View Full Version : Monday Night's Class...

Glenn B. Wheaton
2010-Nov-30 Tue, 00:32
Aloha All,

Tonight in class we began a conversation that should be continued. The topic was how to present information in a public venue that will be not only difficult to understand but also difficult to believe as there may not be any precedents for the topic. Of concern is the upcoming IRVA conference and the possible presentation by Dick of “A Message Across Time”. The concepts involved in this project have evolved over the last 5 years and while Dick is a master of presentation he will be hard pressed to present the plausibility of it all in a single hour.

In order to give Dick the best support in this endeavor we may need to ask ourselves exactly what do we believe. How have we reconciled the 2 targets that have been worked so far and the results as we understand them? What do you think would be the difficult aspects of presenting what we have seen? What are the skeptical counters for exposure to the information?

Think here and post your thoughts.


Dick Allgire
2010-Nov-30 Tue, 19:14
Well Glenn,
It is Wednesday Dec 1 where I am. And I posting this message to you on Tuesday Nov 30. So this is a message from the future, thanks to the International Date Line.

Kidding aside, it took me 13 years to begin to understand what you did on the Brady target, and I saw it with my own eyes.

I could literally begin lecturing about this at the opening of the IRVA conference, and talk straight through for 2 1/2 days and not cover everything. People will barely comprehend and accept your preliminary "validation" work on the target. The A HEADS W will is a bit too complex, in my opinion. But I'll try.


Glenn B. Wheaton
2010-Dec-01 Wed, 00:54
Aloha Dick,

I have no doubts in your ability to package this part of our story, but I wonder if it is something that they can believe without you manifesting 3 rainbow colored polar bears on the stage and levitating a dozen moon pies while singing Dixie in reverse speech. My concept here is to explore what we believe first and then consider what others not in our group would believe and how to preposition to expose them in such a way as to obtain, not their belief, but their consideration. The theory and principle is sound and I for one believe it. Phil and a few others in class considered alternative explanations to explain what we saw happen. I think that is the first step in formulating how to format new information to a community that has made no advances in 15 years.


2010-Dec-03 Fri, 09:17
Hi Glenn,

Though I was there when you worked the Mathew Brady target (and along with Dick, choose the target), I still am perplexed, mystified and yes, skeptical about the fantastic results of the message to the past, "A HEADS W". I think of EVP recordings where intelligible words are recognized out of seemingly unintelligible noises--As someone not involved with the EVP research, I don't "hear" the same things as do the researchers. I wonder if this is the case with our project? Are we seeing what we want to see?

Also, the is the possibility of an elaborate entrainment on your part to have Dick & I choose Mathew Brady as your target, already knowing that there were anomalies on his photograph that might be construed as, "A HEADS W". I know this seems far-fetched, and I don't know why you would choose to do this but I must bring it up as a possibility, especially after the Paul Smith tie entrainment that Dick worked at the IRVA conference.

I think I need to see the photo again--All the little figures at various aspects of the picture are another mystery which open up even more questions.


2010-Dec-04 Sat, 15:00
Sometimes you have to let 'em believe or leave 'em behind. You can only present what you have..and go from there.

Not so good on the credibility front tho. So, as incredible as it is - perhaps now is not the time for a public presentation. Perhaps the presentation should be by invitation only. That way you have witnesses outside HRVG, constructive critisicm (hopefully) and a way to rework your presentation for it to a wider audience. Might help to pitch it to a smaller crowd first.

2010-Dec-04 Sat, 16:19

What if your concentrated focus of brain waves on etching, "A HEADS W" moves in a timeless dimension through the plasma or dark matter adjacent to the Mathew Brady photo. This repeated mental maneuver moves the atomic particles to create a pathway(kind of plows through) that causes the neighboring atoms to glom (mutual attraction) onto each other creating the letters. Just a thought.


Glenn B. Wheaton
2010-Dec-04 Sat, 17:15
Aloha Michele,

I think the difficulty would be to find someone with enough wits about them to attempt replication who would not be so much in disbelief as to prevent them from accomplishing it. I think that is why I would question what it is exactly that we believe. More than likely replication could only occur in the Guild until others began to think beyond Remote Viewing.


Dave Barnes
2010-Dec-04 Sat, 21:44
I apologize in advance for my long-winded two cents worth!

