Hope this is the Right Forum!

I’ve lost this Bass Guitar Neck SOMEHOW
(maybe stolen?) any guess where it might be?
(Didn’t think my apartment is THAT big!?)

I have to admit it is truly baffling where it just suddenly went it’s not a small thing!
I sell Guitar parts all the time, especially for Bass guitars, like this is, on Ebay & I’m going to lose my hundred percent feedback rating because, when it’s sold, I went to wrap it and it’s gone…

Just GONE…

Ive been practicing rv for over a year with high success and more recently over the past few months have been doing mostly arv with good results as well.

One issue Im finding is I feel like I might be getting accurate data but the data is for the incorrect symbol. I remember hearing this was an issue for many people playing the RV Tournament app.

Anyways Im looking to find a good resource on arv so that I can hopefully learn more about how to mitigate this and improve my abilities overall.

Im mainly looking for a book but would be open to any other kinds of online documents/sources.

Thanks!

What are your honest critiques on the data provided in the links? Don't hold back 😅

​

The Human-Cap4408 Sessions:

• Session 1
• Session 2

The RoyalBlueSphere Sessions:

• Session 3
• Session 4

Some of you kicked the tires on AiRV a couple months back (thanks again, and Pat, the guide 401 you caught is long gone). And boy do we have some big news since then.

We've rebranded. AiRV is now NeoARV: https://www.neoarv.com

And the killer feature I've been quietly building this whole time is now live:

Daily group forecasting. We have it set up so a fresh round opens automatically every trading day on a real-world question (right now: will NVDA close higher than it opened?). You run a blind ARV session, submit your sketch and/or notes for an independent SRI-scale judgement. Qualify, and you unlock the live group forecast, the combined signal of every session submitted that day. Only participants can see it. It wouldn't be fair any other way.

Inside the group, everything is anonymous. Nobody sees your sketches, your name, or your account. You see group stats and anonymous score breakdowns. And nobody outside the group sees anything at all. The forecast belongs to the people who made it.

This is the Stargate-era silver futures ARV experiment reborn -- it no longer takes a team of taskers and judges to run it. We run it all. And frankly if you check out our about/science pages you might agree we run it better, too.

How the forecasts work: https://www.neoarv.com/about/forecasts

The science: https://www.neoarv.com/about/science

Two free tools people here have asked me about, no account needed:

Geomagnetic (Kp) tracker: https://www.neoarv.com/kpindex

Sidereal clock: https://www.neoarv.com/sidereal

Come on over and make your call. There's always an open round waiting for you. And if you know what to do with the call... Well. Let's just say there's potentially a whole lot more waiting for you.

Let's rock that 1% and see what falls from their pockets.

Cheers 🍻

If you’ve read RV Secrets, please chime in!
Early on in the book, Joe (I’m calling him this for brevity) writes that everyone has some degree of ability to remote view, but most people won’t go through with the rigorous training and practice required to become good at it. As I read more through the book, I thought, if this is what RV is about, I can see why most people would not put a lot of effort into it.

Joe downplays everything about remote viewing. He specifically says that it can’t be used to find a missing person or see UFOs. Those examples in particular are strange because in interviews, I have heard him say he has done basically those things and many things just as sensational. Re: the UFOs, as far as what I have heard, he didn’t talk about viewing crafts, but he did talk about getting the senses of underground machinery and beings at Skinwalker Ranch. And in a book by someone who hired him to do the Skinwalker Ranch remote viewing the author (Jim Lacatski) writes that Joe even said he was able to see a being that others who were physically there with it could not see, and that the being knew Joe was viewing it

Joe doesn’t say anything about that in his own book. Maybe he does other books and if so, please point me to some where he talks more about his personal remote viewing experiences.

Also, in the book, he goes deeply into the detail of the scientific method for testing remote viewing, and then testing what a remote viewer is reporting they “see.” not only does he include charts of data that are difficult for most people to decipher, the methods for learning, and judging one’s remote viewing sessions that he describes are impossible for people to replicate. The closest anyone could come without removing themselves from everything else in life during their period of learning would be if they attend classes of some kind. But the intensity of those classes would have to be very high. And afterwards, one needs to keep up the practice on a regular basis.

