NEWS: Analysis & Commentary CY SHINKAWA Larger Universe by Dick Allgire Cy Shinkawa lives and views in Hawaii. He is one of Prudence Calabrese's top viewers, and a member of her operational TDS team. Cy originally trained under SRV methodology at Farsight Institute in the early days (1996-97) of civilian remote viewing. He spent some time with HRVG, and then joined TDS to work with Pru. Cy is a quiet, humble guy. You don't see much of him in the newsgroups and bulletin boards, but he is one of the better remote viewers in the civilian world. He shared some of his thoughts about remote viewing with us recently. What made you decide to put three thousand dollars on your credit card for that first RV class back in 1997? On hearing about the concept of remote viewing for the first time, I remember thinking to myself, “Heck, this is better than flying in the air like Superman!” When I understood that it was a teachable skill, I thought it was incredible, absolutely incredible. I do not understand why there are so many that just don’t seem floored by the possibility of it. Don’t they understand the significance of this thing? What if only two percent of the population could remote view? Do they realize how this would change societal structure? Do they realize how it could change governments? Do they realize how this would break down groups that control information? Having been around the RV community a long time we both know that so many people try it for a while and then drift away. What has made you stick with it this long? I understand that people have families and jobs that are demanding of their time. I can’t fault anyone for making their family their highest priority. Remote viewing is a skill that you need to work at. It takes a lot of time. As for me, I just decided that I was going to do this, and I was going to be good at it. It was a matter of being hardnosed, or maybe hardheaded about it. With remote viewing, like a lot of learned skills, you really do need to take a long-term approach. With every incremental improvement at RV, it seems there is an incremental improvement in how you see life, living, being human and your place in the world; a maturity, I suppose. You need to incorporate RV into your life, make it part of what you do, who you are. You've trained in a number of methods, from SRV to HRVG to TDS. Why have you stuck with TDS? What is it about that method that has kept you viewing? You’d think that Pru’s scintillating personality has something to do with this, but it’s not that. The saying I have that applies is, “Follow the Remote Viewing.” Who is pushing the envelope? Who is out there on the edge? Who is trying to evolve the process? Who is unconvinced that the state of remote viewing as we now know it is as good as it gets? The remote viewing technique that we use is slowly but steadily evolving, and that’s the way it should be. The way we did things in 1999 is different than the way we did things in 2001, and it will be different than how we will do things in 2003. How often do you remote view? Nowadays, I try to do five sessions a week; it’s often more. There seems to be a physiological change that happens beyond three a week. Many trainers talk about "cycles of contact." Do ever have periods where it seems that you just can't remote view well at all? What about times when you are really "on?" It’s hard for me to say for sure, because there are times when we work on a project where an entire block of sessions will not be disclosed to me, sometimes for months at a time. Many sessions are never disclosed to me. I don’t seem to notice a cycle, but I don’t look for one. I have sessions that are stronger than other sessions, but just about all the sessions seem to give good evidence that I’m “there.” How do you handle times when you do a bad session and don't really get great data? The sessions I put out are all at least okay, as far as I’m concerned. It did take effort to get to that point. Most of the time there is a big lag time between when the session is completed and disclosure, so if I have a reaction, it’s on something that was done many, many sessions ago. How do you handle times when you do so well you feel almost omniscient? (Maybe you don't get that way -- but it is a very heady experience to nail a target.) Dick, I think you’re projecting your experiences onto me! There are times when I am very pleased by my contribution to a project. It’s very gratifying, especially when you hear that certain aspects of what was described blew a client away. When I was doing one or two sessions a week and was able to get quick disclosure on the sessions, it was more of an emotional roller coaster. But at five plus per week and never knowing when or if I’ll get disclosed, I just do them with confidence, and that seems to work pretty well for me. Give us some highlights of your most memorable sessions. The first time I actually named an objective was pretty memorable. It was the death of Lady Diana. A fast moving metal structure, three or four subjects inside, one is a female. The subjects feel “special” or “clean” somehow (royalty). Structure starts to move slightly diagonally, like not moving in the same direction it is pointed. Subjects begin to realize something is wrong, but don’t realize this is a life and death situation. Moving metal structure strikes a thick post, a pylon. Structure is severely damaged. I declare that this is the death of Lady Di. I remember reading in the paper that the accident was in a tunnel. So, still in my session, I look around to see if this is a tunnel. The damaged metal structure is certainly within some kind of semi-enclosed area. But from where I am, next to the damaged structure, I can see that it is open to the outside on opposite sides by fairly short distances. This doesn’t seem like this is a tunnel to me; it’s too short. I later saw from a picture of the crash scene that what the news reports were calling a tunnel was an underpass. The roadway the