PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Discussion Monday Night



Dick Allgire
2006-Jun-20 Tue, 21:02
It was an interesting discussion about consciousness at the Monday night class. I should have video taped that one. I hope to be able to sit down with Glenn with a recorder rolling to review that lecture for my book, and for the record of RV.

I apologize for eating up half of our time on geopolitics, which was a waste of time but cathartic. We did have a rollicking political free-for-all. Then Glenn settled things down and gave a very thought provoking lecture on the nature of consciousness and the RF propagation based nature of RV.

I tend to believe Glenn, for a number of reasons. He was in a program that developed remote viewing to a level far beyond what has been demonstrated elsewhere. Remember that Glenn and his crew were not fired, the program not made public, and was not officially abandoned. I also believe they gained insights into how this works that cannot be disclosed. At any rate Glenn has offered the best explanation I have heard yet. And, more important, what he teaches works; there is no arguing with the onslaught of data.

Glenn's theory of consciousness being a field, existing in greater fields of RF propagated consciousness, part of a universal consciousness that is non-local, to me FEELS right. As Glenn spoke last night I recalled the many sessions where I have displaced my awareness into the greater field, and what he said rang true and helped me understand how this all works.

This is not easy to grasp (yes it’s fun, but it really is not easy) but after 9 years I'm beginning to get a handle on it. What amazes me is not so much that remote viewing is real (having seen it demonstrated countless times first hand in the guild) but rather that a human conscious awareness can pinpoint, identify, and describe the target in the cacophony of noise, in all the overlapping fields, existing and reverberating simultaneously.

Targeteer
2006-Jun-21 Wed, 12:57
It was an interesting discussion... One I'm still trying to wrap my mind around.

If consciousness can be boiled down to EMF, then that would imply a field with shape, frequency, and pattern in 3 dimensional space.

What I don't quite understand is how you can have non-locality if we are talking about a 3 dimensional EMF field isolated to an individuals “hardware”. If two fields are in resonance, sharing information as is speculated happens in the RV process, then we’ve got to be dealing with a “field” that has no time or space aspect, and is not attached to any biological hardware.

Another interesting thought, when someone is knocked out that field surrounding the brain is diminished, and such is their cognitive ability...

... but where is there consciousness at this time?

... Where is the consciousness of someone who is in a coma?

… What about the common near-death experience?

… What about out-of-body experiences?

I know Glenn will have something to say about this... but my intuition tells me that the EMF signature that can be measured isn't really consciousness, but rather a physical byproduct of consciousness.

Another interesting thought... If we have this ever changing EMF field, it would seem then that we have something we an get a handle on in terms of measurements... maybe even developing an thought reader for lack of a better word.

Now if we could do that, then what is to prevent us from building a machine that remote views... (Picture perfect remote viewing, without the drama… how I would I like to get my hands on something like that).

Dick Allgire
2006-Jun-21 Wed, 16:40
Now if we could do that, then what is to prevent us from building a machine that remote views... (Picture perfect remote viewing, without the drama… how I would I like to get my hands on something like that).

On the first lecture Glenn ever gave to my class (1997) he said (paraphrasing) "We are not smart enough to do it at this time, we don't have the resources or the money. But it would absolutely be possible to build a remote viewing machine that could play a movie for you."

Aloha,

Dick

Rich
2006-Jun-24 Sat, 15:55
"If consciousness can be boiled down to EMF, then that would imply a field with shape, frequency, and pattern in 3 dimensional space.

What I don't quite understand is how you can have non-locality if we are talking about a 3 dimensional EMF field isolated to an individuals “hardware”."

Why does the concept have top be limited to 3-D space?

Rich

George
2006-Jun-24 Sat, 22:37
[QUOTE=Rich]"If consciousness can be boiled down to EMF, then ....QUOTE]

Seems to me that there would be no way to RV the past or future. Using EMF as an explanation of RV is waaaay to simplistic. Give some thought to the massive amount of data that billions of years of past of 1,000,000 trillions of stars in billions of galaxies comprises. We've in the habit of thinking way too small.