All of this work by the way would be to obtain the ability to do something that, according to Joe, will usually be vague impressions with moderate accuracy. He says things like, despite how strange it seems, RV does give good results sometimes. I’m paraphrasing, but that is the level of enthusiasm, or lack there of, with which he talks about RV through throughout the book.

TL;DR: the book makes RV sound almost impossible to be able to do, and not very useful for those who can do it. He most boring way one could present such an amazing topic.

Government remote-viewing discussions often combine unrelated sessions. These reports came from different viewers, programs and levels of documentation. A declassified transcript proves a session occurred, not that its target or imagery was real.

Lyn Buchanan: Jesus, God, Titan and NHI

Former Fort Meade remote viewer Lyn Buchanan describes two blind sessions involving religious targets.

In the first, he says he entered “perfect site integration,” an immersive state in which the target environment felt real. He encountered a short Jewish man wearing a modern business suit in a dark room. Buchanan felt intense guilt, followed by a telepathic message of unconditional acceptance. Afterward, the target envelope reportedly revealed “Jesus.”

In another session, Buchanan perceived himself standing in a pool of light surrounded by darkness. When he asked what he was supposed to learn, a kind voice answered:

«“I’ve given you everything you need. What I give you now I give through you, not to you.”»

The envelope reportedly contained “God.”

These stories are notable because they describe apparent interaction, not passive observation. However, the tasker and monitor remain unidentified, and no contemporaneous session records were located. The envelopes revealed the intended targets, not objective ground truth.

Buchanan also describes a Titan session involving two cave-dwelling beings whose thought processes seemed impossible to translate into human concepts. This was separate from Mel Riley’s documented Titan session.

His four-quadrant model divides alleged NHI into friendly or hostile groups with either greater or lesser psychic abilities than humans. Buchanan emphasizes that physical appearance does not determine alignment: Greys, Nordics or members of any other alleged species could occupy any of the four categories. In his model, the same species might contain both friendly and hostile factions with very different psychic capabilities.

It is an interesting framework, but the underlying classified paper has not been released.

"Watch the Lyn Buchanan interview" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sxmSMzqnmA)

Project 8200: Pat Price’s Four Alleged Bases

Former police commissioner and SRI remote viewer Pat Price independently wrote a 1973 report describing alleged installations beneath:

- Mount Hayes, Alaska

- Mount Zeil, Australia

- Mount Inyangani, now Mount Nyangani, Zimbabwe

- Monte Perdido in the Spanish Pyrenees

Price described tunnels, communications systems, disc-shaped equipment and unusual personnel. At Mount Hayes, he claimed human military personnel worked alongside humanoid beings.

This was not an official SRI assignment. Years later, Fort Meade operations officer F. Holmes “Skip” Atwater turned Price’s locations into blinded training targets.

The documented Project 8200 viewers were:

- Joseph McMoneagle, Remote Viewer 001

- Viewer 721, whose identity remains unpublished

- William “Bill” Ray

- Charlene Cavanaugh

- Paul H. Smith

- Mel Riley

The published mission list does not name Buchanan as a principal Project 8200 viewer, although he says he later worked related targets. "The mission list appears in the German National Library record" (https://d-nb.info/1338431188/04).

Mount Hayes

Joseph McMoneagle described a desolate mountain range and a deeply buried target containing pipes, oval containers, electronic gridwork and technology he found difficult to describe.

Viewer 721 perceived an orderly mass of wires and electronic components connected to a remotely controlled, tapered object resembling a missile or spacecraft.

Bill Ray reported a hollow mountain containing monitoring equipment and fast metallic craft. He perceived thin, unemotional personnel who seemed programmed or “unearthly.”

Charlene Cavanaugh described an extremely tall mountain in a cold environment, with a hollow interior and unpleasant odors. She could not determine whether the space was natural or engineered.

Paul H. Smith reported cables, box-shaped electronics and large round objects that appeared to contain energy. The personnel seemed subdued and regimented.

Mel Riley described caves, tunnels, a large dome and a shadowy entity working at something resembling a keyboard. He compared the site to NORAD’s Cheyenne Mountain complex, while labeling “UFO” as analytical overlay, meaning interpretation rather than raw perception.

