Remote Viewing

[daz smith]

Therefore theres no reason to think the data associated with Lazar stuff doesnt do the same thing. Anyway... just thinking out loud now I guess.

Ok the lazar ufo target thingy.
The lazar ufo was not the feedback or target. The target was a Meier ufo image of a ufo hovering over car. I later looked at the lazar information - which he claims is the same looking 'sport model' craft as the meir footage - the inside of what I drew just happened to match what he says was inside his - that is all.

I did not do a target of a Lazar Ufo, but a Meier ufo. Sorry that is not very well done or shown clearly but this was only a year after my Rv training in 1998.

Oh, I was going to mention, not to insult you regarding your hand writing or anything because I totally understand the way your process works. But I downloaded a bunch of PDFs and unfortunately I couldnt really get much out of them.

I just think if you are going to host them and make them available for download, the public will get much more value from analysing these sessions if there is at least a typed summary at the end. I know some have typed text and thats great, but I just thought I was give you a heads up in case you underestimated the value that typed summaries add to those documents.

Summaries are added to most of my rv work now that i pased the practice stage and started using the data for operations work were a summary is a much needed thing.

The examples on my site are more for other Rv students to see how it works and to help them more than for others to see if they can find validation for RV. I never setout or try to now get involved in proving or trying to show others or sceptics that its valid - this is not my real aim.

I guess you have to look at all your sessions as a whole and ask the question, how accurate have you been in other sessions? And looking at your page with sessions like the White Sands target, theres good evidence to suggest you are getting actual info from the intended target.

Absolutely. As per the radio show I never claim 100 accuracy, 100% of the time. I am pretty consent though and generally am on target 60-80% of the time (bearing on target (machines or water targets im not great at).
Heres the latest example:
The Farsight Institute | Multiple Universes Project
Every one in say twenty trials I get a really good conection/hit.

being a remote viewer is like being an athlete, maybe one day in thousands you can beat the world record, rare days you can beat your personal best, most days you're average or there abouts, some days you just suck.

There are so many variable's within RV - for example did you know that two (at least) studies have shown that if a remote viewer does his work when LST (local Sidereal time) is at or about 13.30 the results can be more accurate by up to 400%?

Research indicates that LST
ESP, Local Sidereal Time, & Solar Winds - Psionic Social Club

Add to this things like:

• solar flares
• motivational level
• Stress
• illness
• Social constraints (times, space, noise, family)
• food, drug (caffine/other) effects
• Takser intent/telepaphic connection
• experimental and project influences
• Quatumn (we are all connected) effects

Then its no wonder that a remote viewer isnt consistently accurate 100% of the time - no discipline that uses both the body and mind combined like sports is 100% all the time.

daz

 

[Teresa]

Oh, I was going to mention, not to insult you regarding your hand writing or anything because I totally understand the way your process works. But I downloaded a bunch of PDFs and unfortunately I couldnt really get much out of them.

I just think if you are going to host them and make them available for download, the public will get much more value from analysing these sessions if there is at least a typed summary at the end. I know some have typed text and thats great, but I just thought I was give you a heads up in case you underestimated the value that typed summaries add to those documents.

This is a really good point, especially for folks not acquainted with viewing. Handwriting and spelling usually go out the window in session, and in crv when we write summaries we are technically still viewing. If some of us want to use our sessions as examples we might want to consider your typed summary suggestion and adding explanations of things.

I'm not a webmaster, Daz is, and I'm still getting my site up and running. Hopefully I'll have some things posted that will explain and demonstrate various examples of good and bad very soon. I've tried with a few but I'm still working on it.

~Teresa

 

[Gareth]

Ok the lazar ufo target thingy.
The lazar ufo was not the feedback or target. The target was a Meier ufo image of a ufo hovering over car. I later looked at the lazar information - which he claims is the same looking 'sport model' craft as the meir footage - the inside of what I drew just happened to match what he says was inside his - that is all.

I did not do a target of a Lazar Ufo, but a Meier ufo. Sorry that is not very well done or shown clearly but this was only a year after my Rv training in 1998.

You might want to change the title on your results page then. Its called the [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Bob Lazar area51 UFO - a past session, presented in summary form only."

Also, Id probably stick with the idea that you the target was the Lazar UFO, considering the Meier stuff used miniatures. Viewing a propulsion type thingy in a tiny model seems a bit crazy.
[/FONT]

 

[daz smith]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Also, Id probably stick with the idea that you the target was the Lazar UFO, considering the Meier stuff used miniatures. Viewing a propulsion type thingy in a tiny model seems a bit crazy.[/FONT]

Well I cant do this as this is cheating and the data is what it is.

