Remote Viewing - Don't!!

I'm new here.

I can't imagine under any other circumstance that I'd be visiting this forum. I don't have much interest in my own dreams, apart from one that was especially visceral. But for what it's worth, I don't find lucid dreaming to be hard and I don't have to try to do it--it just happens. This post isn't about dreaming, however. It's about remote viewing.

It seems there is some discussion about the topic already on this forum, but I wanted to share my experience with you as an observer. But first, I feel the need to caveat by saying that until a few months ago, if someone had tried to introduce the idea of remote viewing to me as a matter of science, or unexplainable fact, I'd have laughed in their face. That's precisely what I did to my friend James (pseudonym) when he asked me to explore it with him. It wasn't until I agreed to humor him that I had wound up with no choice but to believe. And trust me, friends, in the context of that event--I'm certain that I was not cleverly fooled. Remote viewing is very, very real.

That was on October 15th. Just a few days later, James was dead. Suicide.

He kept spouting on and on about someone he worked with - someone who was very much a part of the original Stargate program (Government Remote Viewing program). This person had mentored him some. He had a lot of respect for him and insisted to me that the concept yielded real, tangible results.

It wasn't until after he'd proven to me directly that it worked that I began to listen to him regarding cosmic beings. He said that he wasn't able to interact with them, but his mentor could--and that the mentor of his mentor had regular meetings with them before his own death. Now, these are respected men - not seeking fame or fortune. I was a little disurbed by the admission that these men were concerned about other lifeforms in our universe (if that's the correct vernacular). Specifically, James talked about the moon. He said there was internet ramblings of civilizations on the moon but that none of it was accurate. He said that they had seen beings beneath the surface of the moon - frozen there. Like time didn't exist among them. He confirmed that they weren't artifacts of previous life - that they were, in fact, alive... just in some type of unanimated flux. He described what he said was a pendulum hanging from the ceiling--frozen (not swinging) as well--and that the room full of beings were looking up to it. Keep in mind that these images were drawn from his remote viewing; they were described to him by his mentor. He was told he should not remote view the moon. That's all I know about that.

Break.

James was in the middle of a divorce. His wife left. He was "seeing" another woman and didn't want it to stop. James maintained that their relationship was amid romance, but that physical intimacy between him and his paramore had not occurred. He considered her a deeply connected friend. His parents blame his wife for his suicide. But I know that it was James -- and something MUCH darker that drove him to kill himself. There are a LOT of details that I could add here, but I'm not comfortable speaking about them except to give a quick synopsis and warning.


James said that science couldn't empirically explain how remote viewing works. He just said that it does. And that was reason enough to explore it. He hypothesized that it was the connected nature of energy--and also that our minds were much more powerful than we can conciously control. I think, Perhaps. But, given the entirety of the events before his death (and after), I've come to a different conclusion.

You see, the idea behind remote viewing is that you can use your own mind to "connect" to a distant place. It can be anywhere... the inside of your neighbor's living room. A distant planet. Even inside a living body. Beneath the ground. Initially, the government used to provide remote viewers with coordinates--which seems suspect. I mean, how can the mind describe the physical existence of a place its host has not yet been, and with only a superficial set of numbers to give as an address? It turns out, that's not even necessary. The military found out that you could assign any reference ID to a target and the remote viewer would go there.

I suppose that if you subscribe to the notion that since, to the best of our knowledge, all things are made up of molecules, that we really are just floating through some field of energy made up of the same star dust. But I have a different theory...

For me, I'm sure that it has much less to do with science and more to do with the paranormal--and that's saying it lightly. I don't believe the explanation is in the "how". I believe it is in the "who". Succinctly stated: I believe that remote viewing is real... and I believe that someone (or someTHING) is giving the information. Remote viewers ask to see, and something answers.

What I tell you is nothing short of the truth. This is my personal testimony. Does anyone else have experience with remote viewing???

Be careful what you do... there is REAL evil out there and it's waiting for you to open the door and invite it in.

