Report on a remote viewing carried out for me in 2008

[DrWhat]

A wind vane to tell which direction the wind is coming from

http://ladydandelion.net/2009/11/16/dra ... and-birds/

[daxwc]

Really, one would take the time to draw in a weather vane into plans for a mill? It almost looks connected to the vane shaft below it.

[daxwc]

And if that wasn't enough, he then plans to embark on research into an even more outlandish field: whether it is possible to remote view through time.
In other words, he will investigate whether it is possible for remote viewers not only to observe distant locations, but also to see what will happen at that place at a predetermined time in the future.
"Time does not seem to be a barrier to remote viewing," says Dr Roe, matter of factly.
Certainly, only time will tell whether he has been cruelly deluded, or has glimpsed a very intriguing future.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1jgvcajMI

[John Collins]

Interesting and remarkably timely newspaper report, thanks daxwc.

Professor Puthoff was the man in charge of Moneagle and Swann during the CIA-funded experiments and it is he again who is a supporter of my own efforts to publicise Bessler's wheel.

JC

[Trev]

John,

wouldn't a RV of 1st May 1733 be better, at least the viewers would get a chance to see the diagrams and demonstrations he was destroying. Any viewing of his covered wheel is only going to be that.

Trev

[John Collins]

Good idea, Trev. I don't know when or even if they'll definitely do it again but I'll ask.

JC

[daxwc]

Flip side:

http://skepdic.com/remotevw.html

[John Collins]

Good article daxwc, and I remain unconvinced. It's a bit like looking at Rorschach inkblots,and seeing things in the pattern. There's nothing there really, just what's in the mind's eye.

PS I don't think Puthoff was ever convinced of the efficacy of the tests, he just did as he was told.

JC

[daxwc]

I am a little more open minded than that JC. The point is if Puthoff did not feed important facts and details to the viewers than there are quite a few similarities to the Bessler case. Details such as that Bessler looked like John Roberts ( one might not have got the race right in a pure guess) and that it is based so much on mechanical rather than human (sure they do lots of murder cases). The fact they got the tension and deception right as well as the fall. But who is to say whether they are not in fact reading Puthoff’s mind? The Sceptic magazine is made and slanted to be sceptics; biased to an extent.


How much did Puthoff know of the Bessler story prior?

[Ealadha]

Whence did Hal Puthoff find out about the bessler wheel ?

[Marv]

Hi everybody. I have been alerted to this thread by a fellow remote viewer - the one that organised the viewing project and compiled the report for JC.

I am viewer M in the project.

As is always the case when protocol is properly observed, we viewers were alerted that there was a target to view and provided with two four digit numbers. That is all we had. No other information, no clues, no nothing. Just the two four digit numbers.

Using these, we accessed the matrix and 'downloaded' (to borrow a computing metaphor) our impressions, which were provided to the project manager, who compiled them and passed them on to JC.

I had forgotten all about this project until it was brought to my attention again this week. Apparently JC thinks he has found some data which may link to Bessler's untimely death/fall.

I also read with interest that JC was largely disappointed with the other data we gave him. I am somewhat baffled as to this. Here's why:

Please find attached a link to the original report as provided to JC:

http://www.remoteviewed.com/bessler%20wheel.pdf

The target cue (as we learned afterwards was)

Johann Bessler’s machine, Gera, Germany, 6th June, 1712

Now bearing in mind that all I had was the numbers - and that the target could have been ANYTHING in the universe - the Pope, a racing car, some balloons, Mount Rushmore (you get my point!) - here is the data I provided (viewer M):

Target appears to be a structure or object close to or containing water.
A life form is involved in a downward momentum. Impressions were gained of chutes and a turbine, all closely involved with water or its flow.
The structure is perceived to be large, with steps leading up to a high vantage point.

A piston‐like movement was perceived, as well as the sense of slow and highly tensile structural movement ( a bridge, raising).

The structure is operational, metallic and stone, and mechanized. Water was perceived as plowing downwards from an elevated source. A large spherical structure was perceived containing a liquid. Hexagonal concrete ‘do‐nuts’ were also perceived; structural support, perhaps.

A life form was perceived looking out over railings and listening closely to a wall, as well as setting something into motion with a pull of a lever. The term ‘dropped from existence’ again reinforces the sense of a downward momentum. Churning (water) was associated with this life form.

Hanging, cylinder, coned, cog-like, cylinder, upwards, dull, squat, round, liquid, controlled, like a piston.

Some kind of centrifugal force, out then in

...along with some pages of sketches of what look like mechanical parts.

My question is this: how on earth can this data be dismissed as 'irrelevant' and 'disappointing' when it quite clearly pertains to some kind of mechanised structure or invention? What exactly were you EXPECTING from the viewers?

I speak only for myself as it is not for me to represent the other remote viewers. I am simply somewhat baffled by JC's assertion that the data was in some way disappointing. If I had described a flower or a bird of prey or a mountain then yes...that would be a disappointment. To describe (in detail) the working of a mechanised invention would seem to be a direct and accurate response to the cue that we were secretly given.

