I read the book recently by Jim Schnabel (Remote Viewers), as well as the abstracts that you suggested. Remote Viewing is not what I thought it was. It seems to be helpful as a descriptive tool, but doesn't really help you to identify what a target is. You even have instructions on the practice targets that we should "describe, not identify". Do I understand it right? Can a viewer ever identify what a target is?
(NOTE: This answer has been provided by Palyne (PJ) Gaenir, webmaster of the Firedocs web site).
viewing is about acquiring data. Part of the RV process
requires that one train themselves out of assumptions about
"what" something is -- referred to as "analysis" in CRV
but in its most basic form what we're really talking about
So, much RV data is not going to include "what" the target is specifically, but instead, a great deal of detail about it.
BUT. That being said, this does not mean that a Viewer is not, often, going to recognize what something is in general or even in specific. Especially if the target is some high- consciousness target, something lots of people see or think about. (It is generally easier to RV the great pyramid than someone's uncle George's woodshed in Kansas, for instance.)
I don't think it would be too surprising for a Viewer to say, "I think this is the Statue of Liberty." However, it would be fairly unusual for a Viewer to say something like, "this is a 1968 Ford Mustang convertible." They'd probably get that there was an object, it was a vehicle, it was a car, it was blue... maybe things like, it is kind of old, or it is shiny, or it is in motion. If they were personally really "into" cars they might get more. But the degree of "energy" of the target (some scientists refer to this as a matter of Shannon Entropy, but that isn't really known yet) is part of what influences what degree of contact, and that relates to how much 'identity' as well, that a Viewer gets. Note: in the vast majority of RV sessions, the target is already known to the analyst, so the issue of recognition is not quite such a big deal. The analyst knows what they are looking for. It is not always relevant that the Viewer doesn't know what they are describing. Their job is to describe; the analyst, who knows either the target or the site or the suspicions about them, is responsible for putting the data into context. :PJ
- First, if the viewer is allowed to coalesce his/her thinking into the identification, then all the viewer's preconceived ideas about the Empire State Building, as well as any and all related memories, emotions, etc. about it must be dealt with. Along with this, all >>>related<<< memories, emotions, etc. creep in. In this example, the viewer would not only have to deal with all STRAY CATs about the Empire State Building, but about New York City, New York weather, traffic, people, etc. Pretty soon, the burden would be too much, and would shut the viewer down. As long as you keep the viewer viewing an unidentifiable, there are fewer problems with STRAY CATs.
- In a real-world situation, the viewer is not there to view what you already know. The viewer is there to give information that you don't already know. Let us take an example where the police are looking for a hostage and have narrowed the location down to a certain building - let's say, the Ajax Warehouse, a recognizable landmark on the edge of town. If the viewer says, "large", "red", "brick-like", etc., and suddenly says, "This is the Ajax Warehouse!" and shuts down, then the viewer has done you no good. If, however, the monitor/viewer team is trained, practiced, and conditioned to move from knowns to unknowns, the monitor can say, "Good. Now, move to the target person's location within the Ajax Warehouse and describe." The viewer, having gotten the overall location, now provides detailed information of exactly where the hostage is within the location. Further, if the viewer says, "This is the basement!" You have what you want, right? Maybe so, but still not exactly. Let's say that it is a big basement with a catacomb-like layout, miles of pipes, etc. You still don't know where within the basement the hostage is. Now, though, the viewer is working against a double-whammy. He/she knows that 1) it is a basement 2) of a warehouse. You must be aware of the fact that all the viewer's memories and preconceptions of both basements and warehouses will tend to pollute the impressions gained from there on, unless the monitor moves the viewer to another unknown. Otherwise, the viewer will tend to describe it as cold, dark and damp, when in fact, the hostage's exact location within the basement may be a warm, well-lit room. The simple act of having identified "warehouse" and "basement" may lead the police to the wrong place and thereby give the criminals time to kill the hostage. At this point, the viewer may become more of a burden to the police than an asset. Therefore, it could be best in this situation for the monitor to either end the session, or just shift the viewer to a complete unknown. The monitor could say something like, "OK. Now, move to the target person and describe. Condition? Position? Activities?" (Remember, the fact that the "target person" is a hostage is still not known to the viewer.)