View Full Version : computer targets

2007-Dec-11 Tue, 10:11
Hi folks,

quick question.
Does it make any difference in the feasibility of a target that the target has/hasn't been picked and labeled by a human?

I was thinking about creating a quick computer program that would generate random image targets and assign random labels to them.
It would then present you with a target label - and when you are ready for feedback - you could click to see the target.

But I've seen a few posting around the net where people feel that having a human involved is vital.

Would these 100% automated targets be less useful, or more difficult?


Glenn B. Wheaton
2007-Dec-12 Wed, 00:22
Another interesting question. There are many opinions about this and I personally prefer targets that are prepared by someone trained to select and properly "Targeteer" them. At issue is the continuum of consciousness. Remote Viewing falls into the realm of consciousness easy enough and it may be a plus if there is "Conscious Based Link" between the target itself and the target identifier. While I see nothing inherently improper by using automation to facilitate Target selection it is a choice and more than meets protocol requirements either way. There are some that do not even select the target until after the viewer has completed their work.


2008-Feb-27 Wed, 21:01
It always has seemed to me that the tasker concept of the target in some way associates the address/coords to the site and makes for better "going to" the site rather than the unappetizing druther of slipping to viewing the feedback. Even in 2 and a half years of arving(and judging) for mutualfund, i refused to view feedback and, miss modesty here, i did as well or better than those who chose that option.

2008-Feb-27 Wed, 21:04
If one wanted to offer a target for tasking, as long as it is verified real world place, can it be tasked even if you (me) cant find a photograph?

Dick Allgire
2008-Feb-28 Thu, 18:21

I will answer your question with this analogy.

If you want to bake a cake, can you take the recipe card and use a pair of scissors to cut out each printed ingredient listed on the card and then mix those strips of paper to create a cake?

Absolutely not.

When properly cued, remote viewers do not remote view a photograph, and the feedback has very little to do with it. I have remote viewed quite a few targets for Glenn that are stored in his safe and no feedback has been provided. I don’t expect feedback. But I’m sure he appreciates the data. I have successfully remote viewed without feedback.

Does a photograph emit sounds, smells, tastes, and temperature? Of course a glossy picture does not emit these sensory data. A photograph of a volcano is not hot. The volcano itself is hot. So why do you write HOT! when you remote view a target that is evidenced by a photograph of a volcano? How would you sense heat? Because your awareness did not go to the photo in the envelope and did not sense the feedback. You displaced your awareness to the molten lava.

You do not need a photograph to cue a target. You can absolutely use the phrase “THE WHITE HOUSE/WASHINGTON DC/ CURRENT TIME” without a photograph, although having a photograph helps focus the targeteer's intent and awareness. You do not need a photo of the building on Pennsylvania Avenue to get the viewer’s awareness to the target.

The greatest learning experience I had as a tasker/targeteer was when I found a photo of the SWAT laser on Haleakala, Maui. (Look it up.) The photo I used to cue the target depicted a domed observatory on top of a mountain in Hawaii, emitting a beam of energy. That’s all I knew about the SWAT laser. I had no idea what was inside. HRVG viewer Jim K. produced a session that showed the mountain, the dome, the energy. Yes, some of his data resembled the photo. But his session contained much more than just what was pictured. He drew and described a complex series of staircases, and mechanical devices. As the tasker I thought his session had a lot of contamination. When I cued the target I didn’t know anything about the INSIDE of the place. Then Jim researched the SWAT laser and found all kinds of photos (not used in the tasking, and unknown to the tasker) that verified his data.

The viewer does not view the photo. You don’t need a photo. The viewer does not telepathically obtain the tasker's knowledge of the target. If the tasker provides a clear intent and connection between the target ID and the location/event/object/person and the viewer follows the method correctly, then the viewer will displace his or her awareness to the actual target and bring back whatever sensory data is at the target.

This is what we have determined from first hand experience and experiments conducted over the past 11 years at HRVG.



Dick Allgire
2008-Feb-28 Thu, 19:07
There are some that do not even select the target until after the viewer has completed their work.


I have had a few decent sessions in my RV career. I've worked a lot of targets. This is my personal view. If someone gives me a target selected by a computer, that is the last target I will work from that source.

If the target comes from a pool of targets, it is not worth my time to put pen to paper to even make a spontaneous ideogram. I won't work it.

If someone gives me a target that is tasked AFTER I turn in my work, I will never work another session for that tasker ever again. This has happened to me. I felt it was lazy, undisciplined, and extremely disrespectful. Okay, you argue there is no time, no space. But if you give me a target that you select after I did the work, I'll never work your target again. Glenn has never done this us. He has run a lot of interesting experiments on the HRVG 'lab rats' but not that one.

You give me a pool target, a computer generated target, a target cued after I give you the data, I will be one pissed off remote viewer and I will never work for you again.



Glenn B. Wheaton
2008-Mar-02 Sun, 01:13
Well don't beat around the bush lol. I understand what your saying and every viewer needs to have some idea about how they want to function within their own RV experience. While not a fan of tasking modalities outside of how we function in the Guild, I do think some of the tasking ideas should be discussed for their viability. I think some of the interest in computer generated targets may lie in the fact that so many viewers simply don't have anyone to help them by selecting and targeteering their targets. That probably means people work front-loaded, and that is not good.