Best regards,

Marv

[John Collins]

Hi Marv. I'm delighted that you have responded to my post. I apologise if I sounded dismissive of all your reports, it was not meant as a criticism of your efforts but rather a subjective reaction to them. I guess I hoped for more information not previously available.

The mere fact that you were able to retrieve information so closely allied to what was sought given that you had no information about time, place and event, is a remarkable achievement in itself.

I always associated the description in your report to Bessler's archimedes screw test so you nailed that pretty well I think.

To answer Ealada's question, Puthoff acquired a copy of my book from somewhere and then ordered another six directly from me for his fellow directors at Austin.

JC

[Tarsier79]

As is always the case when protocol is properly observed, we viewers were alerted that there was a target to view and provided with two four digit numbers. That is all we had. No other information, no clues, no nothing. Just the two four digit numbers.

Marv, how are the numbers determined? and what relevance do they have linking them to the mechanics that you saw?

Do you use any magnetic/electromagnetic/frequency stimulation, or any mechanical or electrical device to enhance your experience?

Do you use Hallucinogens, IE like the movie "Men Who Stare At Goats"?


I hope you don't find these questions rude, I ask out of interest, but neither as a skeptic or a believer in this form of science.

Cheers

Kaine

[daxwc]

Hello Marv and welcome.

Please excuse JC’s criticism as your reading clues do not fit the facts that he wishes to hear, therefore he is probably a little disappointed. Your clues bring about questions most here do not want to hear, that being the possibility the wheel is not gaining its energy through gravity. Many of the first clues of the viewers involve chemical and fluids, not strictly lead mass. I will go through some of the ones you have listed and my opinion and thoughts.

Target appears to be a structure or object close to or containing water.

Lots of prior speculation that Bessler’s wheel is a modified Drebbel invention, which would contain fluid.

A life form is involved in a downward momentum.

Life form? Possible bacteria or culture?

Impressions were gained of chutes and a turbine, all closely involved with water or its flow.

Archimedes screw test? But sure wasn’t 1712. Could it then be inside the wheel?

The structure is perceived to be large, with steps leading up to a high vantage point.

???

A piston‐like movement was perceived, as well as the sense of slow and highly tensile structural movement ( a bridge, raising).

Maybe the stampers, again not a 1712 issue.

The structure is operational, metallic and stone, and mechanized. Water was perceived as plowing downwards from an elevated source. A large spherical structure was perceived containing a liquid. Hexagonal concrete ‘do‐nuts’ were also perceived; structural support, perhaps.

Interesting hexagonal “do-nuts�

A life form was perceived looking out over railings and listening closely to a wall, as well as setting something into motion with a pull of a lever.

We know Bessler was accused of fraud from behind a wall with sound signals through it.

The term ‘dropped from existence’ again reinforces the sense of a downward momentum. Churning (water) was associated with this life form.

Again life form, not exactly what the forum wishes to hear.

Hanging, cylinder, coned, cog-like, cylinder, upwards, dull, squat, round, liquid, controlled, like a piston.

Some kind of centrifugal force, out then in
The wheel’s movements described.

What does AOL mean?

Marv, so you are viewer M which is Mosaic (the first report)?

Marv, do you remember anything significant about the “over under loop� as it is scribbled multiple times on the faceless portrait.

Marv, in your best honest opinion, do you really believe you are seeing 1712. Or are you possibly reading brain waves that come directly from Puthof and his knowledge and conceptual ideas on the subject?

[Marv]

Hi guys.

Happy to take all questions, it's nice to be asked about RV rather than flamed and baited by the usual skeptical hordes that tend to surface once one starts talking about it. So then:

The 'lifeform' moniker - by life form a viewer generally means a human being. It's a habit formed through trying to avoid analysing impressions as they come in. One gets the impression of a person (sex is hard to determine) and rather than say 'man' or 'woman' or 'child' (as often it is hard to tell which) one just labels it a 'life form.' In my summary I should have said 'human being.'

The numbers. The numbers are chosen at random by the tanker and serve as nothing more than a link between the tasker's intention, the target and the viewer. Think of like a signpost - during the remote viewing session he viewer repeats it to themselves and this 'focusses' their attention on the target.

Hallucinogens, magnets etc. No! Nothing of the sort. All that is required to remote view is one's mind, ideally calm and clear of distractions. Anyone can do it, trust me. No need for expensive courses either - loads of stuff on the web for free.

AOL - Analytic Overlay. This is when the concscious mind tries to 'analyse' the impressions it is receiving. This can prove fatal as the imagination takes over and the session descends into guesswork. If we ever find ourselves doing this mid-session we acknowledge what the conscious mind is telling us by writing AOL plus the 'guess' on the page and move on. In many ways the conscious mind or ego is like a little child and must be treated as such. You want a direct line to the subconscious when viewing - the conscious mind only gets in the way.

Gotta go now, will check back later.

Regards,

Marv