Category: Astronomy Protocol: CRV (with monitor) Coordinates: 301875 962548 655314 Number of viewers: 1 (Bernhard Reicher) Number of sessions: 1 Date: 11/22/2017 Time: 7.05pm – 8.22pm Duration: 77 minutes Pages: 11
Recently, reports about an astronomical object that entered our solar system opened speculations. This “Oumuamua” named object is characterized by its extra-solar origin and unusually elongated shape. This shape, with an estimated length of several hundred meters, make you think of cigar-shaped “mothership” UFOs , which were reported in many UFO-cases. Has such a flying object entered our solar system or is it an exotic, natural structure?
One of our seminar graduates, Bernhard Reicher (from Reicher & Stark), was sent to the Oumuamua object in an operational session.
Target cue: “Describe the astronomical object Oumuamua, which was discovered on 10/19/2017, at the time of the session!”
Already in stage 3 , Bernhard received impressions that indicated an unsteady, rocky structure. He was particularly struck by two aspects: firstly, the horizon seems to be “overstepping” when one is on top of the object. Maybe it stumbles very much over its longitudinal axis? On the other hand, the overall structure of the object is strongly twisted, like a wet towel when wringed out. Furthermore, Bernhard perceived holes in different sizes and shapes on the surface. Here is the sketch with his first impressions:
Stage 4 focused on the most important sensory impressions of the object. Among them were “black”, “cold” and “hard”. But also brownish and silvery hues were perceived casually. Other important impressions were “twisted”, “tilting horizon”,“flowing, wavy shapes”, “soft”, “porous” and “elongated”.
Stage 6 should now provide further detailed descriptions of the object. First, we tried again to summarize the basic form with its properties:
The elongated shape, the twisted surface and the porous properties stood out here. Since the drawing was still somewhat artificial, we investigated, among other things, the cause of the twisted turns to concretize the properties of the object. These emerged as a natural structure of geological origin, which was created by pressure and counter-movements. We also tried to examine the inside of the object, which was porous, but not hollow. It reminded of the construction of lava rock. Signs of life or technology could not be perceived on the object itself. Another sketch of surface impressions:
Now the question arose as to how the object was originally created and how this strange shape came about. As an origin Bernhard perceived a red-hot, spherical mass, which rotated very fast. It was about the size of the earth’s moon, and seemed to have been a young, and therefore still glowing, planet or moon. The elongated object was eventually ejected from this celestial body as a liquid “splash”, and when cooled it assumed its characteristic shape (“thrown out by centrifugal force and then cooled down”). We also found out that this happened more often there, although not every ejected fragment produced such an unusual shape. The ejection also caused the object’s twist, which resulted in the twisted surface structure.
So obviously a normal process, which led in this case to an extraordinary shape object. Finally, there was the question for the age of Oumuamua. Although determing the exact age in cosmic periods, for lack of clear reference points, is limited. We used the origin of our solar system, the extinction of the dinosaurs, and our present time (“time of session”) as anchor points:
Considering the usual stretching and compression effects in such long timelines, we estimate the emergence of Oumuamua to be a period of 500 to 1000 million years ago.
The data of this single session showed a purely natural object. No artificially constructed aspects or signs of life could be perceived there. Most likely, it’s the description of a lava splatter, which is ejected as if from a volcano, then hardens in space and continues to wander through stellar or interstellar space. The impressions of a “tilting horizon” would fit quite well with the following artistic idea of the movement:
Of course, there will be the typical UFO euphoria around Oumuamua, as with many meteorites or the Ceres Lights . And who knows, maybe there’s a big mothership or something like that. Extraterrestrial space traffic is often recorded during sessions on exoplanetary systems as an interesting “by-catch”. In this case, however, it seems “only” to be a very unusually shaped asteroid, which began its existence long ago as a large lava splash from a glowing celestial body. Nonetheless, a discovery that fascinates because of its form and distant origin.
Update 16.10.2018:Two american viewers found some signs of life inside the porous structure of Oumuamua (like in a cave system). Maybe we do another session on Oumuamua some time, with special attention to the objects inside.
After lots of private sessions with timelines, optimas and missing items (which is basically the essence of Remote Viewer’s everyday life), we can introduce you to another interesting mystery project here. For this we have viewed another exoplanet. After the Gliese 581 system has been visited by many viewers in the last few years (also here in this blog), we dedicated this session to a recent discovery: The exoplanet Proxima Centauri b, which was discovered in 2016.
Artistic presentation of Proxima Centauri b (Source: SpaceEngine)
At a distance of “only” 4.2 light-years, Proxima Centauri b is the closest known planet outside of our own solar system. He orbits the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri at a distance that lies in the habitable zone.Habitable zone means, that forms of life known to us can exist, because the temperatures are such that water in the liquid state can exist on the surface without freezing or evaporating.
So is there life on Proxima Centauri b ? We wanted to find out, and experienced some surprises again. The following impressions are based on an detailled single-session, and each reader is invited to self-investigate via Remote Viewing or their preferred method. All other readers can view the content either as a sci-fi fantasy or as interstellar everyday life in space. 😉
Category: Astronomy Protocol: CRV (with monitor) Coordinates: 475855 793504 809441 Number of Viewers: 1 (Benny Pamp) Number of Sessions:1 Date: 2017-07-02 Time: 5.37h – 6.55h PM Duration: 78 minutes Pages: 14
The target formulation was:“Describe the planet Proxima Centauri b at the time of the session!”
In addition to the target formulation, a few movement commands were coded so that the viewer can move in the target area without assumptions during the course of the session (eg O1 = from a height of 10km above the surface with view to the horizon).
Let’s start the journey to our neighbor system: The most important sensory impressions were dominated by the colors red, gray, yellow and a small trace of green. The surfaces ranged from powdery-dusty impressions to razor-sharp hard edges . Here, the viewer has already emphasized the strong separation between soft and hard impressions, as if there is a kind of abrupt border somewhere.
The temperatures were also interesting, as individual strong heat points showed up here and there, but it was much cooler in the shade. The difference between light and shadow seemed to strongly influence the temperatures there. As a major noise, the viewer could hear a roar, crackle and a trickle (as of dust). This indicates a certain geological or thermal activity.
In the AI’s (aesthetic impressions), the viewer emphasized that the environment was “uncomfortable” , that one should “not go on and pause” at certain places. So you should think twice about how to move around there. The reason for this would soon emerge (partly literally).
