something?
PAUL – Some kind of piece of machinery or equipment. Of course I had not a clue what it was, you know, I just drew it.
ART – So you then would agree with Major Dames’s assessment that that was a mechanical malfunction?
PAUL – Well, my particular set of Viewings didn’t really identify the ultimate cause. I specifically honed in on that piece of equipment, that that was, whatever happened to that, was a major contributor, or perhaps _the_ major contributor, to the incident with the aircraft.
Farsight and Courtney Browns Team concluded:
//…the viewer perceived that the motivation of the organization was “control, power, disruption.” The viewer clearly perceived that this was a terrorist organization…//
//At this point, at the suggestion of the monitor, the viewer cued specifically on the idea of mechanism, and stated that he perceived something box-like, some form of technology.//
What does this mean?
So, we have three groups of remote viewers. All worked apparently the same target – the destruction of TWA 800. Two of the groups Ed Dames with Paul H Smith as viewer, David Morehouse were Military trained and previously operational remote viewers. Yet, the data from all three groups is completely different:
- Courtney Browns group – Terrorist/Bomb,
- ED Dames group – Broken mechanical part,
- David Morehouses group – Microwave SDI weapon.
It can’t have been all three, so what is happening here?
All three of these group had, capable and somewhat experienced remote viewers, two of the groups utilised ex Military remote viewing resources (viewers/trainers/taksers) and very experienced remote viewers.
If remote viewing as we know it isn’t a broken or has something mysterious going on that has not been addressed and it doesn’t have some kind of massive ‘error function’ – then someone please explain this problem to me.
IF remote viewers can and do get accurate data from ‘actual’ events – how can they all these report something different?
How can some of remote viewing’s top practitioners & teachers ALL report contradicting remote viewing data on an actual real event? – What does this say about; remote viewing in general and their abilities? – Who is right here data wise and who is wrong – they can’t all be right, right?
It seems to me that somehow, some noise or intent and maybe even telepathy (see eight martinis issue 17 article by Daz Smith) or something not yet realised, is a massive missing and unrecognised component in remote viewing and its usefulness and accuracy?
If these seasoned viewers and project managers all get completely different data on the same target – just how reliable and useful is the remote viewing data that we provide? As a person of integrity I have to ask these questions.
The Initial HRVG Tanner Dam project, my UFO experiment, the examples I have collected (see article or IRVA discussion) and even published public domain RV projects n targets like TWA 800, clearly show me that something is not quite right or yet known in the remote viewing process and that this needs to be discussed, examined and explored, especially more so in a world whereby some of us are selling remote viewing data to clients and the general public as intuitive data collected from targets, when it MAY be more than just this and remote viewing data may not be as accurate as we like to believe.
What do you think? Can this be explained?
Article Sources:
Farsight – https://farsight.org/sessions/denise/twa800/index.html
http://www.nhne.com/specialreports/srremoteviewing.html
SRV SESSION OF TWA FLIGHT 800
(Source: FARSIGHT INSTITUTE Web site: http://www.farsight.org/)
This example of session with a professional remote viewer is included here in its entirety to demonstrate what is involved in a typical RV session.
In assigning this session under blind conditions, The FARSIGHT INSTITUTE’s staff was aware that the professional remote viewer was probably going to identify the target within 10 to 15 minutes of beginning the session. Thus, we chose to write the target identification cue so as to focus on the mechanism by which the plane was disabled rather than just the crash itself. We were interested in WHY it crashed, not THAT it crashed. Thus, the target cue was “TWA Flight 800/moment of crash/mechanism.” Since we were dealing with a professional remote viewer, we knew that the viewer would eventually perceive the crash. But by focusing on the cause of the crash, we hoped to postpone the viewing of the crash until after the crucial causal information was obtained, thereby reducing the possibility of the viewer’s conscious mind interfering with the data due to any strongly held feelings relating to the crash that the viewer may have had.
Immediately after beginning the session, the viewer perceived sounds of roaring, whistling, and clicking. He felt a variety of textures, including hard, smooth, rough, prickly, and spongy. The temperatures were both hot and cold. He perceived acidic and pungent smells, as well as sulfur tastes. The viewer then sketched an initial drawing that identified a person on the ground standing near some structures. This person was looking upward at something that was either going up into the sky or falling down.
The viewer then perceived something that felt both “fast” and “flung out.” Something was both rounded and pointy. The viewer himself felt the internal feelings, “Look out! Duck!” He perceived the emotions of concentration, seriousness, concern, but also a certain type of unexplained flatness to the emotional depth. He perceived machines and structures in an otherwise natural setting. He also perceived a group of subspace beings who were watching something. The viewer sensed the association of the concepts of remoteness and strategy, “like someone preparing for a long solo adventure.”
The viewer then perceived very intense emotions at the target site. The emotions felt “hot, like crying out for something.” The viewer declared that he perceived the concept of “vengeance.”
The viewer then focused on something metallic that was perceived at the site. He stated that it was enclosed, like ribs around a barrel. Moreover, it was somewhat old. [Editor’s note: This nearly certainly was the initial perception of the aircraft, a Boeing 747.]
The viewer then shifted his awareness to the central person related to the target. Initially, he perceived an older, white male who had a professional “flavor.” [Editor’s note: The perception of skin color changed as the viewer became more intimately identified with the central person as the session proceeded.] This person also seemed religious, a person who held self-perceived universal truths.
The viewer then did a deep mind probe of this central person. [Editor’s note: This procedure typically dramatically increases the viewer’s contact with the target.] The viewer perceived that this person was very goal oriented. He was a visionary type of being (self-perceived by the central person). The viewer felt that this person was “incredibly strong, focused, and holding lots of pain.” The viewer also perceived a sense that the person had a “military” feeling. The viewer perceived some garments on the person that seemed like a type of uniform. The self-perception of the person was that of a healer or a leader. The viewer sensed that the central person was in some sense foreign, perhaps European.