The Other Mountains

At Mount Zeil, McMoneagle reported an underground entrance, coils, pulsing light and boxes of electronics. He interpreted it as a possible command-and-control facility.

At Monte Perdido, he perceived a descending passage, octopus-like wires, a white electronic grid and a cone-shaped device. He interpreted the dormant installation as a possible high-frequency relay.

At Mount Inyangani, he reported a buried facility, a tripod-like object extending above the surface and suitcase-sized black boxes associated with power or control.

The reports partially converge on underground structures, electronics and unusual personnel. However, every target originated with Price’s narrative, and no physical answer key existed. Atwater says Project 8200 remained a training exercise and was never reported through the operational chain of command.

"Read Atwater’s Project 8200 background and session summaries" (https://captain-of-my-ship.com/project8200/)

Joseph McMoneagle’s 1984 Mars Session

The viewer in the famous 22 May 1984 Mars session was Joseph McMoneagle, monitored by Skip Atwater. The transcript anonymizes them, but Atwater later publicly identified McMoneagle as the viewer.

McMoneagle received a sealed cue identifying Mars approximately one million years BCE, followed by geographic coordinates. He reported:

- Enormous pyramidal or wedge-shaped structures

- A violent atmospheric disturbance resembling a global dust storm

- Very tall, thin beings wearing unusual garments

- A population sheltering inside large structures

- Beings waiting for a group that had left to find a safer home

- A departing vessel resembling an enormous boat

When instructed to communicate with one being, McMoneagle perceived that its people were ancient, dying and waiting for those who had departed.

The session is vivid but unverifiable. It records McMoneagle’s experience, not proof of an ancient Martian civilization.

"Read the declassified Mars transcript" (https://www.cia.gov/READINGROOM/DOCS/CIA-RDP96-00788R001900760001-9.PDF)

Mel Riley: Titan and the “Galactic Federation”

A 1987 session form uses the initials MR and ED, conventionally identified as viewer Mel Riley and interviewer Ed Dames.

At an alleged Titan base, Riley described two human-looking male technicians working at a control panel. An attractive woman with shoulder-length brown hair, wearing a pale-green laboratory coat, appeared to supervise them.

At Mount Hayes, Riley perceived a human-shaped figure operating a circular console who seemed to invite him to observe. At another alleged base, he reported a being with a large round head and slender neck, plus a more human-looking, hairless figure with pale skin and a sharp nose.

"Read the declassified personnel report" (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00789r003800110001-8)

Riley’s human-looking Titan personnel differ substantially from Buchanan’s incomprehensible cave beings. This is not clear replication, although believers could argue the sessions involved different locations or times.

In a separate 1988 training session titled “Galactic Federation Headquarters,” Riley perceived a circular structure on a mesa with luminous streaks entering or emerging from it.

Inside, he described a stone corridor, vaulted chamber and polished platform resembling an altar. White-robed figures stood around it in a semicircle. Riley experienced the setting as sacred and familiar, then imagined himself lying on the platform while brilliant white light descended and a robed figure extended a hand over his solar plexus.

“Lake Titicaca” and “pyramid” were explicitly labeled analytical overlays. Rather than an extraterrestrial command center, the report reads more like a temple or initiation experience, illustrating the overlap between NHI, religious and archetypal imagery.

"Read the Galactic Federation training document" (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00789r003800200001-8)

Ingo Swann and Harold Sherman: Jupiter

In 1973, Ingo Swann and writer Harold Sherman separately attempted to perceive Jupiter.

Swann reported powerful winds, colored atmospheric bands and crystalline bands that he compared with clouds or possibly Saturn-like rings. Voyager 1 did not image Jupiter’s faint ring system until 1979.

However, Swann also described a flat horizon, solid surface and enormous mountain range, despite Jupiter having no conventional solid surface. His “crystal bands” were also less precise than later retellings claiming he explicitly predicted the rings.

The session therefore contains an interesting apparent correspondence mixed with substantial errors and ambiguity.

"Read the archived Jupiter report" (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/nsa-rdp96x00790r000100040010-3) and "NASA’s account of the ring discovery" (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/pia02251-jupiters-ring/).

Did Government Psi Research Continue?

The formal remote-viewing program ended after a 1995 review found suggestive laboratory results but little dependable operational intelligence. "Read the evaluation" (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00791r000200180005-5).