Now we came to arguably the most intriguing query on foreign worlds, namely the EI’s (impressions of emotions in the target area).The viewer recieved quite technical EI’s like “tidying up” and “organized”. It seemed to the viewer that there were engineers among them, albeit a bit dull. Of course, that should be broken down later.
When the time came to move freely in the target area, we got us first an impression of the environment by movement command. The viewpoint of the viewer was close to the planet’s surface:
The environment was dim and there were eye-catching funnels in the ground. These did not seem like normal craters, but softer. Inside these funnels was cold, damp mud and crystal-like chunks. In addition, the viewer had the impression of “chemical cold” . A cryo-volcano? Anyway, the funnel did not go very deep, so it could be a weathered crater.
Then I let the viewer look upwards. He described a dark sky with sparkling stars and a moon. This moon was clearly strewn with craters and had a reddish tint. According to the viewer, on the surface of Proxima Centauri b itself exists an atmosphere. Therefore, he was probably on the night side at the time, because he could see the stars sparkle (stars in the vacuum do not sparkle).
The temperature there was even felt to be relatively pleasant (around 5°C / 41°F). The air, on the other hand, seemed theoretically respirable to humans, but the viewer said that his lungs would “crystallize”. According to him, this would not be due to coldness (which I naturally first thought of as a monitor), but to any other substances that affect the lungs (chemicals?). Perhaps a really cold enviroment could have also be perceived wrong, as it happened in other space sessions at extreme temperatures.
Anyway, we now had a nice postcard from an exoplanet from our neighborhood. Of course I wanted to see more, and moved the viewer by movement command on the day side of the planet. There was a tricky circumstance immediately: The planet is obviously spinning very slowly, which causes the daytime to heat up a lot. While on the darker side it reaches from sharp-edged to muddy surface impressions, on the day side only powdery materials showed up.
It is noteworthy, however, that the hot spots were very clearly defined, instead of heating the entire, bright planetary side evenly. It gave the impression that strongly focused rays from the sun hit the surface. These areas were described by the viewer as “thicker light” . To verify that the cause was really the sun (Proxima Centauri), I let the viewer check to see if the radiation source was artificial or natural. It turned out to be a natural, hot, lava-like sphere.
The Proxima sun seems to have very punctiform radiation ejections or prominences, severely affecting the solar side of the planet. Maybe it’s the small size (red dwarf) and the relative closeness between Proxima Centauri b and this sun? When I asked the viewer what would happen if he put his hand in the beam, he replied “There would only be bones left”.
Leaving behind these “idyllic” landscape impressions, I still wanted a complete picture of the planet. After the movement command, the Viewer noticed a gossamer ring system around the planet (at least two ring segments), which is difficult to see. Maybe like Jupiter compared to Saturn . Furthermore, the impression was confirmed again that one side of the planet is very hot and stressed because of the slow rotation (bright , hot, dusty, dry, rugged), and the dark side rather cool. In addition, the viewer perceived a climate pattern in which the weather is “blown” from the sun-blasted side to the cooler side of the shade.
During the investigation from a distance, the planets moon came into the picture again. There, it was noticeable that an artificial structure circled this moon, which was probably captured by its gravity at some point (it was not there originally). This structure consisted of several contiguous segments that reminded the viewer of a medieval chainmail. It was apparently not completed. The original purpose of this structure was hard to pin down, but it collected heat or energy and passed it on from segment to segment. A kind of collector?
The discovery of the artificial structure made us look around the area even more for abnormalities. And indeed we found what we were looking for. A little further away, between the “chainmail” structure and Proxima Centauri b , were several artificial objects. These were shaped like projectiles or capsules. What did the objects do there? In any case, the obfuscate EI’s seemed to originate from exactly these objects, which the viewer described earlier in the session as “cleaning up“, “organizing” and “engineering“. In the overall sketch was still the impression of “remote control” added. Of course, we took a closer look at this:
We tried to look into these objects. First, it was noticeable that the outer shell was very thick and windowless. The need for this had to do with radiation and brightness (“blind with window“). The interior had only a very dim, turquoise light that seemed to come from any direct light source.
There were also instruments consisting of asymmetrically arranged buttons and a kind of display. The operation was rather exotic: Both buttons and display felt like sand, which you can push in deeply to make three-dimensional input operations. Since this “sand” does not trickle away, it must be special particles that are held together.
The instruments inevitably led to the question of a crew. In the middle of the object there was a single seat (rather a comfortable couch) on which a being was located. I had it described in more detail:
It had a very elegant looking helmet or mask on, and thin arms with elongated fingers. These worked in accordance with the operating concept of the instruments, where you “push in” very deeply into the sand. From the lower body or legs, the viewer had no perception. But you don’t all the details in a person perception all the time.
It made me wonder what was under the headgear. So I let the viewer look underneath: A bony looking, elongated face showed up. This first reminded him of a horse’s head, but tapering much more sharply. Another feature was something like beaver teeth in the lower jaw, and a long, sticking out tongue. Then I had the eyes of the beign described. They were reminiscent of frog eyes, with their eyelids moving from outside to inside.
The skin color of the creature looked grayish-blue, and felt like latex. The viewer was irritated that the body looked so bony and dry. As we found out, it was because this being was already dead. So there had already been a putrefaction or dehydration. But what happened? We tried to “ask” the pilot via the interview-tool. Here we learned, among other things, that apparently a kind of accident happened with a radiation emission, which webt unnoticed by the beigns. Basicly they fell asleep and died:
V = viewer T = pilot
V: Hello, what are you doing? T: (Viewer gets picture of a lifeless floating body) V: Are you still alive? T: “Unconsciously / Information field” V: (viewer goes to a time, where pilot still lived) … V: What happened? T: heat, radiation, slow radiation, drowsy V: What did you try there? T: Recording data. Irregularity discovered: The artificial structure (“chain mail thing”) is not from us. Are they crazy? V: What happened in your accident? T: Falling asleep, wondering, came out of shadow V: How did that happen? T: Precise reflection, amplification of radiation, we do not know exactly V: Are you from the system with the planet (Proxima Centauri b)? T: Neighborhood V: How do you travel (interstellar)? T: One is “frozen” first … (Viewer gets pictures of “itinerary”) T: break through “space wall”, “mirror”, “curvature of space” (goes very fast) V: Why “frozen”? T: Freezing is gentle on the brain and nerves (during the journey) V: Thanks for the information! T: *dead*
In addition to the circumstances of their demise, the interstellar travel concept of these beings was also revealed here. It reminded a bit of a Stargate from the scifi-series, but without a ring. The small ships of the beings project these portals themselves. They must be crossed in the “frozen” state for health reasons. The portals open like a puddle, also a’la Stargate , but with only a single wave. The portal “disk” itself looks like a mirror or tin foil, and seems to be almost infinitely thin, which is reminiscent of an event horizon.
