PDA

View Full Version : Past, Present, Future



Dick Allgire
2008-Aug-15 Fri, 18:59
Some remote viewers are quick to claim, “There is no time.” Or they flippantly say, “Time is just an illusion.”

Such statements are easy to make, difficult to explain, and tricky to prove with remote viewing data. Many say, “Remote viewing is outside of time and space.” I think it would be more accurate to state a remote viewer’s consciousness can move through time and space.

Ask most people, “What is time?” and see if they can speak intelligently for more than 30 seconds. I’m not claiming I can, but I want to make the point that we humans don’t really understand time, and it is absurd for any of us to make declarative statements about it. Having admonished myself I will continue. Science tells us that time is the 4th dimension. At HRVG we have theorized that consciousness is also a dimension. Time is linked to consciousness, because time cannot exist without the observation of consciousness.

Think about that for a moment. Time is consciousness observing. Space is a dimension. Consciousness is a dimension, and time exists when consciousness observes.

Please take another moment to wrap your mind around that. Space is a dimension. When consciousness observes in space, then the dimension of time must be present.

Now, as remote viewers hopefully we have all proved (at least to ourselves) that consciousness can traverse space and time. It doesn't mean space and time do not exist for remote viewers; it means our consciousness can traverse these dimensions. If space is a dimension, and time is a dimension, you have to move through them, displacing part your consciousness, to bring back target data. Every remote viewer who has sat down with a pen and paper and a target ID knows it is not easy. We all work hard to produce valid remote viewing sessions.

What is the present? What is the past? What is the future? Our human awareness exists in the very near past. It requires a split second for my spoken word- sound waves- to travel to your eardrum, for the signal to be processed by your cerebral cognizance, for you to understand what I said. By the time your mind gets a grip on it, it is already in the past. Try as hard as you might, you’re not in the present.

So the human awareness adheres itself to the very near past, the illusion of the perception of what we call that we call the “now” or the “present.”

About the past. Events leave an imprint, and with training it is possible for a portion of our awareness to overlay that imprint. If we remote view the events that occurred at The Alamo on March 6th, 1836 we displace our consciousness to a time and a space where the events of the Alamo were happening in the now. The event at the Alamo created a footprint that resonates still in its own time and space. To remote view that event we displace a portion our consciousness to that time and space. Our awareness experiences a duplicity of two time lines; where within our mind we not only process information from the past, we also process from our present state. And with something of an “overmind” we sort between the two data streams to recover the information from the past. So we can replay the events of the past.

As human beings our consciousness adheres to the now (actually the very near past) more easily than it can be postured or positioned to the future. The past is a footprint of culminated variables fixed in their time. The future is a forming wave that transpires as a result of all the constantly coalescing and changing variables.

So working a future target is in fact more complex. The best example of a remote viewing prediction of the future was the notarized and published session when Glenn Wheaton described a Russian satellite streaking into earth’s atmosphere off the coast of leeward Oahu (March 1998) several weeks before it happened. When Glenn remote viewed that future event it was bound to happen. The satellite had an orbit and trajectory, and gravity rules. At the time he remote viewed the target, the variables were lining up and coalescing into the wave that became the future event and were not likely to change. When he gathered data describing the satellite streaking through the atmosphere, and when he portrayed the shocked air cargo pilot who witnessed it, the satellite was already beginning to slow down, earth was pulling it, the thin upper atmosphere was already affecting it. All of this was going to culminate… in the future. Nothing was going to stop that satellite from creating the imprint that Glenn remote viewed before it happened. The air cargo flights were already scheduled. That pilot was in the rotation and scheduled to fly that future night.

Working a future target is not always that easy. When you try to work a remote viewing target located in the future, often there are many variables and anomalies that come into play and affect the future outcome. Something unexpected might likely occur. The variables are compounded when you introduce multiple targets in a pool. And when your target within a pool has not been selected yet, the variables increase again exponentially. Something unexpected might happen, and something else might get your attention. Remote viewing is far more complex than we comprehend.

Here’s my point. Our own research and evidence at HRVG shows that working future targets is not as easy as working past or “present time” (actually very near past) targets. And our experience also indicates that lumping targets into a pool increases the likelihood that a viewer will either morph targets or view a target in the pool different from the one eventually selected. It will be interesting to see if Courtney’s Climate Project will ultimately support or refute this.

Think about this, please comment, and then I will post some examples from the recent Climate Change project that support my argument.