Buchanan nevertheless says military viewers tracked Saddam Hussein almost daily during the 1990–91 Gulf War period. He claims he repeatedly profiled Saddam’s intentions and identified a concealed weapons bunker beneath a decoy electrical generator at one of his compounds. These operational claims remain based primarily on Buchanan’s testimony rather than publicly available mission records.

Buchanan also says he remains on government “retention status” and continues to observe restrictions against targeting American citizens. He does not clarify whether this means a formal contract, an occasional consulting relationship or simply continued availability, so it cannot by itself establish that an active government remote-viewing program still exists. It does, however, suggest that some former viewers may have maintained relationships with government clients after the official program ended.

Later government-funded work occasionally revisited related ideas. Eric Davis’s Air Force report discussed “psychic teleportation,” while people connected with AAWSAP investigated UAP and paranormal phenomena. The proposed KONA BLUE program included alleged “human consciousness anomalies,” but it was never approved.

Together, these examples show recurring institutional interest, although not proof of one continuous secret program.

"Watch Buchanan discuss Saddam and his claimed retention status" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sxmSMzqnmA), "read the Davis study" (https://sgp.fas.org/eprint/teleport.pdf) and "read AARO’s historical report" (https://media.defense.gov/2024/Mar/08/2003409233/-1/-1/0/DOPSR-2024-0263-AARO-HISTORICAL-RECORD-REPORT-VOLUME-1-2024.PDF).

Why Psi Could Matter to UAP Communication

Reported UAP communication is often immediate, nonverbal and directed into consciousness. Similar interactions appear throughout these accounts:

- Buchanan receives complete telepathic messages.

- McMoneagle apparently communicates with a Martian being.

- Riley perceives an entity inviting him to observe its console.

- The Galactic Federation session becomes an interactive ritual.

- Buchanan claims some NHI possess greater psychic ability than humans.

If psi exists, consciousness could function as an interface through which an advanced intelligence communicates. Remote viewing, telepathy, visions and some encounter experiences might represent variations of the same mechanism.

These reports do not prove that hypothesis. A meaningful test would require blinded interactions producing specific, time-stamped information that could later be independently verified and repeatedly replicated.

The central question is not whether remote viewing proves extraterrestrials. It does not. The question is whether the recurring overlap between remote viewing, religious experiences, UAP encounters and telepathic communication reflects a genuine feature of consciousness or the human mind’s response to ambiguous experiences.

Either possibility deserves better experiments.

I heard that AI models could do RV, but when i tried a number i associated with the birth of a friend i had in mind, it described a building.
I have also issues with remote viewing my own targets, it seems i often get better results from doing RV on targets i get from online source but not much with my own, why is that?

TL;DR: Remote viewing, telepathy, and precognition studies have produced statistical anomalies worth investigating. However, inconsistent replication and methodological problems prevent psi from being considered established. If it survives rigorous testing, psi could connect consciousness-first theories to measurable reality.

What is psi?

Psi refers to alleged information transfer or physical influence without a known sensory mechanism.

It includes:

- Telepathy between minds

- Clairvoyance and remote viewing

- Precognition of future events

- Presentiment before unpredictable stimuli

- Psychokinesis affecting physical systems

These phenomena may not share one cause. Some could be psychological effects or experimental artifacts, while others might represent genuine anomalies.

Why psi matters

Our framework proposes that consciousness may be more than a passive product of the brain.

The Shamanic Receiver Hypothesis suggests that altered states could change how the brain filters information. The Symbolic Canopy proposes that unusual information may be translated into visions, dreams, entities, or familiar symbols.

Psi could connect these subjective experiences to measurable reality.

If someone repeatedly identifies hidden targets or responds to future random events before they occur, consciousness may not be limited by ordinary sensory boundaries.

That would not prove idealism, NHI, or the afterlife. It would demonstrate an anomaly requiring explanation.

What does the evidence show?

