IRVA 2010 – Bill Ray – RV Monitoring Basics and Blarney

Bill Ray has monitored a couple of thousand sessions and over the years has been monitored by most of the people in the Stargate group. His perspective is “what works” vs. the researcher’s “why it works”. He prescribes two main rules for monitors:

1) First Rule – “Do no Harm”. If you can’t help the viewer, don’t hurt him.

2) Second Rule – In any session, there is only one person on the signal line and one person with a brain. It shouldn’t be the same person. If the viewer thinks, the viewer will lose the signal line. If the monitor wants to go to target and help, the monitor is worthless as a monitor.

Bill described monitoring protocols available:

No Blind – Everybody knows the target – it’s the hardest way to work. If it must be used, the monitor can make sure that the viewer is describing and not analyzing.

Single Blind – The monitor knows about the target but the viewer doesn’t. Single blind is scientifically invalid because of the possibility of leakage but it is often used for training sessions.

Only two people are needed, so there is an economy of force and takes less time because the monitor can narrow the session to the subject area of interest. If you have a limited amount of time and a limited number of viewers, single blind monitoring can take less time and be done in fewer sessions. Knowing the target makes it hard for the monitor to not lead the viewer or let information slip so it is particularly hard for the monitor/operator.

Note: In follow-up, Russell Targ pointed out that the ongoing debate re: Single Blind training is that you are really training the viewer to view what is in the trainer’s mind vs. the actual target; it is no harder for a viewer to describe a target that only exists in the interviewer’s mind than a physical target.

Double Blind – Neither the monitor nor the viewer knows the nature of the target. This is scientifically valid. It’s resource intensive, requiring at least a third person who is aware of the target. The monitor’s role is to provide “well-formed” questions for the viewers and tries not to lead the viewer. The monitor’s blindness may be compromised when the same monitor handles several viewers because the viewers are providing information to the monitor. This is particularly bad when a really good viewer goes first.

Double-blind monitoring provides the best data but requires more people, sessions, and time.

Legally BlindBill’s term – The monitor is given limited information such as the general gestalt of the site, e.g. a land-water interface, the general temperature, or presence of structures, an urban area, etc. so that the monitor can tell the viewer “You’re on target” which gives the viewer the confidence to move on. If the viewer is way off, you can stop the session and start over again.

Bill’s Traits of a perfect monitor:

• The viewer should trust the monitor.

• The monitor should know the strengths and weaknesses of the viewer and the nuances of the viewer.

• The monitor should build the viewer’s confidence. (Ingo Swann recommended pampering viewers but he could be really hard on them while they were viewing.)

• The monitor should be knowledgeable about the protocol in use for the session and should know if the viewer is in or out of structure, starting to analyze, and so on.

• The monitor should always maintain a monotone voice – even if things seem “interesting” or if the viewer is excited.

• The monitor should be flexible – be able to adapt to the viewer. The session may not always match the prescribed protocol and it’s necessary to work with the information as it is coming in. This is particularly important when working with natural psychics.

Bill described techniques a monitor should use:

Use movements – use the ability to change perspectives in time and space. This helps prevent “doorknobbing” where a given focus becomes “the focus”; The viewer says “It’s round, it’s hard, it’s small” … move them back: “At ten feet south, something should be visible. Move to a time 100 years previous, something should be happening.”

Be aware of the viewer’s hidden knowledge – the viewer knows more than “he knows he knows”. Give the viewer chances to get things out during the session.

Immediate Summary – At the end of the session when the viewer is worn out and wants to rest, get the viewer to summarize things before he/she forgets it. Additional information will come in -- that the viewer “doesn’t know he knows”, e.g. “It had kind of an official government feeling.”

Fake it – “Fake it till you make it” – When the viewer is on target and neither of you know what to do next -- do something. Viewer confidence is important so it’s important not to lose the viewer.

… and Monitor Responsibilities:

Viewer comfort – have the viewer use the bathroom before beginning the session so you don’t have to take a break; Provide a comfortable chair, etc. (With respect to availability of a quiet, controlled environment, Bill said that they did some sessions where everyone sat around a table and worked together to learn from each other – the TV was on, kids were running around, and it didn’t seem to matter.)

Admin/Prep – have the session area ready with paper, pen, requisite session information, etc.; At the end, assure that the session pages are gathered, numbered and such.

Structure – make sure the viewer stays in the structure of the active protocol. If something goes wrong you can review the session and see where the viewer left the structure, e.g. for CRV, an undeclared AOL, a movement to the wrong place, etc.

Flexibility – The monitor has the working brain while the viewer is/has been “fighting Mike Tyson” so if something comes up, the monitor has to be flexible because the viewer can’t.

Be open to new ideas – Sometimes, particularly with natural psychics, the protocol structure may change. E.g. in CRV, the monitor might need to say “Tell me what you see” which is not allowed in CRV as it is with ERV – but the request may be appropriate for the session.

Watch nuances of the viewer’s body motion and posture – Bill gave an example where he observed Joe McMoneagle’s physical state while he was on target and was able to make his own body react the way that Joe’s body did to help himself learn ERV.