Maybe the models theory doesn't hold true for all the Meier photo and video material -can you 100% prove it does? I've not seen anything other than rumours over the years that the videos were created with miniatures - unless of course you can provide me with solid evidence to the contrary?
I do remember seeing some dodgy analysis in the early 80s but to be honest it seems pretty proor and of very few images and not the video - as that was along time ago.

For example the video films has there been any recent analysis of these with the latest technology that we have had say in the last 10 years - what does this say?

daz

 

[Gareth]

Well, whether or not any of Meiers film of pics are actual UFOs rather than miniature models no one will ever know. However, what we DO know is that it is absolute fact that at least SOME are models.

So we have limited knowledge. The only thing we really know is that some are models.

Therefore I feel comfortable assuming that ALL his stuff uses models, until proves otherwise.

 

[David Biedny]

I'm going to break my own declaration of silence for this shit...

Daz, anyone who thinks that ANY of the Meier images are anything other than faked miniatures is absolutely ignorant. If you're going to come on here and start spouting off about potential legitimacy of Meier bullshit, you'll find a rather hostile response. Every single Meier image I've seen is childish, ridiculous and utterly worthless. I'm perfectly capable and totally qualified to make this blanket statement. If you want to make a claim otherwise, you'll end up with egg all over your face. I haven't looked at what Meier photo you've RVd, but if it's the stupid fucking daytime shot of the wedding cake model over the car, it's a badly shot miniature. EOS. A brain-damaged moron can see it clear as day, without RV or MV or DMV or FTW. Get a fucking clue.

I'm really pissed off that you've made me post on these forums again, and for something as retarded as the Billy Meier bullshit. You know what? I'd be rather happy if that was your last post here. Seriously. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt up until this moment, but now, you've totally lost any sense of credibility in my eyes.

dB

 

[Gareth]

I'm going to break my own declaration of silence for this shit...

Daz, anyone who thinks that ANY of the Meier images are anything other than faked miniatures is absolutely ignorant. If you're going to come on here and start spouting off about potential legitimacy of Meier bullshit, you'll find a rather hostile response. Every single Meier image I've seen is childish, ridiculous and utterly worthless. I'm perfectly capable and totally qualified to make this blanket statement. If you want to make a claim otherwise, you'll end up with egg all over your face. I haven't looked at what Meier photo you've RVd, but if it's the stupid fucking daytime shot of the wedding cake model over the car, it's a badly shot miniature. EOS. A brain-damaged moron can see it clear as day, without RV or MV or DMV or FTW. Get a fucking clue.

I'm really pissed off that you've made me post on these forums again, and for something as retarded as the Billy Meier bullshit. You know what? I'd be rather happy if that was your last post here. Seriously. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt up until this moment, but now, you've totally lost any sense of credibility in my eyes.

dB

The RV session Im referring to is here:

remote viewed - remote viewing results - UFO

The Meier "UFO" it relates to is this one:

(the old metal stuck to a tiny tree routine from Meier)

(The model that looks similar to the drawings Lazar made)

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Well I cant do this as this is cheating and the data is what it is.

Maybe the models theory doesn't hold true for all the Meier photo and video material -can you 100% prove it does? I've not seen anything other than rumours over the years that the videos were created with miniatures - unless of course you can provide me with solid evidence to the contrary?
I do remember seeing some dodgy analysis in the early 80s but to be honest it seems pretty proor and of very few images and not the video - as that was along time ago.

For example the video films has there been any recent analysis of these with the latest technology that we have had say in the last 10 years - what does this say?

daz

Daz,

It might pay you to do more research on the Billy Meier photos, films etc.. Recent research by David and others has revealed a lot of very dodgy stuff and the credibility of the aforesaid Billy Meier is more contentious, now, than ever before.

 

[daz smith]

Daz, anyone who thinks that ANY of the Meier images are anything other than faked miniatures is absolutely ignorant. If you're going to come on here and start spouting off about potential legitimacy of Meier bullshit, you'll find a rather hostile response.

Did I once say it was legitimate? - i said ive seen no analysis since the stuff in the 70/80s that appeared in the mysteries magazines/articles of the time and nothing since. This isnt giving validity to the Meier material its saying like you guys did to me about remete viewing - please sow me - prove it.

Every single Meier image I've seen is childish, ridiculous and utterly worthless.

Look im a person that requires proof - show me the anlysis of every image and video that proves its a fake and I will agree - i have not seen this - do you have it?

I'm perfectly capable and totally qualified to make this blanket statement. If you want to make a claim otherwise, you'll end up with egg all over your face.

When I claim I can remote view you guys say prove it - all im saying back is - if you are 100% certain they are all fake then please show it to me - i havent seen anything that shows this to any great effect. If you o have infor then great share it - but i to date havent seen it.