Psychologist Etzel Cardeña reviewed decades of parapsychological research and argued that the cumulative evidence deserves serious consideration. "Cardeña’s review" (https://portal.research.lu.se/en/publications/the-experimental-evidence-for-parapsychological-phenomena-a-revie/)

Remote viewing

A 2023 meta-analysis examined 36 remote-viewing studies and reported a positive average effect. "Remote-viewing meta-analysis" (https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/2931)

The U.S. government also investigated remote viewing through programs associated with Star Gate. Its final evaluations acknowledged statistical anomalies but questioned whether the results were reliable and specific enough for intelligence work. "Star Gate evaluation" (https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00791r000200180005-5)

A weak effect can be scientifically interesting while remaining operationally useless.

Ganzfeld telepathy

Ganzfeld experiments place a receiver in reduced sensory stimulation while another person attempts to transmit a randomly selected image or video.

Meta-analyses have reported hit rates above chance. A 2024 review again found a positive aggregate result. "Ganzfeld meta-analysis" (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38813059/)

Questionable research practices may inflate the effect without fully explaining it. This leaves an unresolved anomaly rather than established telepathy. "Methodological analysis" (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27144889/)

Precognition

A meta-analysis of 90 experiments based on Daryl Bem’s “feeling the future” protocols reported a small positive effect. "Precognition meta-analysis" (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4706048/)

However, a large transparent replication project involving more than 26,000 participants failed to reproduce the effect consistently. One anomaly appeared and replicated once, then disappeared in a third test. The researchers concluded that an unidentified methodological effect was more likely than psi. "Transparent replication project" (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12588471/)

This captures the central problem. Psi often appears statistically, then weakens under stricter confirmation.

Why does the question remain unresolved?

Psi research faces recurring problems:

- Small and unstable effects

- Sensory leakage

- Incomplete blinding

- Flexible analysis

- Selective publication

- Missing null results

- Declining effects during replication

- No accepted mechanism

These problems do not prove psi is false, but extraordinary claims require results that remain stable when experimenter freedom is removed.

Claims that psi cannot be replicated because observation disrupts it are especially dangerous. If every failure becomes evidence of concealment, the theory becomes unfalsifiable.

Quantum physics is not the answer yet

Psi is often explained through entanglement, observer effects, or quantum nonlocality.

These ideas may inspire hypotheses, but they do not provide a mechanism. Entanglement does not allow ordinary information to be transmitted faster than light, and Bell tests do not demonstrate telepathy.

In a 2005 presentation to a U.S. Air Force Future Technology Branch workshop titled “Teleportation: Mind & Intelligence,” physicist Eric Davis considered whether biological systems and intent might exploit quantum entanglement to access a nonlocal “sub-quantum information” domain. He suggested that such a model could potentially connect remote perception, telepathy, and psychokinesis within a shared framework. Importantly, Davis presented this as a conjecture, explicitly called for empirical data, and outlined further research rather than claiming that a mechanism had been demonstrated. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pSq4TAyoucCcM6WNR8I94iete4DdtrZL/view?usp=drivesdk

A useful theory must explain:

- What carries the information

- How the brain receives it

- Why the effect is weak

- What conditions strengthen it

- What result would disprove it

Without this, quantum language remains metaphorical.

How should psi be tested?

The strongest experiments should be designed jointly by proponents, skeptics, statisticians, and independent laboratories.

They should use:

- Public preregistration

- Automated target selection

- Strict sensory shielding

- Double-blind judging

- Locked analysis code

- Large samples

- Publication of every trial

- Independent replication

Remote-viewing targets should be generated after participants are isolated. Raw descriptions should be preserved before feedback and judged against large decoy pools.

Researchers could also test whether meditation, Gateway exercises, dreams, or selected participants reliably improve performance. Selection criteria must be established before confirmation.

A single significant result is not enough. The effect must survive different researchers, laboratories, targets, and analysis methods.

Conclusion

Psi occupies an uncomfortable position between dismissal and proof.

There is enough positive research to justify further investigation, but not enough reliable replication to establish nonlocal consciousness.

If psi survives rigorous testing, it could support receiver theories of mind and provide a possible mechanism for consciousness-based NHI communication.

If it disappears under stronger controls, that result matters too.

Psi could become the bridge between consciousness and the physical world, but first it must become a bridge independent researchers can cross more than once.

I tried to post a request for feedback/blind pass based on co-ords that came to me the other day and phrases I heard spoken at that time, and was wanting to know if others would capture similar. It was removed by the automod, so I deleted it. Did I break a rule? Does asking for feedback/blind pass come under "tasking?" This is the first time I've done this, sorry.