Glenn B. Wheaton
2008-Aug-17 Sun, 01:05
Aloha Dick & All,

It is a bit amazing how much we have upped the dialog over the last decade on Remote Viewing. Conceptual statements of the past such as "Remote Viewing is outside of Space and Time" are now being challenged. Most do not, or cannot, think of Time as a dimension but instead cling to its continuum character. Space is less problematic. Its X, Y, and Z continuums into infinity evidence the dimension of Space but we realize far more of Space than Time. Space with its texture from the void to the densest imaginable mass is home to the majority of the building blocks of our science. Time is a true dimension and like Space has its continuums to infinity in every axis of space. But what are its textures? In the empty Universe, Time as a dimension would fill the vessel of the Universe. By placing a single photon or particle of mass into the Universe you begin a chain of physics that affect infinity itself. Even the smallest particle could not be stationary but have a forced potential to move. Our particle will move and will continue to move towards infinity. There is no place for it to escape to beyond our Universe. It can neither escape Space nor Time.

Dick I must agree with you that Remote Viewing is not, and cannot, be beyond Space and Time. It cannot be outside of Space and Time either. If you are in this Universe and are a Remote Viewer then the movement of any or all of your particulate matter will conform to the movement potentials within this Universe. But what of Consciousness? If Time presents a puzzle to science then consciousness presents a dilemma. We cannot conceive the concept of a dimension without it, but don't recognize it as a dimension itself. It also allows us to see and understand to a degree the flow of Time. Time seems to have a forward potential. We age and grow as Time passes, but what if we wanted to stop aging, could we not simply turn around and go back along our path? We would actually have to reverse our Universe to achieve such a solution.

Along the way in our life we begin to realize some extraordinary potentials courtesy of consciousness. Unlike our particle in the empty Universe cursed to travel along its potential towards infinity, we can turn around and look back along our path. We can look back in a variety of ways but have to employ different consciousness experiences to do so. You can physically turn about and observe the last mile you have walked, or close your eyes and remember ever step in the last mile if you have the memory capacity, or re-walk that mile in a dream from the depths of sleep. But is that all? Nope, not by a long shot, you can also Remote View it by displacing a portion of your consciousness.

Now is that statement real? I mean is it true? Can we displace or reposition a portion of our consciousness to observe something beyond the obstacle of Space and Time. Logically it would require movement within Space and Time of consciousness. Here is where it can become a bit complex. I have tried to use simple logic to agree with Dick that we have become travelers and not Universe jumpers. Consciousness seems to have potentials towards infinity just the same as Space and Time. It is a prime reason I believe it to be a dimension. It is very malleable by our mind and we all do not have the same grasp on its potential. It is in the nature of consciousness to move, or travel, but unlike our particle in empty space consciousness takes its vector for movement as a result of Mind. It vectors not because of what you think but how you think. In class we have discussed Eggman and the environment of consciousness relative to Space, Time, and Mass. While I don't want to replicate that here, I will say that nothing in consciousness is beyond the reach of a single thought, regardless of where it is in Space or Time. It is a feat of mind to think that thought, or in fact, in truth, think from the greater field of consciousness beyond yourself. We have touched on these concepts in class dealing with Global Thinking. We actually have to spin ourselves up to this type of thinking and the Remote Viewing process is the run up the ramp to vectoring consciousness to the past or the future.

Consciousness is very malleable but do we have the intellect to manage it? Remote Viewing teaches us to develop the intellect to manage the simple repositioning of our consciousness to observe that which the Universe would have to reverse to show us. Sometimes we are very good and sometimes we are less than stellar in this effort, but these last 10 years have developed quite the band of travelers here at Hrvg.

Sometimes people will decline the logic for the magic. The past and the future are very different environments despite residing in the same Universe. Simply as Dick stated, the past is an environment of culminated variables and potentials. The future is a bit more complex and warrants a bit more caution when evaluating results from Remote viewing efforts targeted towards the future. The variables are not set in stone as such but the potentials for every variable are. Not all variables can culminate because of the chaos that can occur as they all sift through the dimension of Time.

Certain ideas regarding Time Loops are valid but only if there is enough intellect to pull them off. I want to say that one should not depend on a Time Loop effect when the intellect required is not shared by all participants. There is an increased complexity with Time Loop employment from a future source. It may be better served for the most intellectual of the group to be the catalyst for employing a Time Loop. We must remember that we all think differently, we believe differently, and function at varying levels of intellect.

Perhaps the most neglected aspect of Remote Viewing is the sheer psychology of the individuals participating. It takes a lot to give up one's own personal conscious and subconscious agendas for another. It goes back to the early days at Hrvg when a normal question for me to ask the class was "Who wants to be here". Getting our minds right for the task of Remote Viewing requires a dispassionate discipline to accept a target and passion to explore the target. Why would we do it considering the amount of times we fail or come up short? It must be for those moments when you do escape the gravity of your own self and break out into the greater environment that is the Universe.