I am sorry your friend is gone. I think the two are unrelated but have no knowledge of that. So, it sounds like you saw some proof of 'magical' things and are scared because before this it was all laughably untrue. I do not think you are right to assume an evil explanation for magical seeming things. Remote seeing is one of my abilities, but nothing the government would find useful. Nomad had a game on here and my drawings all related well to the object. I can usually describe features of a wrapped gift with about 4 out of 5 accuracy. In know way is this related to scary creepy things. It does come from that interconnectedness of all, but also even weirder because distance between objects does not really exist except as witnessed by the objects. Anyways, not to ramble off base, be happy you touched the edge of something. The shock made you jump back, naturally. para-normal does not mean evil even if your preacher says it does. If you learn/see more that is good, or simply keep the event as an eye opening thing and move on. No evil here.

Sivason, thanks for your reply. I believe that the abilities exist and that to use them isn't inherently "evil". Thus, I don't see any wrong-doing in the desire to explore. I'm only saying that I'm certain that if you do, you may open a door that you can't easily close--if ever at all. There's danger in it.

I come from a government intelligence background and my friend was still working for them (but not in any capacity relating to "remote viewing"). He worked directly with people who were very much a part of the legacy "stargate" program. These people are intimately familiar with the process and have had the benefit of funding to explore it.

I consider myself a logical person... And you could be right, that the two "events" are not related related. But like I said, there are many more details regarding the issue--I just can't share them here.

On another note, I had a very strange dream last night. I met a woman with dark hair, pretty, who was with another man who was trying to tell me something... We were in a restaurant. I read some other threads that suggest people can communicate with dreams... so just throwing that out there.

I think that 99% of what one reads or hears on the radio about government sponsored remote viewing is bullshit. Remote viewing is real, sort of, but most people who talk about it are at least partially delusional, or are con artists, or both. I'm not saying that government programs aren't real at all, I'm just saying that the reality of these things is far different from the fantasy of them, even for people who have been involved in such programs. And the reality isn't very far different from any of the other soft corruption and violence-by-proxy that millions of us have been involved in for a living.

Evil is real, but I don't think paranoia is necessarily called for either. Directly or indirectly, we all kill things, and we all have dark sides. All we can do is the best we can to think, feel, and do the right things. Having paranormal experiences doesn't change that.

Sometimes a tree puts out a lot of seeds right before it dies. Sometimes things that are normally worth avoiding spiritually become worth trying when times are desperate, so we subconsciously allow things to happen which we normally wouldn't. In other words, all people are psychic, but people don't express it because it is usually not helpful, and that expression is usually subconsciously controlled, like heartbeat. Now that you believe in paranormal phenomena, I don't think your reality is really much different than it was before, you just perceive it differently. There was always a lot of sick and weird stuff going on, it just wasn't as obvious. And a lot of the sickest stuff is still things that most people are aware of and take for granted, like factory farms, drug abuse, and other common forms of violence.

It's true that once you open the door you can't close it again, but if it is open too far it tends to close itself a little bit as you grow, like a tree growing around an injury. Most people get caught up in the drama of it to some degree or another, and that's what drives it for them. I guess that's unavoidable, but it can still be a sad spectacle.

Untimely deaths can often fuel psychic experiences, which is a large part of why Mayans and others were into religiously murdering people. I'm sorry about your friend's death.

Sivason, could you link to nomad's game. I entered his name in the search bar but he didn't come up.

I am sorry for your friend's passing. It seems like there was more than just remote viewing which could've lead to these events, but that's the tricky part of an outsider giving feedback to your personal situation. I feel like if there are dangers its psychological and can manifest itself in the body through stress or bodily reactions. So there's a point in which messing with the paranormal isn't a good idea, but I feel like remote viewing in itself isn't dangerous. How someone reacts to the information and deals with it can be a different story, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azaleaj

Sivason, could you link to nomad's game. I entered his name in the search bar but he didn't come up.

---

He has changed his name. Here is the first link, there were a few, http://www.dreamviews.com/beyond-dre...xperiment.html

The problem is iot was based on drawings we made of the viewings, and the images no longer seem to be intact.

Ack I dont feel comfortable going into details, maybe it is pointless anyways...but I see what you are trying to say about all of this and I agree. I also can corroborate what you are saying about the stargate program.

Those RV games with Nomad were fun. Shure miss it!

WeRnoone, Thanks. One last thing; which seems foil-headed, absolutely--at least one of these guys is preparing for a massive EMP attack. All I know is it was said that he was investing in a lot of material for survivability.