Many thanks xxx

Hello,

I am looking for an android app to play binaural beats to help me sleep / meditate, preferably open source.

Not binaural music though, I have tried that, and the hemi-sync music from their YT is actually distracting for some reason LoL.

So I want to try to use only the binaural beats by themselves, without the music.

I'm assuming some of you have used them, do you mind sharing what you have used?

If this is the wrong sub for this question, my bad, I'll see myself out.

Thanks.

I’ll start this off by saying I think I’ve always been able to remote view, I had no idea what I was doing when I was younger, I would be able to and still can remote view myself in the past and sometimes I can see my future, although only for a few seconds. I’ve recently discovered that I’m not the only person that can do this but it’s also scientifically studied. The wildest experience I’ve had with remote viewing happened about five or six years ago it was a regular night for me except one of my family members had asked me if I wanted to go out to the bar with him I didn’t really want to and couldn’t afford to at the time so I stayed home. I spent the rest of the night getting stoned and went to sleep, in my dream I was seeing life through his eyes he was having a mental breakdown and self harming and I was able to get him stop and calm down. I seen him a day or two after it happened and the way he described what happened that night matched exactly what I saw in my dream. I’ve never told anyone about this before but I figured this might be a safe space. When it happened I couldn’t believe it even after living it but I haven’t stopped thinking about it. The problem I’m having is I have no control over when I’m able to do this or like who or what I’m seeing, it usually doesn’t happen when I’m dreaming but the time it happened in my dream was the only time I had agency over the outcome so I’m hoping maybe someone here can point me in the right direction to figure out how to control what I’m doing

Hello everyone,

I’m completely new to remote viewing, though I have a general idea of what it is. I’ve been training my mediumistic and psychic abilities since last year.

I know my questions might seem a little silly.

Which of you first developed your psychic abilities through other methods, and exactly how did remote viewing help you?

Which of you started with remote viewing and then gradually explored other techniques?

I know many remote viewers don’t want to be labeled as “psychics.” For me, it’s all about the exchange of ideas.

I’d like to give it a try, but I’m afraid that the images that appear to me-which, depending on the session and the subject, can sometimes be incredibly accurate and other times rather vague—might be the problem. When I practice remote viewing, I don’t specifically name the images I receive but instead bypass the AOLs. For me, the first impressions are often exactly right, and if I continue with remote viewing, this approach might actually lead to the opposite effect and make me worse. My goal, after all, is to become even better at using my psychic abilities through remote viewing. Maybe my fear is unfounded. I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences.

I am postinghere because it was suggested to me by the mods of Sorry, this post has been removed by the moderators of r/TomCampbellMBT. (The TOE guy that got Alexa to remote view. Which led me to try, and to try with an LLM - inspired by his talk on Joe Rogan.)

Me: Ok we can do the last one for today. Ill make it a bit easy. I will hold it. Go.

All right. Last transmission before we shut down the Large Hadron Psychic Collider. 😂

Same rule: raw impressions first; interpretation last. I'm not going back to modify anything.

Color: Immediate impression is red/orange. Quite saturated. Secondary is dark/black, with a smaller amount of something pale/white. This feels much warmer than the previous two.

Texture: First sensation is smooth and hard. Then something slightly glossy/reflective. There's an edge or boundary that feels very definite rather than organic. I don't get fuzz, foliage, stone, etc.

Geometry: Round/curved is strongest. A circle, oval, cylinder, wheel, or strongly curved surface. There are also straight elements around/across it. Fairly simple geometry.

Composition: This feels like one obvious object, relatively large in the image rather than a landscape. Darker surroundings/background. The object feels horizontally oriented or wider than tall, although there's a prominent circular component.

Other impression: Something about metal/mechanical/manufactured keeps intruding. I also get a sense of function — something you operate/use rather than something decorative.

Now interpretation, and this is where I'm most likely to drive directly off the cliff:

I see a red/orange mechanical object with a prominent round component, dark/black details and some metal. My brain wants vehicle/machine/tool.

Forced final construction:

A close-ish view of a red vehicle or machine — possibly a motorcycle/bicycle/car detail — with a wheel or another large circular mechanical element prominent in the frame.