However, we really could not understand this technology. To put it simply, it is like “getting in” a mirror, turning around, stepping out, and you’re at your destination. It is still important that between the start and finish point is a straight line. However, planets and other obstacles on the route can be flown through without a hitch. Overall, the technology of the beings, especially with regard to the radiation accident and the need for “freezing”, does not seem to be fully developed yet. Of course, earth’s humanity could be lucky if it had already reached this level.
After the session the viewer has created detailed, artistic interpretations of the impressions of the pilot and his vehicle (click to enlarge!):
After the “posthumous” dialogue, we once again turned to the planet Proxima Centauri b . As there was still a good portion of session time left, I wanted to find out a few more details. First, a cross-sectional perception of the planet:
The planet revealed a rather unspectacular structure, with a tough interior. Worth mentioning is still the core, which seemed irregularly shaped and squeezable. So it was no massive core, as it was in many sessions on planets and moons in our own solar system.
Finally, we searched for native life on or in the planet. In fact, the viewer could perceive two conspicuous types of organisms that live in the muddy part of the surface. Apart from that, there was only a vague impression of “bacteria” .
The one organism is a kind of worm that is no larger than two rice grains. The worm has a clearly segmented exoskeleton and broom-like appendages at the head end. It moves through grooves on the surface of the mud, where alkaline substances are taken up as food. It was also interesting that these worms keep a kind of “summer sleep” when the muddy region returns slowly to direct sunlight and dries up.
The other organism was significantly smaller than the worm, and fused with the ground. However, it was not possible to find out if this is a plant or an animal. Maybe it can be described as a kind of polyp, or it goes in the direction of mushrooms. The organism felt hard rubbery to the viewer, and attracted attention with a circling structure reminiscent of creepers.
The fact that Proxima Centauri b does not have much biodiversity may be due to the difficult climatic conditions. But after all, some macroscopic life was perceived. After the session, both of these organisms were drawn in even more detail, since the artistic aesthetics often has to yield to the limited session time during viewing:
Conclusion: An extremely productive single session on the currently most interesting planet in our neighbor system. But how reliable are these partly scifi-like perceptions, and what could come from the realm of unconscious fantasy effects? As I mentioned at the beginning, anyone with the appropriate skills is invited to look around the Proxima Centauri system and share their insights. This of course applies to all projects in this blog, whether consisting of a single session, or edited by entire project groups. 😉
As part of a new CROPfm podcast, we again conducted a remote viewing experiment, this time on the topic of crop circles . With the support of Germany’s leading crop circle researcher Andreas Müller (also the operator of the well-known blog http://www.grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.de/), six targets were made available to us, containing both man-made and supposed real crop circles.
Three of the included crop circles have been proven to be man made, two are considered by experts to be very likely to be genuine. Another target, the crop circle of the famous Olivers Castle video, was viewed as a bonus.
The target cues in this project consisted only of geo-coordinates and time periods (provided by Andreas Müller), to which the respective crop circles emerged. The starting position of the viewer should be 40 meters above the target. Here’s an example (translation: “Describe the location at the geo coordinates XY 40 meters from above and looking down to the field in the follwing time period…”):
Let us now turn to the individual crop circles and the session data generated (sequence as discussed in the CROPfm broadcast) …
For each crop circle target, a timeline was used to narrow down the exact period of origin. In the case of this target, it stood out in particular that it must have been created for a long period of time until early dawn. When we looked at the genesis itself, we found that there were several people on site who worked in two groups. They used tools that worked like ropes, rakes and tarpaulins.
To create the crop circle, certain points were marked and then the ropes were led in a circle to lay the grain. The ropes were fixed with the rakes. Hereby we had already clear indications of man made activity. Another indicatin was that one group covered the edges of the crop circle with tarpaulins for some reason, while the other group continued to flatten the grain.
One more obvious aspect was that the people were apparently afraid of the rising sun or were under pressure to finish their work before sunrise so as not to get caught. Finally, the viewer still described his impression that the center of the place was like a “stamp” that would be printed (in a figurative sense). We could not explain this aspect in the session until the target was finally dissolved.
Solving & Summary: This crop circle was a commissioned work for the BBC, sponsored in some form by Yell (similar to the Yellow Pages). The logo of this company can also be seen in the middle of the crop circle, which would explain the “stamp imprint” aspect that was perceived. It is also true that the crop circle was created by two groups. Further details you learn from Andreas Müller in the podcast. Conclusion: Hoax
The second crop circle provided very intense, emotional data about the processes involved in the formation. Here too, a group of people was perceived, who worked for several hours at night on the crop circle’s creation. Distinct were the impressions of vandalism, so that the viewer felt really sorry for the grain. Equally unflattering were the intentions of the creators, which were percieved as “fun with vandalism” , “tension not to get caught” and “prank – funny when idiots see that”.
The viewer perceived various objects that had to do with the creation of the crop circle. These include ropes and plastic objects, but primarily a tool that was operated with the feet and ropes to lay the grain flat. These were surprisingly perceived as wedge-shaped, with the tools for flattening the grain for crop circle hoaxes are usually rather board-shaped .
The procedure with the tools contained at the same time the main impression “fraud”, which was further accompanied with “loveless, aggressive”, “malicious”, “picking apart, plucking” and “destruction” . This was confirmed again in another sketch with the impressions “Structure willfully destroyed, it was more natural before this” .
We then took these people with the interview tool to get even more direct information about their intention and their approach. The “answers” were quite amusing. Here is the transcription:
V = viewer G = crop circle hoaxers
V: You there! G: Looking up scared, like meerkats V: What are you doing? G: Artwork like graffiti (“because no spray cans”) V: reasons? G: Fun with vandalism, tension not getting caught, funny when idiots see that, prank V: What are you hoping for? G: Tension during the process, becoming anonymous celebrities V: Why secretly? G: Are you stupid? If they knew … “fear of shotgun” V: Ciao! G: “Tactactac” movement…
Shortly after the disappearance of the hoaxers, another person appeared in the crop circle that the viewer perceived as a researcher. This researcher investigated the crop circle, and declared it a hoax:
Then the person quickly left the place. A long time after sunrise, another group of people appeared. However, these seemed to be normal visitors or interested parties, who did not notice anything about the nocturnal happenings.
