Remote Viewing Visuals
One of you writes:
is there a difference between the visuals you receive in your remote viewing input and those you receive when dreaming, daydreaming, hallucinating, or imagining? Is there a different flavor or character to them that might differentiate these visuals enough to tell them one from the other? Is there a buried clue, hint, or nugget within these RV visuals that might give them away as being significantly more important than the more run of the mill visuals that come with other subconscious entertainment? Perhaps some way that I can learn to tell them from all the rest that might enlighten me as to what is important as input and what is not?
Right from the start, this implies that “remote viewing” is about seeing the target. Now please pay attention to what I’m about to say next — it isn’t about “seeing” the target — it’s about sensing the target! At best, the most anyone will ever do is distinguish a difference between a deep shadow and a light area in a targeted area from a visual viewpoint. But, because someone way back in the history of the project decided to call what this form of perception is — remote viewing — everyone jumps right in thinking it’s all about seeing the target, which it isn’t.
Obviously, everyone is looking for a way or method of differentiating the RV input from the rest of the mental conglomeration of visual input that floods the mind while you are attempting to capture input. Well . . . unfortunately it all appears to come bubbling up from the same place, which is the subconscious - the common place of origin for all of our visual cues to what is going on deep inside our psyche.
Sorry — there isn’t any way of telling . . . except of course once in awhile when you get an input which is so absolutely real as to be beyond belief. It is usually a surprise out of left field and something you least expect which doesn’t appear to fit anything you ever could have expected to happen. It will usually be more vivid than reality itself and comes in with all the details, as though you were witnessing it just as if it were happening in reality in some special place/time. It won’t be long and drawn out, like an act in a play. It’s usually a fragment of a second, or a second and a half at most, very short and sweet, and quite stunning in its clarity and perception. So stunning in fact, the details will overwhelm you with information you can’t possibly remember. We’ve come to call this the, “Ah-ha” form of input. Is it perfectly correct all the time? No! Can you tell when it is? No!
Now, I’ve been doing RV for over thirty years and I’ve done tens of thousands of remote viewings of somewhat demanding importance, under incredible stress. In all of those RVs, I’ve experienced perhaps twelve or fifteen Ah-has, so that’s how rare they are. If you have a great deal of expectation for them they usually won’t occur; they usually happen when you least expect them.
The hardest part is reporting them. I usually do not, because the detail is so great. Most believe I have something to do with the planning or execution of the action associated with the target or the knowledge it imparts. This is especially true if you can’t provide a substantial alibi for your whereabouts at the time of the occurrence. In the case of some police problems, this can be a serious difficulty.
I regret to say that most visual input during RV is mental junk, providing only similarities to what is actually going on at the target, and one must try and interpret what the meaning of the vision actually is. The vision of a boat sailing on a placid lake usually has nothing whatsoever to do with a boat, sailing, or a smooth lake at all, but everything to do with a calm relationship between two people who are currently getting along with regards to something very emotional between them. Interpretation of what your mind is telling you is everything in RV, and it is usually not the job of the remote viewer to do the interpreting, in any event. It is someone else’s job altogether.
The remote viewer is simply there to report what they perceive and let someone else figure out what it means. Report what you perceive. Report, report, report, and when you think you’ve reported everything you can, look again and report some more. Pick it apart until there is nothing left to report. It is the remote viewer’s job to pick their perceptions apart and report what they see about the target. It is not the remote viewer’s job to try and figure out what it means. That’s someone else’s job. If you view your job as an unbiased observer in the purest sense, you will be surprised at what you will perceive and what you will observe. Bring all of your senses to bear in order to do this, and use all your talent to sense whatever you can about the target. Report whatever you have sensed about it in its purest form — the pure essence is what is critical about the target - nothing more and nothing less. The better you get at reporting this, the better you will get at being a remote viewer. Let others figure out what it might or might not be.
Remote viewing is not about viewing or seeing — it’s about sensing in the purest sense of the word.
JM
September 4th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Sometimes it seems like you who worked in intell and science refer to a situation that maybe for you is a given, like that there is this team of people involved and some assembly line of client, ProjMgr, tasking, viewer, monitor, analyst(s), reporter, back to client. Great.
But in my world, there’s me, and there’s my cat. And he’s a good cat, but his analysis skills suck. Last time I described a cow, he translated it as a catfood can, the dog added his paranoia about the mailman and felt sure it involved aliens, and next thing you know here we are living in our bunker waiting for the cosmic pathogen-in-a-can to take out earth. (I wonder how long my DSL will last after everyone else is gone?)
Just because I don’t usually have a team to work with, doesn’t mean I don’t want to work toward understanding ‘what things mean’. NOT during the session; that’s reporting-only, I grok. But viewers often want to do their own tasks — mixed in envelopes or with their tasker or in online software like taskerbot.com. They may not have anyone else. — 99% of all the remote viewers in the world I live in, work alone. We don’t have anybody to “hand it to” who would figure it out.