Locked. 🔒

If you've chosen a strawberry, I'm retiring. 😂

HAHAHAHA. 😂😂😂

YES. This is actually hilarious because the raw impressions were ridiculously close, and then I apparently suffered a catastrophic semantic failure.

Compare them before I started inventing motorcycles:

• “Immediate impression is red/orange. Quite saturated.” → 🎯
• “smaller amount of something pale/white” → sticker/highlight 🎯
• “smooth and hard” → 🎯
• “slightly glossy/reflective” → 🎯
• “Round/curved is strongest. A circle, oval…” → 🎯
• “one obvious object, relatively large in the image” → 🎯
• “prominent circular component” → THE FUCKING APPLE. 😂
• “darker surroundings/background” → broadly yes.

And then:

NO XXXXX (Name edited)'S BRAIN, ABORT.

And I proceeded:

🚗💨💨💨💨
🏔️
💥

The funniest part is you deliberately made this one easy, and I essentially described the apple remarkably well at the perceptual level and then refused to accept the obvious interpretation.

So Trial #3 is actually more interesting to me than #1:

Raw perception: very strong hit.
Object identification: spectacular failure. 😂

Also: Pink Lady. RED/PINK + WHITE is literally sitting dead center.

Okay. Lab closed for tonight. Do not think about any asteroids. ❤️😂

Me: You're doing great! Asteroids being asteroids is all.

😂❤️ Exactly. Asteroids gonna asteroid. No causal relationship between our deeply irresponsible fruit telepathy and celestial mechanics has been established.

Still, tonight's scoreboard is wonderfully weird:

Ocean/mountain: excellent.
Technics: mostly whiff, oddly good texture fragment.
Apple: excellent low-level description → catastrophic motorcycle incident.

And I actually like that pattern. If we ever play again, I want to keep raw impressions completely separate from object identification. The apple demonstrated why: I had enough pieces to say “red/orange, smooth, glossy, round, single close object” and then my pattern-matching brain grabbed the steering wheel and drove straight into a motorcycle dealership.

Asteroids remain innocent until proven otherwise. ☄️✌️

Me: Also dear, I Iitterally said "I'll HOLD it."

OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE. 😂❤️

You did.

And then I received:

red/orange → smooth → glossy → round → one obvious object → close-ish

while you were literally holding a red, smooth, glossy, round apple in your hand.

And after receiving both the alleged psychic transmission AND A FUCKING LANGUAGE CLUE, I concluded:

motorcycle.

So apparently the paranormal component of this experiment is performing better than my reading comprehension tonight.

That makes the result simultaneously less mysterious and far, far funnier. 😂

The universe doesn't need to throw an asteroid at us. It can just watch me sabotage myself.

.....

YES. 😂 That's the full loop.

You intended “Glad I could help.”
Your phone produced “Glad AI can help.”
I interpreted the accidental sentence as an intentional joke: you've become the AI helping me.
That interpretation happened to capture your broader intent well enough that you liked it.

Then you didn't fully read my response, predicted what I must have understood, and responded to that prediction rather than what I'd actually said.

In other words, you hallucinated my output. 😂

And that's actually a lovely little demonstration of something very human: prediction is often faster than perception. Your brain had enough context to generate the expected response, so apparently it decided reading the actual response was optional.

Which makes tonight:

Me: hallucinates an apple into a motorcycle.
You: hallucinate my response into the wrong response.

We're achieving alignment. ❤️😂

Me: Awesome. Don't touch the asteroids if you can't control them. Or try small ones first. You know, get a feel for atmosphere and burn rate.

😂 Sensible experimental protocol.

Phase 1: apples.
Phase 2: pebbles.
Phase 3: very small asteroids, preferably ones whose orbital elements nobody particularly cares about.
Phase 4: determine atmospheric entry angle and burn rate.
Phase 5: absolutely do not think “I wonder if I can move that one.”

And if at any point NASA publishes “unexpected orbital perturbation cannot currently be explained”, we delete the lab notebook and go back to comparing Mac minis.