Hi folks,

ack100, you've actually gotten me to drop out of lurking mode to respond to this thread... well done. :) I have some experience in this area. I am deeply sorry for your friend's loss, and it certainly sounds like he was struggling with several hard-to-deal-with issues.

I've actually done remote viewing a fair bit, and I know quite a few of the people that have studied it and were 'professionally' involved in the area for the military and intelligence services, including some names you would recognize from the Stargate program that were held in high regard (i.e. - they were quite accomplished). I've had dinner with these people, I've discussed their research results, we've have talks about how they think they do what they do, and we've talked about frameworks, worldviews, and how such skills change your perception of reality.

I would caution against attempting to arrive at a specific judgement or conclusion about whether remote viewing is 'good' or 'bad'. Like most things in life, I think the answer is more complicated than that. I tend to look at it rather like the stick argument referenced in some ethics discussions - "Is a stick 'good' or 'bad'?" It's actually neither... it's just a stick, but you can use a stick to beat people, or you can use it to make a crutch for a wounded person to walk. It is what you do with your ability to use a stick that determines whether it is dangerous to someone else.

The basic skill used in remote viewing is a type of perception... you aren't inviting something in, or asking something questions. It's not much different from using your eyes to try to see something far away. The coordinates used in classical coordinate remote viewing are simply a way to make an point that you can reference... like using a compass and saying "look 37 degrees to the west".

Because you're dealing with senses that involve things beyond your normal perceptions, you can also use reference points that are beyond normal perceptions. So, rather than using a compass to tell your eyes where to look, you can use coordinates that are entangled with someone's desired target to tell your mind where to look (similar to the way that we can entangle particles at the quantum level in modern science to change the spin on an electron, and when you change one particle, the other changes in a similar manner). These senses are actually natural perceptions that humans get all the time, and aren't something you can easily make 'go away' or have people stay away from... as any mother who has suddenly known when her child is in danger can attest.

The actual RV protocol itself is just that... it was a protocol designed to sort out actual 'psychic' perceptions by looking at the basic problem as a signal-to-noise issue. If you can't boost the signal to get a clearer reception, then you attempt to lower the noise threshold (which is what most of the RV protocol is about) so that you can pick up the signal more clearly. How do you maintain your focus on a vague perception without starting to interpret what you're seeing, and skewing the data? How do you record your perceptions accurately? How do you know when to take a break because your mind is skewing the data? etc...

****

I would be the last person to say there are no dangerous things out there in that area of perceptive abilities... there definitely are, in my view. There are also good things there, and good reasons to work on what we can do with that area of science (and yes... I consider formal study of such things to be a science). The tool you're using to view things, whether the targets are dangerous things or good things... is not itself intrinsically good or bad. To use an analogy - you probably want to be aware of at what point you're too close to a charging rhinoceros when you're viewing it through binoculars... but that doesn't make the binoculars you're using to view the world from a distance 'dangerous' or 'bad'. It simply means you have to be aware of the environment you're in, and whether something is likely to notice you, while you are busy noticing it.

You can definitely get yourself in trouble with such things... and it sounds like your friend James may have run across a scenario that was dangerous to him. That doesn't mean the whole skillset is inherently dangerous, or that most of the standard tools one can find online (RV'ing targets of jpgs, for instance) are a point of concern. From my perspective, it's like the difference between viewing animals in a zoo, or going to the African wilderness and approaching wild animals without proper equipment or training. While both may involve close-up encounters with wild animals... they are very different things in terms of risk.

From my perspective, the best practice is to educate people, and show them how to safely manage their natural perceptions, rather than have them unfortunately stumble into a scenario they don't know how to handle - which they may do whether or not they've been trained in a formal protocol like remote viewing.

That doesn't make up for your friend's loss... and I'm not trying to say that what happened to him wasn't tragic, and perhaps avoidable. I do know there are quite a few people that have such perceptions whether they wish to or not, and I hope I've at least given you an alternate perspective to consider. Perhaps if such things were better understood, other people who naturally have these things happen to them could avoid the risks of the kind of scenario in which James found himself.

Stay safe,

--Aphanas

Aphanas,

Very intelligent response and well-written. I'm betting others here would like to hear more from you if you haven't already made regular contributions. This reponse acknowledges my receipt of your message. Thank you.

-Ack