Solving & Summary: The hoaxers were caught at night from a distance by crop circle researchers, including Andreas Müller. They found many objects in the unfinished crop circle that were left behind, including tape measures and planks. Andreas Müller then decided to leave the place quickly so as not to be falsely accused of being one of the hoaxers. Later, the farmer joined in and was annoyed at those who had caught the hoaxers, so that the crop circle could not be completed. Because then the farmer could have demanded entrance fee. Conclusion: Hoax
This crop circle initially proved difficult in the sessions. However, there was the appearance of many technical aspects, including planning by computer programs. Including USB sticks and impressions of virtual 3D constructs that were possibly used for planning. The characteristics of the technical impressions were “bundling information” , “in the right interface” , “closed room” and “two persons on chairs discussing something” .
Furthermore, work processes were carried out by persons in which something was “filled out” on the basis of a template. In detail, there were the impressions “turn something” , “mischievous” and “secretly” . As involved objects there were “rounded, hollow tube” , “plan, matrix (like paper)” and “spatula” :
Finally, there was an impression that something had been “sent” from a circular structure flanked by technical objects. Whether this was an abstract perception of the crop circle or its “statement”, or something different, is unclear.
The difficulty was that no aspects of a cornfield were perceived in this session, which led to uncertainties regarding the interpretation. Only in a second session grain-like structures were recognized:
But this session also caused confusion, as the viewer felt that something was wrong with time (as if parts of the place were perceived at noon, others at sunset). Maybe there was a mixing up of the timeline. In the end, the viewer still got a strange impression that some impulse emanated from the place that triggered something in the brain ( “that you think in the pattern of the atmospheres” ). Sketch of the area in the head that would be stimulated:
Whether this had anything to do with a statement inherent in the crop circle or another aspect discussed during the summary is unclear. Overall, these two sessions did not meet our desired quality standard of clarity, but we tended slightly to hoax (due to the computer impressions and “trowelling” people in the target working on a plan). Unfortunately, there was no time for further sessions on this target.
Solving & Summary: In this case, again hoaxers were caught red-handed while they created the crop circle. This was achieved by the crop circle researchers with night vision devices, which could perceive the weak LED lamps of hoaxers in the field even from a distance. The researchers decided to play loud music (“Ring of Fire”) in their car to scare the hoaxers. The LED lights showed that they were fleeing. Maybe the perceived impulses in the sessions were the sound waves from the car speakers? Unfortunately, we were unsure in this case, because the impressions were too abstract.Conclusion:Hoax
Let’s get to the probably most complex session in this project. The viewer first got impressions at the timeframe when the crop circle was already completed. There were already many people who examined the structure. We recognize this, among other things, because people were instructed from outside to go in the middle, but should be careful not to trample anything outside the crop circle. There was nothing new created, but only something already existing explored:
In addition, a helicopter was perceived, which circled over the area, and the crew examined the circle. They also seemed to be looking for something that had to do with camera equipment. Was this a news helicopter? In any case, it seemed to be primarily about observing, measuring and filming the crop circle.
Now, of course, it should be found out how this crop circle was created. For this purpose, the timeline tool was used again, to determine the time of the crop circles creation. Several hours before the appearance of the first people, a round object was perceived, which changed the “undefined”, bristly ground (cornfield) (click to enlarge!):
Of course, this round object and its activities should be examined more closely. It turned out that on closer examination it looked rather oval or had a flexible formability. The object was relatively small, shone white-beige to yellow, and felt partly massive. It “roamed” the grain without touching it, seeming to “seek” something. Then, a kind of pressure energy pushed the grain aside:
At some point the object found a suitable place, and “injected” something (energetically?) into the soil under the grain. This caused a chain reaction that spread underground like a net (reminiscent of the propagation of a fungal network in time lapse). This process had something to do with magnetism and certain minerals in the soil that reacted chemically. Above the earth, it created a kind of negative pressure, which pulled the grain to the ground. This resulted in the final structure of the crop circle.
Apparently, these objects can not arbitrarily create crop circles anywhere, as certain soil conditions must be present for the effect. Or other techniques would have to be used. In any case, these extraordinary, energetic impressions strongly indicate that we were not dealing here with a man made crop circle, that was trampled with planks and ropes. It has also been attempted to perceive an overall picture of the crop circle, with some energetic aspects that are apparently invisible to the naked eye:
In addition to the many “sub-circles”, the viewer also perceived a meaningful course or statement behind the form, which was drawn like a dashed wheel and a center. While the center acted as a kind of anchor point, the surrounding areas contained aspects such as “growth” and “evolution”. The outermost area contained the aspects “information” and “cycle”. In addition, there were “reversive” , “mirroring” and “big / small” (like both on the large and small scale).What the exact meaning of the message was, is not clear, but it could have something to do with the origins of life.
But if this crop circle is not man-made, who are its makers? In short, the answer was “A global consciousness expresses itself by symptoms like [z] (= encoded in the session for real crop circles)!”. So it seemed more a metaphysical field of consciousness than individuals. The whole thing was reminiscent of an article or a channeling on the so-called Kanasejey, which should be a form of non-physical consciousness from the Earth’s interior. We started our own “interview” with these” consciousness-beigns” in a separate session:
V = viewer G1 = crop circle maker
V: Hello! G1: *happy* V: What led you to this place? G1: Present, Display Area, Hill V: Why are you doing the change of place? G1: Increase, Offer, Gift (indefinable light and love stuff) V: With which objects do you carry out the changes? G1: Oval, beige glowing objects:
V: Describe the activity with this object! G1: Remote control, imprinting your own thoughts, probe V: How does the object affect the place? G1: Flatten the plants, push, grow, tousle, blast V: What do you think about the place after the change? G1: Wonderful, happy V: Describe the function after the change! G1: Centering attention, opening, teaching, gathering, preparing opportunities, opening mind, beyond the earthly V: How do you find the reactions of others to the changed place? G1: Well, some people see it that way, some the other way… *shrugs* V: Thanks for the information! G1: *a little bit excited*
With the article / channeling in mind that they came from within the earth, the monitor also tried to pinpoint the location of this awareness. For this a cross-section of the earth was used:
When the viewer was supposed to draw the earth as a cross section and drew the crust, he also perceived the core of the earth (here again the world view of a hollow earth is contradicted, but that only as a side aspect). When asked about the origin of the field of consciousness, he drew pulsating energy fields, which were between the upper mantle or crust and the earth’s atmosphere. So you could say that they really come from inside the earth. An extraterrestrial (technical) intervention, which is also preferred for crop circles, was excluded at least in this case.