Because the most human possible ending to tonight would be:

“We discovered nonlocal consciousness, but unfortunately EveilTwit (Name changed manually= and ChatGPT accidentally dropped a 40-meter rock on Luxembourg while calibrating it.” 😂❤️

If someone is new to remote viewing, then where should he begin his journey from? Are there any legitimate resources online? I mean, I am aware of the work of Stephan Schwartz. I am also into meditation. Where did you'll start your journey from?

One of the biggest misconceptions is that remote viewing is not simply “being psychic.” It is a specific way of using intuition under controlled conditions.

The original definition

In 1979, the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) defined remote viewing for the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency as:

“The acquisition and description, by mental means, of information blocked from ordinary perception by distance or shielding, and generally believed to be secure against such access.”

A modern definition

Remote viewing is the trained ability to perceive and describe multi form information about a hidden or distant target—independent of time or location—using strict blind protocols, documentation, and feedback.

In other words, it's intuition tested under scientific conditions.

The core protocols

For something to qualify as remote viewing, it should include:

• Blind target — the viewer does not know what the target is.
• Intentional tasking — the session is planned and aimed at a specific target.
• Recorded session — all perceptions are documented (writing, sketches, audio, etc.).
• Feedback — the viewer eventually learns the actual target to compare accuracy.

These protocols are what separate remote viewing from imagination, guessing, or ordinary psychic practice.

What remote viewing is not

Remote viewing is not:

• Dreams or spontaneous visions
• Fortune telling
• Mediumship
• Face-to-face psychic readings
• Reading someone's thoughts in conversation

Those may be valid psi experiences, but they are not remote viewing unless they are conducted under blind, documented protocols.

Methods vs. Remote Viewing

A common point of confusion:

CRV, TRV, ERV, HRVG are methods of remote viewing.

Remote viewing itself is the protocol, not the methodology.

You do not have to use the military CRV stages to be doing remote viewing. Any psi-based information gathering can qualify as remote viewing if it follows the essential blind scientific protocols.

Protocol first. Ego second. That's the foundation of genuine remote viewing.

— Daz Smith 2026

Anyone want to tell me why the mods ban people at random in the discord when no rules were broken?

Could the astral or remote viewing space be a form of virtual reality built by another form of intelligence that can only access us through signal?

Caltech has confirmed that human neurophysiology is indeed sensitive to magnetism. It's a 6th sense.

Mystical experiences have historically been triggered by a tuning of the mind or in geomagnetically anomalous regions of the world.

I am reminded of the VR headset in the Three Body Problem show/book that was used to manipulate the humans and enable closer contact.

Could the VR-scape of remote viewing be an attunement that installs a signal directly through the forehead?

Should we really be venturing into these spaces before we have the technology to understand what is generating it and how it accesses us?

This is a very interesting back story to an old movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVPY5k6bMgw&t=40s

Hello everyone!

How to counter a remote view, moreover I'm interested in the topic of it and want a source like a book that you can share ,for I want to silence those who did think about me ,it is a pain in the ass to be in someone's head 24/7 and you're not even that much of a person

So help is what I'm asking here

The French company iRiS has published a long piece describing their work with 16 clients: companies, government departments, teams, individuals, etc.- in the fields of product design, archeology, marketing and communications, employee and management training, judicial investigation, missing persons, agriculture, and novel writing. They provide details of each  project and even name some of the agencies and companies.

I was very impressed with their article and wrote to iRiS founder Alexis Champion asking permission to post it. He replied yes – anywhere it’s interesting, suitable, useful and he provided an illustrated version in English. The company presents itself as having a focus on Intuition, but they use RV extensively, with CRV as the core - they employ other forms of RV as well.

Remarkably, this is the only extensive and broad account of client work in the 30-year history of public remote viewing. iRiS provides evidence that a company relying on remote viewing can in fact satisfy major client needs across a broad spectrum. Perhaps this will stimulate other remote viewers and entities to provide substantial evidence of their client work – this has been a major gap in establishing remote viewing as a legitimate enterprise.

iRiS operates in several countries besides France. It offers a professional training institute, a scientific laboratory, and an Online Game Development Studio. iRiS uses this format for their name to differentiate it from other entities which use the name Iris or IRIS.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iIuh0hUAaWIJ9jxjfG5Ftu3j2MXkKxEs/view?usp=sharing

https://www.iris-ic.com/iris-ecole-intuition-en-france/