SCEPCOP Forum

eight martinis remote viewing magazine is also now available as a Full
colour printed and delivered direct to your door magazine. This Issue has a
general CRV focus with great articles from people like Lyn Buchanan and CRV
examples from the creator himself Ingo Swann including parts of an
operational CRV session with an evaluation of its operational use.

Issue 3 contains the following articles:
* Searching...
* The Role of Sketching in Remote Viewing.
* Remote Viewing Processes and Layers of Meaning.
* A Remote Viewing Experiment.
* Frontloading and Throughput in Remote Viewing.
* The Road Ahead.
* The Cassandra Syndrome.
* Remote Viewing & Project Stargate; An interview with Lyn Buchanan.
* Remote Viewing Websites & blogs.
* Ah, the Wonderous Joy of Doing Demo Sessions.
* Remote Viewing Documents: The DIA Grill Flame Report - January 1983.

Free download of issue3: http://www.eightmartinis.com/

Is it just me or does anyone else find this idea lacking of commercial viability... C'mon, all I or anyone has to do is go Astral and check out the one printed copy already out there... no costs, no postage issues, don't have to deal with all the advertising...

If you don't mind Daz, I have a question about remote viewing. On the surface, I would think that a remote viewer should be able to "see" or sense things at other locations (at least, that's the definition I think of). My question is, do you need to know exactly where the observed location is or are you able to find the location? For example, I have a piece of fruit on my desk. Could you tell me what it is? If not, would you be able to tell me what it is if you knew exactly where I was? If you do need to know exactly where I am, then would it be safe to assume that a remote viewer would not be able to find a lost child, Jimmy Hoffa, or the gold from the Lost Dutchman's Mine, for example?
Wag

I'm not that familiar with remote viewing experiment formats. I'm looking through the magazine and will likely aska few questions about the experiments later. I hope dazsmith will be available later.

I had to scramble here to skim through much of the magazine and I have a question. My observation is that examples of remote viewing begin by selection of a target. That target can be an actual scene or a photograph. It is not necessarily true that there is a sender, but there is a receiver. My concern is that the receiver describes the scene and then people are left to argue a match or not.

Daz, have experiments been done which attempt to remove the subjective discussion?

The kind of thing I am wondering about is the following.

Most of what is in the magazine is that the person describes something like the teapot. Then an effort is made to show that the teapot and the nuclear reactor are one and the same.

How about this. You have someone choose 10 possible views or some other reasonably large number. Then you do the remote viewing. Next the person is taken to all 10 places and asked which did they view. That way the viewer can show what they viewed without the argument of is this a hit or miss. This could be blinded by using different people for different tasks. My thinking is that you take the interpretation out of the issue by allowing the viewer to decide what they saw.

Thanks. I'll read through those posts.