At this point in the session, the viewer executed a relocation exercise that placed him at the center of the target area. Immediately, he perceived an explosion. He felt hot temperatures, felt textures that were “hard, vaporous, stinging.” He had perceptions of “spewing fires,” smelled ozone, and tasted chemicals. The viewer then drew another sketch that seems to identify a central person below, and something spewing up or out or some structure or thing.
The viewer then described the central person as “hairy.” He was very busy, observing what was going on. He was frantic inside. Following another deep mind probe, the viewer then declared that this central person was “scary.” In the viewer’s own words, “It’s like somebody has upset this guy’s apple cart, and he is trying to put everything back in order. His occupation was perceived to be like that of a professor. He was up to no good, destruction was on his mind. He was like the Unabomber. [Editor’s note: The viewer was not stating that this was THE Unabomber, but that this central person simply “felt” like the Unabomber in a mental sense.]
At this point, at the suggestion of the monitor, the viewer cued specifically on the idea of mechanism, and stated that he perceived something box-like, some form of technology. Shifting his perception to the current location of the central person, he perceived that the person had moved to a location in the Midwest at some point after the target event. Continuing the deep mind probe, the viewer cued on the motivation of the central person, and perceived that this person was guided by what he considered to be a “higher good.”
The viewer then shifted his location to one hour before the target event, and located the central person. He immediately perceived that this person was a terrorist. At that time, the person was “moving away from the target area, but also watching somehow. Again shifting in time, at two hours before the target event the viewer perceived the central person “folding something together, calculating and calibrating an instrument.”
Going deeper into the deep mind probe, the viewer perceived that this central person was “cool, calm, calculating… a professional, almost absent emotion, but intense.”
The viewer then perceived that this person was connected to an organization. This person was pivotal to the outcome of the target event and to the organization, but he was not the head of it. But his activity was key to the organization’s success. Shifting his awareness to the organization, the viewer perceived that it was both an underground organization, and that it had some connection to the occult. Shifting his attention to the skin tone of the central person, the viewer perceived a “swarthy” complexion.
Shifting his attention back to the organization, the viewer perceived that the motivation of the organization was “control, power, disruption.” The viewer clearly perceived that this was a terrorist organization. He also perceived that the organization was “incredibly rich.”
Continuing the deep mind probe of the central person, the viewer stated that the person was “old, ruthless, and will do whatever it takes, regardless of cost.” The viewer compared the central person to “Dr. No.” The view stated that he was becoming very uncomfortable experiencing this central person’s mind.
At this point, the monitor decided to end the session after allowing the viewer to perceive the main incident by giving him a movement exercise to the “target event.” The viewer immediately perceived the plane crash. He felt the full force of the emotions of terror from the occupants of the crash. The monitor ended the session immediately thereafter.//
TKR discussion on TWA800 – https://www.dojopsi.info/forum/index.php?threads/remote-viewing-twa-800-morehouse-borjesson.6057/#post-48755
David Morehouse TWA800
//Morehouse claims the evidence he and Kristina Borjessons submitted to CBS bosses concluded
TWA 800 was accidentally shot down by a high powered Microwave SDI weapon* developed by
Phillips labs at Brookhaven NY. The weapon’s intended target that ill fated night was supposed to be an unarmed Tomahawk missile drone fired from USS Normandy.//
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErmMM5nKaz0
Ed Dames on TWA
– specific aircraft part (hydrolic pump) fractured)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnzPF4r-acw
http://www.stunned.org/spook/spook/www.psitech.net/news/EgyptAir990.htm
//Ed Dames: Where we said that the air driven pump in system three, that is the right inboard engine, that pump shattered and the shrapnel punctured the fuel tank – that it was indeed a mechanical error. //
http://www.firedocs.com/remoteviewing/transcript_ab970325lb.cfm
ART – Alright. Um, you all have moved from the military program to the civilian program, and I have not really asked you about specifics that you have, targets that you have done as civilians, so let me ask about a couple: Has anybody remote viewed Flight 800?
PAUL – Well, this is Paul, I have. In fact, I did it, did that in support of a project that Ed Dames had, I’ve done some freelance remote viewing for Psi-Tech. And in fact, the drawings that — I forget what program Ed was on, but the ones he showed to the camera were sketches that I had made in the course of my sessions.
ART – Oh they were — that was of the uh, I think it was a fuel pump or something?
PAUL – Some kind of piece of machinery or equipment. Of course I had not a clue what it was, you know, I just drew it.
ART – So you then would agree with Major Dames’s assessment that that was a mechanical malfunction?
PAUL – Well, my particular set of Viewings didn’t really identify the ultimate cause. I specifically honed in on that piece of equipment, that that was, whatever happened to that, was a major contributor, or perhaps _the_ major contributor, to the incident with the aircraft. What made that malfunction? I didn’t get that.
ART – Alright, does that mean then that that particular piece of gear could have malfunctioned and caused the “accident,” or that a missile without a warhead exploding could have passed through and hit this and then caused the “accident?”
PAUL – That is possible, at least based on my sessions. Now I don’t know what other Viewers Ed had work that particular project, and he may have had some other more confirmatory kind of stuff as far as the actual initiator of the event. But my particular Viewing didn’t really confirm or deny some third party involvement.
Eight Martinis article – Daz smith – Mind To Mind – What part does Telepathy play within Remote Viewing?- http://www.eightmartinis.com/eight-martinis-issue-17