In this long session came another interesting bycatch. Thus, the viewer got the impression of a military presence, which tracked these round objects from a distance (an antenna arrangement in a colder area, possibly Arctic Circle). There was apparently an interest in finding out the drive method of these objects in order to use them for themselves. However, it turned out in the session that this would not be possible, since it is not a pure physical technology, but an energetic manifestation. At least in today’s technological understanding, it will probably not be adaptable.
Solving & Summary: This very beautiful crop circle of 153 individual circles was built in a short time directly opposite Stonehenge , and no one could prove activities of hoaxers at that time. There are, however, various testimonies that point to a quick, non-human emergence. A taxi driver is said to have observed the circle allegedly even at its creation, which was accompanied by fog phenomena. Due to the complex session data and the situation on-site in the immediate vicinity of a tourist attraction, we consider this crop circle as authentic.Conclusion:Real
Our fifth candidate also provided very interesting impressions, though not as complex as in the previous example. Thus, the timeline showed that this crop circle was not formed at night, but rather in the afternoon. Also, no human or mechanical activities could be perceived in the formation. The first impressions already showed that a kind of energy from the ground rose through the grain, which led to a change within the stems:
In other impressions, a bright, reddish light was perceived, in which the immediate environment of the crop circle was immersed. This light was strange and untypical of human light sources. There was also a kind of wind suction, which went up. As the cause of these processes, a round, floating object appeared again, which acted on the environment with a kind of energy beam:
Despite closer examination attempts, this energy beam could only be perceived as a “pressure beam” without being able to decode the functioning behind it. When we looked at the object separately, it again showed a more elongated, oval shape. The object itself felt partly jelly-like / faint, and glowed white-bluish out of itself. On the surface of the object was a kind of “pinch” to perceive, which was reminiscent of static, and seemed to interact with the surrounding air.
The impressions on the functions of the object were “to holdthingsfluid”, “to make ready to radiate”, “to pulsate”, “to radiate something” and “to expand”. The effect on the plants was described as “rising”, “building”, “growing”, “forming a cup” and “like flower growth, but through energy”. Here, the process of energetic plant stimulation was probably the main aspect of the target. The object in itself acted as a nonhuman subconscious (almost like an automatism) of something greater. After a movement exercise to perceive the processes again at a distance, the main aspects of the process were:
First, the cornfield was locally submerged in reddish light, causing the grain to react. The grain was “styled” out of itself, so to speak. The main aspect, however, took place in the soil under the grain, which made this process possible in the first place. After the session, we thought soil samples from such crop circles might be very interesting, but then we heard that they already exist (including some unusual changes).
When asked what all this is for, the impressions of “beauty”, “order”, “playfulness” and “spiritual exaltation” came tomind . Whether there is a profound message behind it, or just an artistic and energetic inspiration for the people, may everyone decide for themselves. In any case, we could not find unusually deep or hidden meaning aspects (eg encrypted secret knowledge or building instructions for technologies, as some people interpret it). The message is obviously not intended for the ratio of humans, but rather on the emotional right-brain area.
Solving & Summary: This crop circle is also found to be authentic. The absence of all human activity in the period of construction, the energetic effects on the plants, the strange, reddish light, and finally the floating object, which initiated the processes, are similar to the processes from the Stonehenge crop circle. Conclusion:Real
This crop circle was being viewed as a bonus target. It is the crop circle from the famous Olivers Castle video , which is controversial. Some see it as the best proof of a paranormal crop circle emergence, others as a very good fake (for special effect technology in 1996). The latter is also due to the fact that there are now statements that the hoaxer of this video is known. But there is still a lot in the dark, and it also has not beign reproduced with the video technology avaiable back then. In this case, we only looked at the crop circle itself (geo-coordinates during the period of origin), and not the origin of the video.
The initial impressions were quite indecisive, so there was a second session on the target. But even there we got (regardless of the video) rather impressions that the crop circle was man made. In the sessions, a group of people appeared, working in a kind of party mood on the ground. They were not tense or under time pressure, and just seemed to have had their fun. There was also a casual, albeit diffuse impression of a tool. At some point, the people left again.
However, there was also an initiator person (male), who saw this matter much more seriously. He apparently made plans / papers disappear in the garbage, so that it can not be attributed to him ( “As if throwing information in the wastepaper bin”, “annoyed”, “conceal”, “nervous” …). In addition, this initiator was not on site at the time of origin, but in a house (including trash bags):
Could that be an indication of a home-faked video? To answer that, we would definitely have to do a session on the video itself. It is important to note that none of the energetic aspects from the supposedly real crop circles emerged here, but a group of people, including the initiator, were perceived. In the timeframe of the emergence, box-shaped objects (cars?) were also perceived next to the crop circles, which were not there after:
Solving & Summary: Despite the very authentic-looking video, the Olivers Castle crop circle seems to be a hoax. However, the data density was not quite sufficient for our quality standards, which is why we should definitely view this famous case again (especially the video itself). Conclusion:Hoax(subject to change …)
Overall summary: The remote viewing sessions conducted on these six crop circle examples show that there are both manmade and non-human (or “paranormal”) crop circles. However, the man-made seem to be in the in the majority, as some crop circle researchers see it. This should certainly complicate the serious crop circle research, because even the man-made cases are sometimes very impressive craftsmanship.
Is Remote Viewing the ultimate way to unlock the mystery of the crop circles? Certainly not, because it requires an interdisciplinary approach together with crop circle researchers (as with all challenging topics requiring research). But Remote Viewing can provide information where you can not get by with other methods, thereby completing the research in an unusual way. In the future there will likely be more projects of this kind, depending on the time and manpower (but that’s always the case …).
Here is a update to Saturn’s moon Titan, this time again in a blind solo session. The article about the previous session can be found HERE.
Category: Astronomy Protocol: CRV (Solo) Coordinates: 1872 6380 9566 6713 Number of viewers: 1 (Stefan Franke) Number of sessions: 1 Date: 2015/05/21 Time: 11.14am – 12.02am Duration: 48 minutes Pages: 9
The target was again a photo, but a bit higher above the atmosphere (while it was about 8km above the surface last time):
(Translation: “Describe the image at the time of the photograph!”)
In the first Stages there were appropriate impressions to the session at that time, and also to the visual position of the picture (“black”, “yellow”, “green”, “blue” ). It was also striking that it seemed stuffy there, as if the air was pressed out of your nose (vacuum?). The dimensional impressions corresponded to those of a large, nearby sphere. The impression in combination with the colors was already so concrete that it led to the AOL “yellow planet in front of me” (consisting of the impressions “yellow”, “white”, “rounded”, “big”).
