PDA

View Full Version : Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, The Litle People



Robert
2010-May-09 Sun, 06:04
I would like to change the discussion to something that has weighed on my mind for some time now and deserves some attention, in my opinion. See below

A NON VALIDATION TARGET: TOST-IWFO
Dick Allgire’s Guardian Angel / The Spiritual Being assisting Dick Allgire in his current lifetime
>Discussion:
Is this a valid remote viewing cue? Do you believe the viewers actually perceived an angelic being? If we cued up something like: The Tooth Fairy/ Present Time would viewers draw a pixie with wings dropping coins beneath a pillow? Is the expectation or targeteer’s belief in a mythical being or abstract concept enough to cause good remote viewers to generate data congruent to the cue? The bulletin board is open for your views, as well as peer review on the data and methodology. <

>If we cued up something like: The Tooth Fairy/ Present Time would viewers draw a pixie with wings dropping coins beneath a pillow?<

I don't know that Dicks Guardian Angel is all that mythical/fictional nor do a large number of people in the world. The Easter bunny, Santa Clause and The Tooth Fairy, are however given NO credibility except among children, bless their hearts.


My question is, "Why don't we find out and DO a non validation target like this. I have always wondered if remote viewer's would tell the difference between fact and fiction. The way the above reads, >Is the expectation or targeteer’s belief in a mythical being or abstract concept enough to cause good remote viewers to generate data congruent to the cue?< is again bring up the subject of "Telepathic Overlay."

The reply that I have gotten in the past is that it is the viewers responsibility to FOCUS; full focus will bring home the truth or non-truth of the session; the viewer will be able to distinguish the difference.

But not all viewers are equal. The viewers may be using the same tool (HRVG) but how well they use the tool will vary from person to person and thus will effect the total outcome and show up in their individual sessions, in my opinion. In this case I don't think that reducing the outcome to FOCUS is the final arbiter.

One can view this non validation target by going to documents and clicking on Sita's session.

ROBERT

daz smith
2010-May-11 Tue, 00:24
Its hard because what makes a target fact or fiction.

For example Santa clause.
We all know he is not a real person. But he is in the minds of many people, some children Do think he is real, he's made into an icon which is represented on all forms of media - does this then make him 'real' in some respects?

Or at least real enough for him to be a target given to ED Dames when in the military unit - which he successfully described (detailed in many RV books).

The problem we have is - if quantum physics theories are correct, then the mere act of thinking something creates it and at some level its as real as everything else in the universe. If correct then its just as valid a target as for example a physical 'chair'.

All the best...

Daz

Robert
2010-May-11 Tue, 04:38
Daz: (And Dick/Glenn)

> the mere act of thinking something creates it and at some level it’s as real<


You have hit on the solution I think: we need to be cueing the target of this kid with "at what level is this target fact or fiction/"


>The problem we have is - if quantum physics theories are correct, then the mere act of thinking something creates it and at some level its as real as everything else in the universe. If correct then it’s just as valid a target as for example a physical 'chair'<

I’m not suggesting it’s not a valid target; of course it is; it’s just not a validation target but a fun target.

This may be the key; when cueing the target the question of “at what level is this real” must somehow be communicated. It should not matter what people believe; is it real or is it not. Is it possible or is it not. Can it happen or can it not. Is it or isn’t it? It’s all part and parcel of the information IF IT IS CUED as such.

> Or at least real enough for him to be a target given to ED Dames when in the military unit - which he successfully described (detailed in many RV books).<

I may be mistaken but the session you are referring to above was pure fiction, and not even a session but a joke concocted by the Unit to teach Dames a lesson, one that went over his head apparently;  no disrespect to Dames, but regardless, I understand your thinking.

I think Dick would say that the problem is “focus.” If the viewer is focused he/she should be able to determine if it’s fact of fiction; this is all part of the information package the viewer is accessing; it should not matter WHAT the mass consciousness believes. So if the target is cued properly and this may involve “sub cueing,” the viewer (I should say EXPERIENCED viewers) should be able to accurately describe this aspect of the target.

It could be said that this experiment I am advocating has already been done. The question still remains unanswered; is Dicks “Guardian Angel/Inner Guide” fact or fiction? It’s obvious to me that the Cueing did not contain this access so the information was never communicated. All that was communicated was information ABOUT Dicks guardian Angel, not if the entity was real or fictional.

I believe this could be a good target even if it is not a non validation target.

I hope Dick and Glenn will remark about this.

Robert

Glenn B. Wheaton
2010-May-11 Tue, 21:14
I must agree with some of the comments here, as I think they are valid. What is seldom discussed is the actual intellect of the viewer. It is possible one viewer would get just the fringe data that may make it seem that the Tooth Fairy is a real entity, while another would collect the full story and report it as a myth or a fairy tale and include enough data to include...this is the data I collected but I also know that it is a story, or a fairy tale etc. The same would apply to remote viewing something that was a lie or a cover up. I think this type of viewer who could grasp the greater concept would be quite a viewer.

Glenn

Robert
2010-May-12 Wed, 10:34
I think I've heard it referred to in the past as “Cognitive Talent” versus "psychic ability," just because of all the history/baggage that is associated with the word "psychic."


It appears the outside interest in the website site has waned again. Why? Lots of people drop by to "view" but are not posting their opinions. To those people I would say, there is no obligation to drop in and ask questions, and there is no obligation to become a member. ;)


Robert:D

PS
We need some new smile icons.