The question under consideration here is fundamental to the consensus understanding of reality. While a general scientific audience isn’t likely to be open to the question yet, an audience such as the RV community who have direct experience with some of the issues should be open to the idea and approach that HRVG is taking.

When working with a new paradigm, it isn’t necessary or appropriate to convince a hostile or closed-minded audience that what is being done is valid. The resources available to establish any new paradigm are inherently limited and precious, so it’s vital to be sure that people who have the capacity to consider and understand the evidence get solid enough information to study then refute or support the case.

In the RV community, people often say “What do we need to do to convince a scientist that what we are doing is valid?” In other words, “How do we convince a physicist or an astronomer or a plant physiologist or some other special-ologist that some subtle aspect of a subject that they have never studied is valid?” The answer is that you don’t bother to because they aren’t knowledgeable about the subject at hand. In this case, RV people are –the- scientists. The quality and acceptability of scientific experiments is proportional to their clarity of purpose and repeatability by others.

It is important to make a clear, simple statement of the intent of the experiment(s), such as:

1) To establish a random, unique, and unambiguous piece of information in the here-now.
2) To purposely deliver this piece of information to an identifiable place and point in time previous to the here-now.
3) To have that unique information manifest at the targeted place and point in time in such a way that it is recorded and maintained as an unambiguous part of the historic record.

Schematically, if the three items above are successful and repeatable by skilled practitioners in the field, the Man at 11:00 experiment and the rock shelter artwork experiment say something significant about the nature of time, causality, free will, and so on.

If successful and unambiguous, the Man at 11:00 experiment may also say something about direct application of energy across time. Because the “art” experiment and the “photo” experiment may have different modes of communication (information vs. energy transfer) they may require different understandings and skill sets for an audience to follow up or repeat.

In presenting the approach and data, there are useful precedents to reference that should add weight to what the experiments show:

A) Passing information through time, generally, should be pretty well-received:

- Remote Viewing the past and future is a tool of the trade, so information from the future to the here now is established.
- Remote Viewing targets that are picked later implies that you are acting as an agent-receiver for a future you, that is, your present –is- the next guy’s past and he’s doing this experiment.
- ARV, where targets are assigned, e.g. to stock price directions or lottery numbers after the event but viewed as the “future” is a variation of the “next guy’s past”… it’s just a matter of perspective.

B) Energy or effectors through time appear to have been demonstrated:

- What we interpret as “energy effects” backward through time (Retro-PK) has apparently been demonstrated as witnessed using the stored output of particle Random Number Generators.
- “Healing Intent” directed to patients in the past in a blind experiment resulted in statistically improved patient outcome – as measured previous to the time when the “healing intent” was provided.

C) Ability to affect the content of photographic images through PK has been demonstrated:

- While this isn’t common knowledge in the RV community, altering images through PK in real time, many with unambiguous anomalous qualities, has been demonstrated by a number of people who also practiced variations of RV for about 100 years.
- Some of these anomalous images may depict events at times other than when the images were produced.

All of this work is provocative, but given that the experiments are along the same lines, HRVG’s experiments are reasonable.

From my perspective, the “Man at 11:00” experiment is captivating, but the image data is ambiguous. In the non-compressed image, the shapes considered most consistent with the target characters are subject to interpretation. This doesn’t mean that Glenn didn’t accomplish the goal, but the treatment of photographic portraits, particularly by a famous portrait studio (e.g. the best ones are picked and these are cleansed of blemishes) might obscure or wipe out his additions.

Because I think that Glenn and HRVG may have pulled this off, I’ve spent quite a few hours looking at established psychically produced photographs. Some side effects common to the known “thoughtographs” aren’t visible in the “Man” photo, so the “Man” marks can’t take advantage of the “see, they’re just like these” kind of arguments.

If the group has produced “current time” anomalous photographs, these would add weight to the “through time” case and might provide a way to compare the image characteristics more directly.

My current thinking is that the experiment may have worked but it may be difficult to present as-is. I have been thinking about HRVG’s “supplementary experiments to come” with mixed verb tenses:

- HRVG will have been successful therefore, there is unambiguous evidence delivered to the past that is available to be found now. Some of the anomalous imagery associated with the past is actually attributable to future efforts of HRVG and an authenticating signature pattern will be available.