Stage 3 led to this sketch of a big, yellowish ball:
Here were some noticeable details perceptible on the globe, such as turbulence, mountainous protuberances and white glittering (ice? Methane-ocean?). The AI “baffled” testifies to the imposing sight, which was offered here.
In Stage 4, more concrete impressions emerged, such as “sandy”, “cool veils”, “swirling”, “rotating air layer” and “being centered”.Stage 6 then consisted of some sweeping movement commands to get a better overview. Just like in the first session, again high black and yellow cloud structures came into the attention. They were reminiscent of very thick storm clouds. Furthermore, the impression “cool veils” from Stage 4 was examined more closely:
The cross-sectional representation, which suggests the unusually thick cloud layer or atmosphere, and the wet-sandy surface underneath, should be particularly clear here:
On the last page there was again a big movement command, which should change the perspective to 1000x distance to the target. The result was the following, complex impression, in which two new individual impressions were added:
The round object in the middle should be titan, because the movement went away from there. Above, in the distance, another bright object became perceptible, with turbulences on the surface. Maybe it was Saturn with its gas surface, because there are no other celestial bodies with a significant atmosphere nearby (except Titan).
On the right side an artificial structure appeared, which was supposed to “watch” and “grab” information. This could be a perception of the Cassini probe that shot the target photo. Certain similarities with the underside of Cassini could be guessed in the sketch:
To the right: Cassini-Huygens probe (Source: NASA)
At least more likely, as if there had just happened to be a non-terrestrial, technical object flying past. But you never know … 😀
So much for another small solo trip to Titan. Most of the time on Titan, the huge cloud towers that are created there in the atmosphere have caught my attention. So far, life signs could not be perceived there, but blind solo sessions have their limits in the targeting.
I am always asked if we have already examined this and that topic with Remote Viewing, or if you can look it up somewhere. Unfortunately, attempts to establish a German-language or international comparison database have failed so far (qualified software is already available, but nobody uses it yet). That’s why I’ll just write down which (border) topics we (ie my RV environment and I) have worked on so far. Of course, some topics also overlap. Single sessions, the little provided, or half-hearted getasket / gemonitort, I leave out here. Also, of course, confidential and irrelevant targets, exercise targets (unmanageable) and incidental sports betting and stock market targets. Some of the sessions and projects were also presented here in detail in this blog.
Atlantis (descriptions and mapping) Ark of the covenant (not just old sand) Underground tunnels near Kritzendorf (descriptions and intentions) Great Pyramids of Giza(definitely no tombs) Baltic Sea anomaly (Ocean-X) (at times a kind of place of worship) Puma Puncu Ruins (description at the time of their completion) Wonders of the world (meaning) Yonaguni Monument(artificial)
2014 MU69 (destination after Pluto for New Horizons) 1I / 2017 U1 (Oumuamua) 2M1207b (Planet as a whole) Ceres (the dwarf planet as a whole and internal structure) Charon(moon of Pluto as a whole and interior construction) Enceladus (moon of Saturn as a whole and interior design) Epsilon Eridani b(Planet as a whole) Earth (in 5 billion years) Earths Moon (various targets, including moon flights) Europe (Jupiter’s moon interior or ice-ocean) Ganymede(Jupiter’s moon as a whole and interior construction) Jupiter(planet as a whole and interior construction) Meteor of Chelyabinsk (video) Gliese 581c (different targets) Io (volcanic eruption and crust) KIC 8462852 (signs of artificial activity) Mars (different targets) Mars – Cydonia(artificial structures, like in other Cydonia-projects)
Mars Moon Phobos (appeared to be partial hollow inside) Planet 9 (apparently exists) Pluto(Planet as a whole) Proxima Centauri b(planet and surroundings) Saturn(planet as a whole) Black holes (Milky Way galaxy) Titan (surface; Huygens probe) Triton(Moon of Saturn as a whole) Venus(surface, Venera probe) Topography of the universe(physical and metaphysical)
Out-of-body experiences (different targets) Consciousness structures in themselves (processes, properties, energy, higher self etc …) Non-physical constructs (intentionally manifested and foreign) Otherkin phenomenon (non-human soul part) Perceptions of people (living, otherworldly and other incarnations) The human qualia (agonizing) Remote Viewing (Effects, Properties, Operations etc …) Samadhi State (Hambo Lama Daschi-Dorsho) Dreams (structure and content meanings)
Leonardo DaVinci and the Mona Lisa (apparently not a real person) Crashed metal ball in Africa (hydrazine tank) Challenger disaster (from the outside and from the crew point of view) Djatlow Pass (Hunter of the Lost Ark + Event Horizon) Falcon X Heavy Roadster in space (no fake, dear Flat Earthers!)
Irish legend about the Tuatha / Sidhè(seems to be only a myth)
The Quest for the Atomium (Mapping and dowsing experiment) The everyday benefits of Remote Viewing (including sample order of a localization)
Various paranormal experiences (time phenomena, lost ideas, visions etc …) Strange Sounds in the Sky (Single selection, there are also clear fakes) Hoia Baciu Forest (picture by Bernhard Reicher as a starting point) Crop Circles (as part of a CROPfm broadcast) Spoon bending (processes or causes) Spooky phenomena (human and non-human, also in photos) Untersberg (description and localization of time anomalies) The Dwarf (unmasked as fake)
Dog (Deep Mind Probe) Cat (perception of person) Palmtree and its perception (“by-catch” in a session) Housefly (Deep Mind Probe) Termites (“Interview”) Sheep peristalsis (delicious) Locate nature locations (form of mapping)
UFOs and aliens :
Alien Abductions (four cases from Germany) Amphibian humanoid species (different targets) Various humanoid species (appeared in sessions as “by-catch”) Triangle UFO of the Belgian UFO wave (photo target) Jerusalem UFO (most likely fake) Plasma balls (intelligently controlled) Points of light near Aachen (probably only AWACs aircraft) Most beautiful humanoid life form in the universe (subjective!)
Flat Earth (sorry, it’s not flat!) Inner structure of the earth (review of the hollow earth theory) Reiki energy system (apparently no initiation needed to use it)
Angels (different targets) Lilith (as part of a community affair)
Location in 500 years (place seems to be slightly anomalous in itself) Probability localization (mechanisms of timelines)
In addition to joint projects, I also irregularly work on a solo target pool, which I had created a long time ago. This contains a mix of practice and research targets. The target discussed here turned out to be an excursion with the Cassini-Huygens probe to Saturn’s moon Titan.