Glenn

Fortune
2008-Oct-05 Sun, 01:11
. And our experience also indicates that lumping targets into a pool increases the likelihood that a viewer will either morph targets or view a target in the pool different from the one eventually selected.
Think about this, please comment, and then I will post some examples from the recent Climate Change project that support my argument.[/QUOTE]

Thanks i am glad to hear you say that. i do find tarfgets in a target pool tend to be considered by the subconscious as a unit of sorts and the indicvidual targets may morpgh, displace one another, jump order if viewing a pool designed to be done in a sequence or "snowplow " push data from one or more into an upcoming one. it seems in my experience pools as such are confounders especially arv paired choices.


my experieence differs from Courtneys on the cause o displacement being primarily effected by judge analyist, first person comparing session to photo choices. For over two years i viewed arv and did much of the judging analysisd for 6 members of mutual fund investment group 6 days a week for awhile . I amalyised my own and others and did not find any consistant effects on sessions. I was pleased Courtney was brave enough to break the taboo and talk about sdisplacement. And great to have an academic slant on a book. Book academic experiements of some sorts tend toward the rearchers doing them in order to testt, validate their hypothesis rather than a process not so entangled with hypothesis and defending a position and theories to other academics - more fun in lieterature or psycological interpretations than to rthe workbngs of rv/

Taskers intent assumptions certainly when they interpret data as in the la quake prediction and i'm not sure if it will be absent in the climate study. I felt the interpretation of earthquake prediction was not amalyis ina useful way.
I also felt uncomfortable with the way viewers accuracies were rated and publisized befor any true blind analyis. i felt there might be confounding variables in tasking maybe as well as interpreting to produce results i read about the calibrating of viewers. i think it would have been faierer to show the process system of rarting and partical analysis, Are not the system and analyist in this case not as important to have a proven "hit" rate. While i'm all for the sessions and scores perhaps being publicvally available i am uncomfortable that the way it was done pre any real analysis, from an arbitrary rating it seemed on who hit or missed and without disclosure of the system of rating, rhat it was not true abnalysis and also how and by whom taskings were picked put forth to viewers. And i am uncomfortable some people may read just the part of the cklinmate study publish by farsight and think that is an accurate estimate of participating viewers skill - other rthat with that tasking and tasker calibrated in such a way,

i am not trashing the effort and think multiople method projects are perhaps necessary and a worthwhile challenge. For the reasons above i was uneasy about in farsight running the project and it being
"climate change" prediction is too much frontloading for me dealing with rv. i might be describing hekl,l feezing over evertime with volanoes i b like you know who plant pathogens kill shots and survival kits call now 29,99, thats how much i hate frontloading in rv sessions myself.

Roo bad you havent been ready to train some of us crosscultral meethod viewers for analyisis in open project situations, Because without enough people at least learning what uses the session data to its best use pproject may remain more social games or without practical applications.

Glenn B. Wheaton
2008-Oct-05 Sun, 12:48
Aloha Fortune :)

You said...
----------------------
Too bad you haven't been ready to train some of us cross-cultural method viewers for analysis in open project situations, Because without enough people at least learning what uses the session data to its best use project may remain more social games or without practical applications.
----------------------

Actually some time back we tried to run analysis training for some of you guys out in the north forty. We lined up a sponsor (the Author Kam Madj ) to fund the training but no one showed up lol. I remember it was a month or so after the start date that anyone showed up. Everyone seemed to be gone or too busy.

Analytic models are virtually unknown and unused in the remote viewing community. While folks like Ed dames, Paul Smith, and Lyn Buchanan surely have knowledge of analysis, it is not taught or passed on to students. This is not meant to say that certain or "picked" students don't get the training, just that most students are not empowered by analytic training. Too much remote viewing data is simply interpreted and corrupted by bias.

Glenn

Fortune
2008-Oct-19 Sun, 01:40
If the training should be doable, i declare now YES YES YES wake me up in the middle of the night yes i am ready. Previusly i had understood we were waiting for sita to finish her classes exams ect to start and had wrongly assumed my enthusiam was obvious frm the gitl
Just yell hup-two, consider me a spring butt i am ready willng and think i culd d a good job -with proper training.

Yeah it seems analysis is the key to making rv useful and theres perhaps from the beginning of rv in modern times, there was an intent to keep that key from being widely known or used and not taught most mil viewers even. Thus making future teaching of rv not something that would put a potent data truth or secret probing tool publically available. Maybe both for security reasons and to control who abd hw few could unlock and interpret sessinons. Not even the knowledge of how imprtant analysis might be might be stressed to leave viewes satified wih personal hit rates and not looking for how to use sessinos from a number f viewers t answer whats tasked.