Remote Viewing: June 1, 2016

0 Flares Facebook 0 Reddit 0 Email -- StumbleUpon 0 Twitter 0 Pin It Share 0 Google+ 0 LinkedIn 0 0 Flares ×

Here’s a new ‘remote viewing’ example from this morning:

My buddy Steve lives over 500 miles away. On Monday, he selected a pool of possible ‘target’ objects, one of which he’ll place on his kitchen table on Wednesday morning.

The objects are very different from each other – like, say, an yellow rubberized croc sandal vs. a metal toy car vs. a jar of pennies. Steve assigns each object an identifier (e.g. Object 1 = A, Object 2 = , etc). Next, he selects a method for randomly selecting one of the objects, writes this ‘protocol’ down on a piece of paper, then seals it in an envelop. For example, he might have six different objects in his pool, and the protocol might say, “On Wednesday at 9am, roll a 6-sided die – if you get a “1”, then select object A, 2 = object B, etc., then place that object on the kitchen table.

However, he tells me *none* of this. I don’t know how many objects in the pool, nor his methodology for selection (both of which changes with each experiment). The only thing that I know is that the object will fit in a large wooden bowl, located on his kitchen table, and then his instructions specific to this particular experiment (sent by SMS message that I receive on Monday afternoon):

“Remote Viewing Target: 53016-VTC-02. Please respond by 11:59 May 31, 2016, feedback in morning of June 1, 2016” (see picture above)

So, what I am attempting to do is to ‘see’ an object, 500+ miles away, two days *before* it’s been randomly selected. That is, not only am I attempting to see an object located physically far away but also precognitively, before it’s even been chosen. And … the only connection between me and the future target are some written instructions which describe a random selection process in the future.

Yesterday (Tuesday), I closed my eyes and what I saw in my mind’s eye a vague object – this is what I wrote down and texted to Steve: “Metallic. Cylindrical. AOL: food can. Colors: white, blue”

‘AOL’ means that I’m conscious of the fact that my mind is trying to ‘name’ the object, rather than simply describing its characteristics – because, a ‘metallic, cylindrical’ object could be lots of things, not just a can of bean, right?) So, by calling AOL, I’m simply acknowledging that the object reminds me of a can of food (and trying to get that image out of my mind so that it doesn’t distract me). In this case, even after the AOL, the only additional information I got was a feeling of color. Sometimes the object is more more clear … this time, I couldn’t get any more detail.

Here’s the target which was then, subsequently, randomly selected from Steve’s pool of possible target objects:

“Galvanized tin over steel flue adapter”

My friend Erich asks: “I am just wondering if the fact that Steve knows you and ultimately knows what the (possible) target is, if there isn’t some kind of retrocausal psychic effect would be going on. As long as there is a person involved it seems like a psychic link is possible. Not trying to argue. Just curious.”

Indeed, with the RV protocols developed at Stanford SRI with the U.S. military, they took extensive, additional precautions to avoid issues such as fraud, misreporting, error, mind reading, etc.. Ideally, we’d have one person selecting a pool of potential targets, a second person randomly selecting from that pool, a third person conducting the experiment, and a larger group of viewers (all isolated from each other). I would with other groups and protocols, too, and it’s been fascinating to learn, by experience, different methodologies.

Those of you who’ve been following my psychic journey, realize that this isn’t the first, or even the ‘best’ result … but for me, it’s a helpful reminder that the mysteries which I’ve been exploring are ever-present and accessible.

And, given the vast pool of potential objects … I’m pretty psyched!

Copyright © 2014, all rights reserved by Michael Straus.