- HRVG will be augmenting this series of experiments using paired information techniques as Glenn described and with the intent of delivering them to be used now. When we wake up now at 3:30 AM and smell rosewood, wood smoke, aftershave, and so on, we may be receiving an associated message.

2010-Dec-05 Sun, 04:59
I think what you can believe is probably going to be critical. We discussed things that are within or beyond someone's ken. Ken being a word that; for me, encompasses an ability to even visualize or perhaps dream about.

I'm not an engineer. I don't understand things in the same way an engineer does. I have no ken for that. Which leads us to the next point.

In the same vein as if there are psychics then where are all the psychics? That answer is also somewhat anchored in the individuals belief systems. And Glenn's belief system is somewhat different even in the Remote Viewing Community. I thought I was the last person on earth that believed this process had something to do with electro-magnetic fields. And then, Glenn has presented the subject of propagation (sp) waves. No two people develop exactly the same 'ken'. While we may understand a class or a concept, ken comes from doing, from being, from experiencing what you understand in many different ways over a long period of time.

And...it took me some time to mull over what it was that I didn't understand. I have accepted to this point that if we could go back into the past, any changes that we make there would manifest in an alternate reality. So, I guess changes I've been making (in the dream state for example) must be limited to only alternate realities. But, I look out over an lake of water and imagine how difficult it would be to pinpoint on specific 'drop of water' in that lake and effect only that drop of water. It's not that I don't believe it, I just can't find any ken for it.

Glenn B. Wheaton
2010-Dec-05 Sun, 13:05
I am going to move a little slowly here because a lot of issues are important.

First let me give Debra some thoughts on mechanism. I do believe in the wave and while I deal with waves all the time this is a bit different. If you observe the wave then it can become a particle, if you observe the particle then it can become the wave, so I consider there to be no difference between the two. This observer’s effect can possess a latent that seems to be driven by the intent of the observer and if conditions are right can create an experimenters effect. So basically if I am observing for something that does not exist then it is possible to bring it into existence.

That is a very simplistic perspective when in fact other conditions play their part. Perhaps that largest consideration would be that of “Gain”. By that I mean that the Gain would directly affect the event size of the result of the Observer’s Effect and the Experimenter’s Effect. Some people define gain as something added but in this I want you to think of Gain as the strength or power generated by the combination of the Observer’s Effect and the Experimenter’s Effect. The Gain level will determine if the effect can breech the threshold between states. This goes back to the question I asked several academics on the panel at the IRVA and that was “Do thoughts have mass?” They unanimously replied to the negative but I believe they are wrong.

We know from the Roulette Entrainments that the Observer’s Effect and the Experimenter’s Effect can “Affect” mass. We know from Allgire’s Tie Entrainment that the Observer’s Effect and the Experimenter’s Effect can “Affect” complex concepts of mind dealing with “Choice” and “Selection”.

The particle can indeed become the wave and in-fact has always been the wave. Thoughts can indeed become mass and in-fact have always been mass. The trick is in how to think so that the mass achieves enough gain to breech the threshold to become a new “Observable” “Coherent” particle or wave.

In the Mathew Brady target I used the basic tool we all use and that was Blackboard. For several hours I practiced (Rehearsed) etching my message. Perhaps 30 or 40 attempts before I gained any consistent coherent results in getting the message to stay illuminated on Blackboard until I could complete it and hold it there. If I opened my eyes and closed them again and quickly looked at Blackboard I could see the after image of the previous attempt. That was when I knew that I had achieved a degree of gain.

The message to me is coherent in the Brady photograph but I would venture that the message itself is not photography in any sense but more of an effect of “Skotography” on the photograph. Dave hints at this in his comments and I will take on his comments next.


2010-Dec-06 Mon, 04:56
Unintentionally, I ran across something yesterday that gives me; I think, a glimpse of how this process could work.

I found a better visual respresentation of how eleven dimensions would look like. And, for a short description, the photo here and now, in this time could be represented as a point. But, it is connected in one long 'wave' back to its original point in time. That whole particle, wave, particle thing.

So, if you can locate the object in this time, you would follow all the connecting 'lines' back to that object in it's original time.

I'm getting better at being able to mentally construct this stuff..but far from being mentally agile with it.

