Originally posted by darkbake
1) Do you know any information about remote viewing and underground bases?
Boring disclaimer: Remote Viewing is a combined science protocol and psychic art, which by its nature means -- for the science part -- it must have
hard validated feedback to compare with the session. So RV proper is never going to have information about non-verifiable targets. If you hear anyone
talking about RV and specifically calling their viewing of something like that 'remote viewing,' it is a sign that you should probably not take their
understanding (or their intent for your wallet/fandom of their cosmic omniscience) seriously.
Of course, the 'psychic art' part of RV can focus on anything one wants, and most viewers do plenty of psi work outside official RV because that is
most fun.
It's not RV then, although most 'viewers' (slang) call it 'viewing' (slang). Usually they will say this if you are reading their details
on stuff.
To see a good overview on Remote Viewing protocol, try this link:
dojopsi.com...
Now to answer your question though. I do not know of any viewing by persons I would take seriously which has been made public regarding underground
bases.
Viewer Pat Price was said to be very interested in that subject before his untimely death.
2) Are there any materials that shield remote viewing
No.
If a viewer is not particularly skilled they can sometimes be distracted by high-entropy and/or similar elements nearby, however. That won't work on
someone highly talented or well experienced.
The best thing one could do to prevent ViewerX (let's say someone you know) from serious data acquisition on them would be to interfere with ViewerX's
protocol. Polluting that would be the most possible damage to the process. Failing your ability to influence ViewerX toward viewing in a lousy
protocol, your only hope is that ViewerX is either not very good or not particularly interested in you.
I might add that the data one acquires with RV is extremely unpredictable, has a ton of mitigating factors and variables, generally sucks for
replicability (RV overall is replicable in the science lab, but the data by the same viewer on the same target at different times is sometimes not).
Depending on the viewer most is more piece-meal and conceptual than contextual and visual.
3) Can remote viewing be detected
No.
An unusually intuitive/aware individual who is the focus of a viewer may however pick up a degree of rapport with the inquiry. Some of this is going
to depend on both individuals and the moment.
Understand that a remote viewing target is a complex collection of intent, and you can include the intent for the recipient to be most, or least,
receptive to such rapport. But the elements most likely to affect this have more to do with the individuals than the art.
4) What is a double-blind, hard feedback
Single-blind: the psychic has no knowledge of the context, nature or detail of the target. However, others in the room or at the table might.
Double-blind: the psychic is uninformed as above but also, may have no physiological contact with anybody who might have such information, including
virtual contact such as telephone, webcam, line of sight behind a window, etc.
Solo-blind: a double-blind by nature of the viewer being entirely alone.
Precog: at least some data forced double-blind by nature of time
Wildcard: tasking-precog. Data collected prior to target even being selected. Maximum blinding here.
If you read the link above on Remote Viewing protocol, it goes through the somewhat hairy elements of different degrees of 'informed' related to the
target.
This is relevant because while on one hand, full double-blind is ideal, on the other hand, the brain often needs some kind of structure to 'hang' the
data received on so to speak, and having no context whatever can make it very difficult for the psychic to put the bits together for context and
concept.
Also, there are limited 'forms and dynamics' in our reality, and the same basic data set can sometimes apply to several radically different things,
creating analytical interference for the viewer; known context prevents that.
But it also provides data, assumptions, etc. which can interfere/pollute the process, so it's a careful compromise based on the reason for the session
(e.g. media demo? science proof? personal focused practice?).
Many choose to have the viewer work fully doubleblind and then once they have established basic contact (described the general nature of the target),
then give them only the context point/s which they accurately described already, and let them continue from there.
Joseph McMoneagle's book MIND TREK is probably available in libraries or supercheap by now and it's a nice little book with a good section on how to
set up, or have a friend help set up, some basic RV practice. He is the only former intelligence operative who walks the talk and does RV good, not
harm.
edit on 2-9-2013 by RedCairo because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-9-2013 by RedCairo because: (no reason
given)
edit on 2-9-2013 by RedCairo because: (no reason given)