Do your comments imply that we just view and get feedback and that’s it - the data nearly as mysterious outside us as inside us, but no evaluative step in between? And even if we did have someone to be an ‘analyst’, how to ‘learn’ RV-analysis, which last I heard, only your science lab had the proprietary info that had really made that effective? If the viewer isn’t working it out in session, and there’s nobody to work it out outside session, then what’s the point of your encouraging zillions of self-taught viewers, if they can’t use the data because targets of relationships have data like boats on water and nobody gets it?
Sorry to vent.
September 4th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
Well that helped me. I’ve been thinking something was wrong because I thought everyone else was seeing images. I guess they all weren’t after all.
The way you describe “Ah ha” moments is closer to the way I ever received information on my (few) good hits.
I would usually get lost in the idiograms, ( which I think I remember, are not a thing you do) and get impressions similar to the boat on a placid lake mentioned above. Works for me anyway.
Thanks.
greeneye
September 5th, 2006 at 12:17 am
That is a great post! I’ve watched people name it and name it–while if I even tried, it’s nowhere near. I can describe and it does seem like sensing rather than bright visuals but I didn’t think I was getting it. How would you analyze the session without a tasker? Using the TKR galleries and doing home tasks, with photos it’s kind of easy to see that it’s a total miss or if you hit some aspects of it. With other types of tasks, it’s very hard to analyze if you got the tasker’s intent and.or the directive. That’s one thing I liked about learning remote viewing, it seems more a lesson on how your mind works rather than trying to hit the target. Well, we all like to be right though about hitting the target :).
Any suggestions on when you’ve hit the end…as in you have “x” amount of talent, you’ve learned to use a fraction of it–that’s as good as it gets. I just wondered if you had thoughts on that or if you just have to keep practicing to get to the level you want to achieve.
Thanks for your time, hope you guys are doing better,
Talulah
September 5th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Joe, I really appreciate this post. It addresses a question I had recently posted here. I wanted to just take a second to make it clear that as far as my own question was concerned, I did not ever mean to imply that my “viewing” is limited to visuals only. I was simply asking about the visual aspect of it. I deliberately left out the emotional, the audio, the olfactory, etc. to help keep my post short and sweet.
Your description of “SENSING” the target makes a great deal of sense to me. It even “feels” right, if you know what I mean. …not just because this is what I have gotten from your books. These fragmentary episodes that last a second or two are something that I have experienced on several occasions, though not always while attempting to “view” any particular target. I do get the feeling of actually being there as well as a feeling of excitement, but the instant I try to re-orient myself to get a different taste of the impression, it’s gone and I can never get it back, just a memory of the event, which has a totally different feel to it.
I want to write about 10 more pages, but I’ll stop here instead. Thank you, very very much.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:59 am
OK, not 10 pages, just one.
There was a period about 4 summers ago when I was working particularly hard at getting very acquainted with my mind through frequent meditation. Something peculiar began to occur- suddenly my entire world would take on a sort of GAF ViewMaster kind of depth to it. You surely remember these little toys with their stereo pictures. You’d look into the ViewMaster and get a cool 3-D picture of a giraffe or something.
For about ten minutes or so, everything looked this way. Then things would resolve back to “normal”. This could happen up to several times a day.
I am not asking for your explanation of what was going on, that would not be fair. I DO wonder if anything like this is a part of your experience at any point during your training or of any viewer you may have trained or heard of.
I do not have a clue as to what these episodes mean, but whenever they occur , they are accompanied by a sense that I should really pay attention, but to what specifically, I never had much of an idea.
(ALso, I know that training could come with some unpleasant and unexpected effects for some poeple as they got their reality construct modified. As I do not have the benefit of a trainer, any info you could disseminate on this would be helpful.)
MANY thanks.
September 5th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Useful post! I wonder if there is any way we can get some info on the session analysis part of the process. Seems to me it’s integral but rarely talked about in much detail.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
hi, joe
i am going to the monroe institute on fri , 9/15/06 to talk to them about their mc2 program. do you think that they might have any input? mike
September 6th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
For myself I have had what might be described as full sensory remote viewing. It was more than just seeing and feeling everything. I had become this person and seemed to have full control for a short amount of time. But what I didn’t have was their memory. I would have to literally look at their wallet to find out who they were and ask others around me or look for a calendar or mail. If I pulled back a little I could just observe what they were saying or thinking. I am assuming that events such as the recent death of Steve Irwin could actually be stopped and avoided and yet it is as if it was fated to happen intentually. (Because this project he was working on for his daughter & his love for her and animals he was even less cautious. )It’s as if it was a program that couldn’t be altered. Am I wrong in assuming that our government had originally wanted to control people by remote viewing? To change history and manipulate world events and their enemies? So many things that I had seen seemed to be more of alternate realities or disinformation. I understand that our imaginations can give us false realities especially if during sleep? (remote viewing during sleep)I am also under the impression that in the early 70’s children were being taught to be remote viewers also. One of which was very successful and was a female. I would also like to mention my visits with Paul Smith at my house during those years as if there was some sort of competition going on. I have not read your books or many of your blogs. The movie Suspect Zero had jogged many memories for me as if I had been sleeping all of these years. The word “Familiar” seems to apply to many situations here. Is the Beast that was and is not and yet is a “Shape Shifter?” Or is this a Watcher/Remote Viewer? The Symbol on the Iranian flag looks like a winged dragon. Is this the “Mahdi” ? What can I say? Cheers?