Glenn B. Wheaton
2006-Jun-25 Sun, 00:41
Aloha Dick,

One of the many things that training in Analysis has shown us is the need to reduce or reduct what we think we believe about the way of some things. In our discussion on consciousness we must remember that Science simply does not know. If we step back from attempting to script how we want people to believe in something and highlight the baseline truth in what we perceive and stay within the construct of low-level understanding we will recognize that which we know sans fabrication.

Let's take the word "Field" and reduce it and expand it to the limits of our understanding of truth. We can indeed say that "Fields" exist because we can detect, isolate, and examine them. We also know that Fields don't just sit there motionless in space they do in fact oscillate, fluctuate, modulate etc. They also have characteristics and behaviors.

It is also safe to say that any "Field" however weak and small is in an environment that has enough room for it to achieve enough robustness to exist and possibly be detected. Here is where we must in fact reconcile a truth. Our ability to identify "Fields" is limited by technology. Our current technological state can neither recognize consciousness in a bandwidth of the EM Spectrum nor can it even prove that consciousness is real. When Science will recognize that 1 Hertz or cycle is real but -1 Hertz is not then they just don't have the right equipment or the mentality and intellect to understand the nature of our Universe. So we recognize a recognition threshold of Science to deal with Fields. Science will deal with that which can be detected with the current state of technology.

Fields have structure and identity that will allow them to exist and be present within "Greater Fields". This is a very important consideration. This is also a second truth. We can, and have, detected a planet in orbit around a distant star by analyzing gravitational anomalies but have never seen the planet itself. The genius could theoretically detect that same planet by observing a tomato growing on a vine in Georgia. It is in how we recognize what is happening in our reality and whether we have enough intellect to grasp just how it all connects that will answer so many questions.

So much of what people believe including Science is utter Flapdoodle (thanks for that word Dick).

So the question to ask is can the greater field be detected by some characteristic or behavior in the lesser field and vice versa? Multiple fields of consciousness exist within the single consciousness state of the individual. While we cannot isolate this on a spectrum analyzer we do experience it in many ways. Lucid dreams and other states that demonstrate a duplicity of awareness as well as altered states are prime examples of the ability of consciousness to exist within a greater state or field of consciousness. It could be safe to say that consciousness can stack or cascade. By this I mean that "what you are" and your reality may not be limited to a single identity of consciousness.

Reduction leads me to say that consciousness can be expanded to add or contracted to delete or drop additional identities of consciousness.

In Remote Viewing we attempt to add and once the session is done we drop or delete, it's just that simple.

In 1830 when my Great-Great Grandfather was born 100 miles North of the Alamo in Texas (then Viseca Mexico) he lived a long life. When the Alamo fell he fled east to the San Jacinto River and then moved on to what would become Houston. He had 3 sons and a daughter. After the Civil War he returned to spend his days in what is now Temple Texas. Not a bad life by my scale. He had excitement, hardship, a couple of wars; two wives (one killed by Indians), and left a legacy that was not just a bit of land or the odd heirloom. He left a portal.

When I think that there is a portal to the past that is accessible by an expansion of consciousness in Remote Viewing I must reconcile another obvious truth to me.

Initially I deal with wait! James Perry Wheaton has been dead these long years! How could it be that it is possible for me, or anyone, to revisit the past so long ago and so very far away? A new truth emerges. Consciousness by its nature is not limited by space or time. To be blunt maintaining our reality in the beta world limits our consciousness expansion to our near fields and surroundings. This implies that we can displace a portion of our awareness beyond the barrier and return with artifacts of mind that could not have been obtained by any other means than reduction tells us is an interaction of consciousness outside of the current state of space/time.

For those that I have lost, let's regroup.

You must be thinking now or just briefly in the past whether or not consciousness exists after death and whether we merely remote view a consciousness that is still here but with its' body long buried and we don't defy space/time at all. Hmmm certainly worth a thought or two but reduction leads me to believe otherwise. We must go back to environments and fields for our answer. The Field that was James Perry robust in 1836 trundling along in a wagon full of cannonballs heading east contains no data yet of his future. We in fact would need to adjust our aperture and slip beyond "the then" to catch him in a new time. I am trying to keep this simple but what I want you to understand is that we do not grab entire lives in a moment's look .....We get moments.