I haven't looked at what Meier photo you've RVd, but if it's the stupid fucking daytime shot of the wedding cake model over the car, it's a badly shot miniature. EOS. A brain-damaged moron can see it clear as day, without RV or MV or DMV or FTW. Get a fucking clue.

I honestly cant remrmber - it was 1998?

I'm really pissed off that you've made me post on these forums again, and for something as retarded as the Billy Meier bullshit. You know what? I'd be rather happy if that was your last post here. Seriously. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt up until this moment, but now, you've totally lost any sense of credibility in my eyes.

Hey what can i say prove to me the photos and video are fake - yes they look fake, yes the background of the story is dodgey but I have seen no solid proof or anylis especially in recebnt times where computers are better than has been done - show me where it is then I will gladly re-evaluate - until then I have to say its a dubious unknown for me.

[QUOTEDaz,

It might pay you to do more research on the Billy Meier photos, films etc.. Recent research by David and others has revealed a lot of very dodgy stuff and the credibility of the aforesaid Billy Meier is more contentious, now, than ever before. <!-- / message --> <!-- sig --> __________________
Phil.

][/QUOTE]

I already said I havent seen any new reseach - please show me and I will reevalute, until then it will remain a dubious unknown - sorry but i need to see anything before I jusmp to conclusions and I havent seen any modern analysis on the imagery/video.

But I certainly did not claim they were valid either. As to credability well we each have our opinions. And no im not going to stop posting here - some of you would like that just a little too much.

daz

 

[Gareth]

I honestly cant remrmber - it was 1998?

Did you not see my post? I answered that question.

If it was the one that looks like the Lazar UFO, then its the same as the one in the photo I posted.

 

[David Biedny]

Smith,

I'm not doing your research for you, don't be an idiot, I've got better things to do with my life than rehash this total bullshit "case". Proof galore is on the web, as well as these forums. I'm done now, and won't waste another second of my time debating the topic with you.

And I've banned Daz Smith, because I will not rehash this nonsense nor allow anyone to come on here and demand evidence that the Meier case is anything other than a total load of horseshit. I have my personal threshold, and it was crossed by Smith, with that comment that stated that he would keep posting here no matter what. Yeah, come here and tell me how you'll flagrantly shit in the corner of my living room after raping my dog. I don't think so. Just in case anyone was wondering why I've reacted so drastically...

I suppose I'll have to stop reading these forums now as well, it's just going to piss me off to no end. Fuck.

dB

 

[thegreenman]

FYI It seems noone was interested in my remote viewing exercise. Case closed.

 

[Teresa]

FYI It seems noone was interested in my remote viewing exercise. Case closed.

At least you've started me back doing ideogram drills and practicing targets. I was hoping some experienced viewers might send in some sessions anonymously for you but people are pretty gun-shy.

Thanks,
Teresa

 

[kipspritely]

Getting back to the purpose of this thread:
I really have to say, some of the remote viewing stuff was fascinating. Still, I am willing to wager someone like Darren Brown could produce similar results. Especially since there are so many strings attached.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Do any of you RV guys know what became of Mel Riley?
I think he worked at Fort Mead with Lyn Buchanan and David Morehouse in the 1980's.

 

[Teresa]

Do any of you RV guys know what became of Mel Riley?
I think he worked at Fort Mead with Lyn Buchanan and David Morehouse in the 1980's.

I talked to him at a conference that Lyn sponsored in 2007. It was pretty cool to see the two of them hanging out and telling stories.

Teresa

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Thanks Teresa. Is he still active in the field?

 

[Teresa]

Getting back to the purpose of this thread:
I really have to say, some of the remote viewing stuff was fascinating. Still, I am willing to wager someone like Darren Brown could produce similar results. Especially since there are so many strings attached.

Never heard of Darren Brown until I Wiki'd him. Classified as "magician, psychological illusionist and mentalist."

Understated, against a seriously trained professional viewer, not the same ballpark and way out of his league. Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act I can point you to the source of 92,000 declassified CIA files complete with numerous sessions if you would like to purchase them and look for yourself.

~Teresa

 

[Teresa]

Thanks Teresa. Is he still active in the field?

You're welcome, Phil. He has had a successive series of serious health problems and to my knowledge he is officially retired. He's on Lyn's list of personnel and came to the conference to assist, and to give all of us a chance to meet him and work with him. He was also headed down to Alamogordo to help with a different teaching project but it was cancelled.

Mel popped into our conference room and Lyn asked him if he'd like to take over. Mel replied "Hell, they're already so far ahead of where we were back then I can't teach 'em anything."


Teresa

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I'm glad to hear that he is still involved, albeit in a minor way. I believe he was a very talented viewer.