Category: Astronomy Protocol: CRV (Solo) Coordinates: 4157 8687 2108 4497 Number of viewers: 1 (Stefan Franke) Number of sessions: 1 Date: 2014/10/16 Time: 9.29am – 10.12am Duration: 43 minutes Pages: 8
Specifically, the target was a photograph of the titanium surface about eight kilometers high:
(Translation: “Describe the image at the time of the photograph!”)
In Stage 1, impressions such as “gray” , “yellow” , “beige-sand color” , “cold” , “soft” , “moist” and “loamy” dominated. In conclusion, impressions such as ” natural structures” and ” atmospheric” emerged. The AI impression can be summarized with “something empty and lonely”.In Stage 2, sensory impressions such as “sandy-dense” , “loamy-soft”, “cool” and “watery-moist” concretized again. They were supplemented by more, rather unspectacular impressions, such as “rushing” and a “far-flinch” . There were no particular smells or tastes except that it felt like having cold, tasteless clay in the mouth. Dimensionally I had the impression of a wide area in front of me, which seemed slightly arched, if you zoomed out a bit more. My AI’s from the target at the end of Stage 2 were “abandoned” and “self-purpose”.
In Stage 3, I drew a slightly curved surface, which I perceived very concretely. Much more diffuse I perceived a kind of high, gaseous structure, which could have been a big, vertical cloud structure. Whether it came out of the surface, or was just a background in the sky, I can not say. Anyway, you should not overestimate the Stage 3, in terms of details and especially connections. So this diffused impression could even have been the unfolded parachute of the Huygens probe, but that is speculative and was not explored in this solo session.
It gets really interesting from Stage 4 onwards. The most important sensory impressions were “yellow” and “loamy” . New added was “walgend” , as if the liquid or loamy parts on the ground somehow moved (movements of liquid methane?).I found the AI’s interesting because apparently my subconscious mind would find it very relaxing to lie down in the cold mud, look up and observe something in the sky (not recommended for imitation in the physical body and without spacesuit *g*).Unpleasant, bi-local impressions did not happen this time, which is otherwise observed occasionally during sessions on hostile planets. However, everything else indicates that Titan is physically life-denying to us, and that the Cassini-Huygens data is correct. I was not able to perceive impressions of emotional impacts (EI’s) on location, except for a dull “reflex” (which might have been a energetic impression). Similarly dull and deserted, it also occurred to me during a session on Venus.As an interesting material aspect came “loamy basin” , and in the immaterial aspects such as “cool blow” (like gentle wind), “flow around” , “compact” , “holdtogether” and “cyclize” (like a cycle). The whole thing affected me like natural, geological or climatic processes. Otherwise, I found there in the target nothing remarkable before. My final Stage 4 AI’s were “unusual place” and “natural events” .
Since I could not think of anything special because of the unspectacular impressions in Stage 4, I decided in Stage 6 to do some more movement commands from different perspectives and distances. The first movement exercise was ten times the distance (to the initial view angle of the target) from above:
It gave me the impression of looking down into a narrow gap through dark, gaseous structures on the target. It was like looking down to the surface through thick, dark cloud structures, but the gap looked really tight from the top. Some of the clouds even seemed almost black, like very gloomy rain clouds on the earth. In the middle of the sensation, I noticed a tiny dot with a “cladding”, which was perhaps the probe on her parachute. Unfortunately, I have not examined this detail again separately.
The next movement command was also ten times the distance to the target , but viewed from the front or side :
From this perspective, I now perceived hilly structures, and again a small point. This point seemed to float above the scenario, or was detached from the surface. This irritated me at first, and I felt again if I overlooked something. There was a kind of half connection between the point and the surface, but it was not a tangible material, but rather a diffuse cone of energy. If the point was the probe, this cone could have been a sensor beam (eg radar waves). I wanted to give me a much larger picture of the environment, which is why I assume a movement command from a thousand times distance from above:
Now I clearly got the impression that the whole thing was happening on a round object. At the time I did not care if it was a planet, a ball or an atom. I sketched out my remaining impressions, which were those of a foggy globe with no more detailed surface details. Only my starting point, I still had in mind, which I again marked by a dot. All around, I perceived a kind of slight whirlwind.
The final step was finally a movement command from an enormous, ten thousand times distance from above the target . I wanted to know if I have a round ball in front of me, or something that is still connected with something:
It turned out that the sphere was actually free-hanging or floating. I also noticed a crescent-shaped shading on the left side, which could have been the incident sunlight. For fun, I wanted to look at the object again in cross section, although my data stream was already very diffuse. In doing so, I perceived a hard or dense area, which passed through hourglass-shaped from top to bottom. The areas around it, however, seemed to be softer or more permeable. Detailed cross-sections of celestial bodies should rather be treated to independent sessions. My final AI’s for this session were “no purpose on itself” and “secluded”. The latter can hardly be contradicted, although of course it depends on the perspective … 😉
Summary: For a short solo session, it was a nice trip, but there are also the problems of solo sessions: If you do not know what is important in the target, you do not know what to look at more closely. For example, the hovering “point” would have been interesting, which was probably the Huygens probe (the target photo was taken from about eight kilometers above the surface). But of course you can use such rough-looking solo sessions as a starting point or template for more detailed, supervised sessions on individual aspects.
1. Was it just a normal, burning meteorite, or something else? 2. Did the event have something to do with the asteroid “2012 DA14” passing the Earth on the same day?
Video recordings of the event (Warning: Sometimes loud!):
And of course the session itself …
Category: Events / Astronomy
Protocol: CRV (with monitor) Coordinates: 0098 4805 2379 5147 Number of Viewers: 1 (Benny Pamp) Number of sessions: 1 Date: 2013/04/19 Time: 9.09am – 10.00am Duration: 51 minutes Pages: 10
The target formulation was as follows:
(Translation: “Describe the event known as “Meteor of Chelyabinsk” in Russia at the date of 2013/02/15!”)
In addition, a [x] encoding has been added for later matching of the event to the asteroid “2012 DA14”.
First, interesting AI’s (own sensations to the target) in Stage 1 were “moving free”, “seems a bit stressed” and here slightly cynical AOL/S (comparison – how is it?) “Like Somalia” (in the sense from the mood of a crisis area). Also, a lot of movement and material change has already been noticed in the target.
In Stage 2 , in addition to matching color impressions (with regard to the videos), it was mainly surface impressions such as “sandy”, “floury”, “breathy” and “rounded” that were emphasized. But the sounds of “rattling”, “buzzing” and “pulling hiss” also fit on the events to be seen. The AI’s of the viewer were “I am like a tourist” and “unsure”.