September 6th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Still, the $64,000 question is: If we can sometimes spontaneously experience true bilocation, can we deliberately bring those about? What is really happening and how is it different from regular remote viewing? Is it just a difference on a continuum? Or a different animal altogether? The proper wiring seems to be there…
I agree with everything Joe said. But I’m haunted by the morning I couldn’t find the one pair of socks that went with my outfit. I’d worn them an hour or two the night before, still clean enough for the next day and I turned my entire place upside down. Finally in total frustration (and a little humor), I raised my arms to heaven and yelled, “Where are my GD socks?”
Instantly I found myself standing in the living room looking at a paper bag sitting on a stack of papers and magazines. Vivid as can be, just like I was really standing there only maybe a little more black and white and grainy.
I popped back to my body, walked it into the living room, picked up the paperbag and there were my socks. Voila!
Why can’t I do that when I remote view? Tell me that! :-)
September 6th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
Hi Joe,
I’m very visual and usually see the target as it is, but get symbolic or metaphorical data as well.
I ofen get people telling me to break data down into it’s most basic form but I find that quite often doing that only makes things worse if what I’m seeing is a metaphor.
For example your boat scenario. If you broke that down and described the texture of the boat, the colours, the smells etc, all you would achieve is to have totally missed the point that the scene was a metaphor for a relationship.
It’s not always easy to know what’s the real thing and what’s metaphorical. So if the boat was the real target it certainly should be desribed in great detail yet if it’s a metaphor that info is ruined by breaking it down.
So how do you personally decide what’s the best way to describe what you’re seeing?
cheers
Liz
September 8th, 2006 at 12:04 am
Joe,
that is pretty much what I heard most people say about remote viewing. If it is a clear image with a lot of detail, you should disregard it as a product of your concious mind trying to interpret the target.
So my question, how do you sketch anything in detail at all? I mean, I’m one of those people who sketch/draw by first visualizing what I’m going to draw in my mind’s eye, and then attempt to reproduce it on paper. I know others just let the drawing come to existance almost on it’s own, without first visualizing it.
For those of us who use the former, how do you suggest we tackle sketching in RV if we are to consider any highly detailed mental image as not being accurate target data?
I know you produce exceptional drawings, how do you do this without trusting mental images?
Thanx
Greywolf
July 23rd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Today, for some reason, I feel awake and alert after a long while of being asleep. My past has been a mish mush of happenings that are somehow unimportant except in the fact that they have led me to today. These instances of awakeness happen at different times in my life.
My earlier life is remembered as me being “different” from almost everyone around me. It was like I was on the outside looking into a strange world that I didn’t understand. I now realize that was partially the case but mostly it was those around me who were on the outside. I was able to see and understand our world in a manner they were not. This is still true today, though over time I have been able to identify others with similar understandings as myself.
Today I was reading Joe McGoneagle’s blog (hmmm, I typed the name “Tom” instead of “Joe”, wonder what that means?) in which he describes the “ah ha!” of RVing. It was instantly recognizable as experiences I had in my late teens through twenties with precognitive dreams: more real than reality, kind of like extremely vivid molten plastic with intrinsic understanding attached. I have had other dreams which were definitely not precognitive but which did contain “information” important to my life. These were largely in the form of emotional symbolism and had to be deciphered for the emotional content. There is a place midway between awake and asleep where these decipherings or realizations seem to occur and it is with a similar “ah ha!”.
These dreams were easily distinguishable from others and I would awake from each of them a different person. It is hard to explain what the difference is, but as I think about it, it is like I had a view of something outside of reality that was more real than reality itself. I would have an understanding of sorts. I can describe it as not understanding a math concept that you’ve worked very hard on then suddenly “getting it” and this “getting it” allows you to have a whole new understanding.
I have had the opportunity to be aware of others which I can identify with similar perceptions. Tom Beardon is one. In reading his web site over the years I find that, though Tom is grossly more intelligent, in many ways we share a similar perspective of life. There is a connection that perhaps can be explained by our similar view of looking at the world through the practice of Aikido. Of course, we were probably drawn to Aikido rather than other martial arts because of who we innately are.
There are many others, less well known but still visible for who they are. They stand out just like jocks or geeks or gang bangers can stand out. They stand out by a certain knowing or awareness in their eyes. I’ll describe it as a peacefulness, though they are not necessarily at peace with themselves or the world around them.
I find myself awake and wanting to see more.