vehicle was traveling on dropped under another crossing roadway. This is what I was seeing. How has remote viewing changed you? Do you find yourself naturally more intuitive in daily life? It’s given me a different view of reality, certainly. It seems to me that what we know to be the real world, reality, is only a sliver of what is out there. There are things out there that none of us here could make heads or tails out of, because we don’t have any perspective for understanding what it is. You know, you mention being omniscient. I think for me, it’s humbling. As for being more intuitive in daily life, I don’t know about that. Given a fork in a road, I’ll still invariably take the wrong way better than half of the time! You have a young child. Did fatherhood get in the way of remote viewing? Wow, fatherhood. That has certainly changed the way I see the world and realizing what being human is, possibly more than remote viewing has. Both things tend to compete for your time, for sure. I guess I’d like to think that being a remote viewer makes me a better father, and being a father gives me a better perspective on understanding the viewing. As a remote viewer, it’s clear to me that being a father was supposed to happen. Are you going to teach your kid to remote view? I’m working on having him write his name at the moment. We’re focusing on one step at a time! One thing I could do to give my child a good foundation for remote viewing would be to give him a good grasp of the English language. You need to be able to think clearly, organize your thoughts, express yourself well, and understand subtleties in the language. Wouldn’t it be interesting if kids knew how to remote view? Imagine the history lessons. Imagine teaching empathy by remote viewing; walking in someone else’s shoes. You see what I mean by societal change? In your work with Pru you do a lot more than most people realize. Can you tell us a little bit about some of the projects you've done? I administrate Bananaslam, which is The Larger U’s post-graduate program. It’s for those who have taken Pru’s three-day or one-week classes and want to continue. It’s basically practice, practice, practice on verifiable sessions with feedback and discussion. Most of the projects I can talk about are on the website. Kreskin’s UFO prediction is the latest one we did, and I did sessions on it. That was a near future event at the time that we did it. Pru got the sessions together in about two days and she put up our report a few hours before the event was supposed to take place. I think that went well. The Mars Odyssey Near-Future Project is one that I initiated, so you won’t see sessions from me in the report. But there were some sessions from Pru; she had no idea what I was working on. We had about thirty VIEWER BLIND sessions spread across three taskings on this project. There were "no" sessions that were set aside due to lack of objective contact, or for "any" reason. All sessions submitted were “on” and had relevant data. I think this is very significant. It’s a reflection of the overall quality of our sessions. I was expecting sessions to show that the Odyssey would be discovering water in the form of ice on Mars as the most significant thing this Mars probe would do. The sessions did not say that. The sessions are saying that we will discover life on Mars from probes sent subsequent to Odyssey. It is known that the Odyssey will be used as part of the communications infrastructure for subsequent probes on the Mars surface to the Earth. After the September 11 terrorist event, it seemed that NASA’s budget would be cut and that there would not be much interest in sending many more probes to Mars. This would make what was contained in our report much less likely to happen. This was discouraging. However, the current data from Odyssey says that there is water, water, and more water on Mars. This a huge deal, and because of this, it looks as though there will be "more" probes, not less, headed to Mars. That and the fact there is much more water than expected now improves the chances that life will be found, and our report being correct. Wait and see, I guess. We did a little project on the biggest governmental scandal during the current Bush administration. I wrote up the analysis on that one. I can’t tell you what it is, but it’s not Enron, it’s not what Bush knew in advance of the September 11 terrorist attacks, or anything like that. This thing was a surprise to us. (Dick, here’s my comments on that Hoover Dam sketch, if you think you can use it.) Cy’s comments on the Hoover Dam sketch: Pru mentioned that she had submitted some sketches of ours to an art exhibition at Chapman University. She said that a session of hers and mine got accepted. I thought that was pretty cool, but I didn’t think too much more about it. The exhibition is described in this article: HRVG Newsletter Volume 9, Art Show On reading the article, I saw that my sketch was pictured: HRVG Newsletter Volume 9, Art Sketch After staring at the image for a second, I recognized it. Yeah, it’s my drawing. What was this supposed to be? Hoover Dam? Really? I had never been disclosed on this one. I remember that this was supposed to have been a special tasking for some reason. We had a “guest tasker” for this one. Gosh, I hope he/she was impressed. Cy’s comments on “The viewer’s own birth event.” This thing is so damn funny I almost can’t stand it. But why is it funny? This sketch is drawn with no attempt to be realistic, and yet it has all the elements to properly and correctly convey the meaning. It’s a metaphorical session!    PRINT THIS ARTICLE Privacy Statement Copyright © 2002, H.R.V.G. All rights reserved.

JULY-AUGUST ARTICLES ·Simon Owen Report    Page 2    Page 3    Page 4    Data Extraction ·2002 IRVA Conference ·Conference Photos    Page 1    Page 2    Page 3    Page 4    Photo Register ·Near Future Event    Session Data ·Cy Shinkawa ·Remote Viewing ·PJ Gaenir    Page 2 ·Discussions on RV