Still just surfing 'stuff'. This is actually from a video by Graham Hancock on Lost Civilizations. But, when I saw the compass, it just jumped at me that there were eleven dimensions here.


I stopped numbering at 5 so I wouldn't clutter it up so bad. But North South axis is the first dimension...front and back. East West is the second dimension...back and forth. The solid circle is the third dimension...represents up/down and a sphere. The spaces in between the circle and the x/y axis adds up to eleven. While the website I surfed last night actually has a more mathmatically correct representation on eleven dimensions, this one is little easier on the brain for some reason.

If you folded the compass to make the east/west points touch...make a crease in a piece of paper for example. The inner dimensions would 'touch' each other allowing you to jump across space in time. Even without folding it point is any given inner dimension could travel around the circle to a different place in time, it would just take longer. The point could move clockwise and counter clockwise at will. Just easier for me to imagine is all.

Glenn B. Wheaton
2010-Dec-09 Thu, 02:50
Aloha Dave,

First thanks for the well thought out post. I apologize to answer so late but there is a lot to think about in formulating responses to complex issues.

The implications of the message to the past have left me very disoriented. It is a bit of a strain to spatially manage the possibilities. I am designing a model for replication using targets captured in photography that have several reflective surfaces and either were poorly developed or were “Over Fixed”. That being photographic plates left too long in their fixing solutions and the subsequent wash was not able to remove all of the salts which can be seen at high resolutions.

This target pool can be used to either fish the past or the future depending on the target model desired by the tasker. We will need to bring the viewers up to speed on method which will not require the degree of target work that I did in the Brady target.

The man at 11 O’clock is an enigma so I have decided to forward it to my daughter who works at a national imagery center to get a read on where the man at 11 O’clock is in relationship to the angle of reflection and distance based on the magnification of the reflected image. I have wondered if the image is of me and will see if Dick can replicate it from the same perspective and distance. This will give us a bit more information. Do you have the link to the full size BMP for the photo?

It’s late and a million things still left to say. More tomorrow. Michele I will get to you on Friday 


Dave Barnes
2010-Dec-09 Thu, 18:56
Reflections - I know I'm going to be looking at this image for a while! :)

Here is the link:

Mathew Brady Portrait (http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/brh2003000408/PP/)

The high resolution file is 79MB.

2010-Dec-11 Sat, 17:25
Michele I will get to you on Friday 


Did you send the response telepathically?:confused: I must have not been tuned in if you did.

Just kidding...I know your busy.;)

Glenn B. Wheaton
2010-Dec-16 Thu, 02:20

Actually I have been very busy with a project and that little pesky day job thing. It has been difficult to get to bed until 3am on some days.

On the subject of dimensions I believe that were perceive 5 dimensions and just do not have the intellect to comprehend consciousness as the 5th dimension. It is a bit ironic that we cannot as conscious beings understand the nature of, nor identify the origin of consciousness even using consciousness. It reminds us that we are not that far from the trees.

We do consider time to be a dimension but once again lack the intellect to consider it in anything but a linear modality. Concepts such as oblique time, up time, down time, and circular time can't be considered by science because they don't really consider it to be a dimension. Time as a real dimension means permeation of the Universe in all vectors from any point within the space of the volume the Universe. Time has a forward arrow of sorts in the way we sense it and our limited ability to measure it in only a single vector. Any irregularity of time from it's linear path is considered to be a distortion when in-fact it is a breech in the vector of time being observed.

The important thing to understand is that without consciousness there is no time. Without time there is no coherence to consciousness. The logic implies that consciousness and time may be one in the same.


2010-Dec-20 Mon, 06:10

I'm glad you brought up the subject of vectors. I have an embrodiery machine that actually works from vector graphics. The patterns are digitally created and you buy them 'off the shelf'. But, if you don't like the way the colors are arranged, you can edit the pattern with a vector graphic program.

I don't want to get too much farther into than that. This picture is a cut of what the editing program looks like. Just one day, trying to imagine what time would look like if it wasn't a straight line, an image of this program came to mind.

See all those little boxes? The image is too rough for me to point you to a box with a 'stop code'. But, one of those little boxes is programmed with a stop code that allows you to change the color of all the other boxes linked to it.

I think time may actually be more like this 'vector graphic' representation.