We get moments in a continuum. We create and maintain a pathway to a consciousness in its time, in its place, and establish a rapport that allows us to slip from the now to the then. Regardless whether it is a person, or a place, or a thing, this leads us to the next truth. Like the gravitational anomalies leading us to the planet, we have an anomaly that leads us to realization that there is a greater consciousness beyond the single identity. It includes environment or how else could one remote view something in the past that was not in possession of its' own consciousness....like the rock....or the river.... or the rough hewn walls of a three room house near a river in Texas....in 1836.

Glenn

Dick Allgire
2006-Jun-25 Sun, 23:31
[QUOTE=Glenn B. Wheaton]Aloha Dick,

One of the many things that training in Analysis has shown us is the need to reduce or reduct what we think we believe about the way of some things. In our discussion on consciousness we must remember that Science simply does not know. If we step back from attempting to script how we want people to believe in something and highlight the baseline truth in what we perceive and stay within the construct of low-level understanding we will recognize that which we know sans fabrication.

Reduction is the key.

Remote viewing is a humbling experience. Friends and fellow viewers in the guild may find this a disingenuous comment from me, but let me explain. I certainly have some kind of ego when it comes to remote viewing. I can’t help it.

Jimmy Williams (read his stuff in library copies of the newsletter) was never that interested in the actual practice of remote viewing. He didn’t want to master it as much as he wanted to understand it. He writes eloquently about it. I’m the opposite. I’m not smart enough to figure out how this all works, The debate about EMF fields, the nature of consciousness, quantum entanglement makes me uncomfortable. It’s over my head. I just want to sit down with a target ID and muster up some decent data.

Why does it work? Who knows.

How do you do it better? Well, Glenn can help you there. FTFM. (Follow The Friggin’ Methodology.)

When I produce good data I’m on top of the world. But it can trick you. A perfect visual of a 5-story brownstone in Manhattan (WOW! Killer visual- gotta be right on!) turns out with feedback to be a non descript 5 story brick building in Downer’s Grove. A pig with a dress on is still a four-legged animal.

Analysis and reduction. Not quite as glamorous, but it’ll save your bacon.

Targeteer
2006-Jun-26 Mon, 00:52
Expansion of consciousness…. to gain data about the target…

… well let me think out loud for a moment…

What we know…

We can remote view any place and time in the past.

We can get data on future targets. Many describe it as futures with enough present momentum to already have a reality in a way.

We can remote view inanimate objects.

And I’m assuming we can remote view objects/places that have never been observed before but it would be impossible to prove this.

And it is my experience that we can also remote view possibilities… things that have no real existence yet or maybe never (such as solutions to problems, or optimal trajectories.)

So how are we getting the data?

Well, if 3 dimension RV field actually spawned by the subqaunta then as Glenn explains, that can explain non-locality.

But I think it must be something greater…(I know this flies in the face of reduction, but we need a module that explains what we can validate through RV)

Imagine if you will this omni information system… an information system that contains all that exists and all potential possibilities…

Our unique identities are really only different perspectives of this information system. We are all part of the same information system, connected in some way.

However, to keep us from going mad we have this filter. It decides what’s important for us to process in conscious awareness. We can only handle so many bits of data in conscious processing. We have this ego identity between us and this connection….

I remember sitting at a stop light. And I saw a movie clear as day of a car t-boning my car. The light turned green. I sat there for a moment… looked both ways… then went forward. And just as I saw, a car flew over the hill, blew the light, and t-boned me.

Well I would contend this information was always available to me and to anyone else. However because of the life and death nature of the situation my mind made it important enough for that information to get through to conscious awareness in such a visceral way.

So we have this gate that decides what gets through. Otherwise we would go mad. But the information is always there.

Now when we sit down to remote view something blind we are transcending the ego/mind that keeps so much of this information from us. We are specifically prompting our psyche to pay attention to a specific aspect of this information field.

The information is always there, but now we are telling our psyche to give us that specific information to conscious awareness in packets of data that we can process in conscious awareness.

Now when I probe for that data I get it… that causes a neurological effect. Which intern causes a change in the EMF signature surrounding the biological hardware.

So are we getting the data because of expanding consciousness through this EMF module? Or is it the other way around? The data is always there for the taking. And the EMF signature is only a byproduct of whatever aspect of this information system we are placing our attention on at the time…