Remote viewing non-human perceptions

[Laird]

That is quite a wide question and I can't claim that I understand it.
RV is supposed to be a form of controlled and deliberate clairvoyance. There is of course a chance of telepathic influences getting mixed into it. det

I don't know what Sony have done. But a common Ganzfield test does in fact appears similar to RV, in that you have a sender/tasker and a receiver/viewer.

Ouija boards and hypnotism is outside of my knowledge frame. I don't know anything about it.

I'm not well-read on RV, but maybe one possible difference is that whilst the tasker may know the target itself, s/he may not know all details of it which are picked up by the viewer - which would rule out telepathy. e.g., the tasker might know that the target is the Arc de Triomphe, but not that there's a bird's nest in a certain spot in that structure, which the receiver/viewer might pick up.

I'm not well-read on RV, but maybe one possible difference is that whilst the tasker may know the target itself, s/he may not know all details of it which are picked up by the viewer - which would rule out telepathy. e.g., the tasker might know that the target is the Arc de Triomphe, but not that there's a bird's nest in a certain spot in that structure, which the receiver/viewer might pick up.

Yes, there is definitely more to RV than just telepathy and ideas from the tasker.

Farsight did a project some time back that targeted the weather 5 years ahead in time. In normal terms one can believe they all were "blind" to the target because no one can know what the weather will be like in the future. But that is not true. Anyone can guess what it will be like. And those that believe in global warming can forecast sea levels rising and things like that. As I remember it not much verifiable came through, except one thing that lay outside of the scope of the target. A swarm of meteorites was reported by a couple of the viewers. (Or something of that nature). Everyone was surprised because no one had expected that.

Farsight did a project some time back that targeted the weather 5 years ahead in time. In normal terms one can believe they all were "blind" to the target because no one can know what the weather will be like in the future. But that is not true. Anyone can guess what it will be like. And those that believe in global warming can forecast sea levels rising and things like that. As I remember it not much verifiable came through, except one thing that lay outside of the scope of the target. A swarm of meteorites was reported by a couple of the viewers. (Or something of that nature). Everyone was surprised because no one had expected that.

On an RV forum, I had the opportunity to question Daz Smith extensively about sessions that he had seen or had recorded for the viewing public that had ET content. Not wanting to buy a gazillion $$$$ worth of Brown's vids, I submitted to Smith what we are told were the actual happenings at Roswell '47, Phoenix Lights '97, Atlantis (location, demolition....), Face On Mars at Cydonia, Iapetus inhabitants...and asked if there was any, or enough, corroboration with the info received from the communicating ET community...or not.

He responded and I bought them all.

I understand. And yes, it could be experimented with, and possibly has. I don't know.

A parallel to my line of argument here is the many attempts to RV the location of "Jesus". All the attempts are different, as far as I know, because there exist no feedback for the task.They are not hitting any real "location of Jesus", they are hitting ideas of the location of Jesus.

Right... without feedback, results might be interesting but could be way off. I remember some of McMoneagle’s future predictions were way off. Even though we have no way to get feedback on something like Jesus, I still think it is amazing that RVers can describe what sounds like the stereotypical Jesus without knowing what the target is.

... I still think it is amazing that RVers can describe what sounds like the stereotypical Jesus without knowing what the target is.

There are two opposite lines of thought there: Either one can think that the descriptions are actually true, just because the viewer was not told anything, and had no possibility to make things up; Or the descriptions in a case like that comes from the taskers and / or the viewers own mind.

We can not make the viewer metaphysically unaware of the target, we can only make him physically unaware by not telling him about it beforehand.

On an RV forum, I had the opportunity to question Daz Smith extensively about sessions that he had seen or had recorded for the viewing public that had ET content. Not wanting to buy a gazillion $$$$ worth of Brown's vids, I submitted to Smith what we are told were the actual happenings at Roswell '47, Phoenix Lights '97, Atlantis (location, demolition....), Face On Mars at Cydonia, Iapetus inhabitants...and asked if there was any, or enough, corroboration with the info received from the communicating ET community...or not.

He responded and I bought them all.

Question is: Can we trust the ETs?

There are two opposite lines of thought there: Either one can think that the descriptions are actually true, just because the viewer was not told anything, and had no possibility to make things up; Or the descriptions in a case like that comes from the taskers and / or the viewers own mind.

We can not make the viewer metaphysically unaware of the target, we can only make him physically unaware by not telling him about it beforehand.

Either way something "interesting" and Psi-ish is going on.

Question is: Can we trust the ETs?

Funny that. They are waiting for the time that they can trust us.

We can trust the ETs, their hundreds of man-years of communications are testament to that. Of course, they could instantaneously annihilate us, the planet, haven't yet. What do we have to lose?