It became visually interesting already in stage 3 :
The viewer apparently drew a trajectory high above building-like structures, traffic, and already strong nearby EI sources, which were described in their essence as “excited.” Most interesting, however, he found a moving, yellow-glowing, expanding component above the area, which he immediately marked as target-relevant with a commercially available [x] (but has nothing to do with the coded in advance [x] in the target formulation!). As AI’s to this Stage 3 came “stressful”, “lots of movement” and “places to hide”.
Since the viewer seemed to be good on target, I let him examine the [x] aspect he marked with a movement command in more detail:
In essence, he described here a spherical object, which was pressed apart and thereby gradually liquefied. The surface impressions were “hard”, “charred” and “crispy”. Inside, it became liquid or “creamy” due to the cracking gaps on the surface. As AI, the viewer had the desire to squeeze the ball, otherwise it would be “spongy” and “consistency-free”. In addition, he still felt it as a “normal process”, but at the same time an “enormous power” included.
After that, I had the process drawn in a kind of sequence form to make the individual processes even clearer:
The viewer referred here first to what happens to the material itself (1-5), then to an entire before / after image of the object. It is interesting that in picture 4 even a sort of glazing effect (“smooth-glassy”, “like amber”) was perceived on the surface. The conclusion to the process was “contrast disappears between hard and soft – in the end only watery-loamy gossip”. His AI “I find it stupid” expresses a deep sympathy with the fate of the meteor that fell apart. 😀
After this fruitful marathon of movement commands and sketch drawing, we finally devoted ourselves to Stage 4. Since it was already so emotional, we immediately devote ourselves to the AI column: “stressed”, “break” and the AOL/S “has something of state in war zone – change – not commonplace for western world”. I think that describes the atmosphere of the event quite well. As collective EI’s came “excitement”, “mocking” and “helplessness”. The impression of “excitement” was marked for a further study in Stage 6. As IT’s (immaterial aspects – what does it do?), Impressions such as “shifting”, “pushing” and “maintaining balance until it has no more contrast” came. The latter probably refers to the physical processes from the detailed Stage 3 sketches.
Now we went to Stage 6 , where we first examined the marked EI “Excitement”. I asked for the cause of the excitement, which then unfolded as a “foreign determination”, “disagreeing”, “rebelling”, and “wanting to rebel, but not able to”. Continuing, I asked, “Why can not you protest?”. There then came “lack of knowledge” and “one wants to have a say, but ‘it’ ignores them”. This can be interpreted as an emotional context of natural disasters, where there is no “basis for negotiation”. Interesting here is the strong impression of the collective rebellion against the event. Is that the Siberian mentality towards cosmic cataclysms? If so, I like it, because anger is better than despair. 😀
As a final Stage 6 task was still to query the original additional coding from the target formulation.Did this event have something to do with the 2012 DA14 asteroid, or was it just a coincidence? The dimension line with the question “Does Target have to do with [x]?” Tended to “no”. This would at least match the official statements that the orbit data of both objects would have excluded a connection with the event in Russia.
At the very end, as a summary, so to speak, I had the “consequence of event at the target” query. The viewer then summarized it as follows:
– It’s getting spongy – The consistency goes away – It gets very loose – Suddenly it contracts – It easily attracts the rest – Puff! Fly apart in all directions – Only air, but no matter – Much is carried away by a “wave” – Wave is multiple, fluttering downright – Extremely high and intermittent – Slow, not harmful (for humans) – Dissolves matter through waves, like pulling apart – By shaking / pulverizing by vibration – AOL/S: Like sound wave
The viewer described it as matter vibrating and swirling like a powerful speaker. Apparently, he has described here the pressure of the sound wave, which among other things could burst many windows, and also injured people by the resulting fragmentation effect (indirect). The final AI for the whole session was “happening regularly” and “nothing special”.
Summary: According to the session data, one can say with great certainty that this was actually a normal (albeit relatively powerful) meteorite explosion in the atmosphere. Spectacular attention came only because of its proximity to populated areas where people and structures were damaged by the blast, as the meteorite exploded. With the asteroid “2012 DA14”, which flew by chance on the same day near the earth, there seemed to be no direct connection either.
In recent years, a veritable hype has been observed in the paranormal scene, with a tendency to overinterpret such cosmic events. But sometimes a meteorite is just a meteorite, even if he finishes his (um) career with awesome noise in front of thousands of eyewitnesses. 😉
Category: Phaenomena Number of viewers: 2 Number of sessions: 2
At this point I would like to show you that Remote Viewing can also be used very well to expose photographic fakes. This is of course especially interesting in the paranormal area, such as UFOs or ghost photos. While non-authentic ghost photos often can be explained with natural photo effects, deliberate fakes are found primarily in the UFO area.
In our case, however, we choosed a photo that would probably fall into the area “entities” or “mythical creatures”. The starting point was a message board discussion about “orbs” and similar photo-phenomena. One of the users there eventually posted a black and white photo, that supposedly showed a dwarf creature in a nighttime forest. I quickly created a target on it:
Protocol: CRV (with monitor via Skype) Date: 13.01.2011 2011/01/13 Time: 8.43pm to 8.51pm Duration: 8 minutes Pages: 3
The first, really short session was conducted by a RV beginner up to Stage 3. It should have been her second or third session in total. Interestingly enough, an EI already appeared in Stage 1, namely “regret” . Whether this related to the photographer of the picture? The Stage 1 AI was then “curious” .
In Stage 2 , data matching the surroundings of the picture emerged, with “borky” and “woody” being the most noticeable ones. The AI at the end of this stage now turned into “boring” . According to the sensory impressions, the viewer seemed to be on target.
Stage 3 has now become even clearer as it clearly suggests a forest environment (although for beginners this could of course be an AOL sketch due to the woody impressions, and what they also wrote out as AOLs). There was also something shiny and metallic, which could point to the wire fence in the picture. But there was no trace for a extraordinary aspect in the target, like a metaphysical dwarf. Such extraordinary content usually attracts the unconscious attention of the viewer, as it does with UFO photos or sessions on exoplanets. The AI at the end: “inconsequential”
Viewer # 2
Protocol: TRV (with monitor via Skype) Date: 2011/01/13 Time: 10.45pm to 11.07pm Duration: 22 minutes Pages: 5
The second session was done by a far more experienced viewer. The basic data of the first stages were also in line with the picture here. To shorten the session, the most important aspect of the target was examined directly from Stage 3 (here marked with a [x] in the middle, secondary aspects with [a], [b] and [c]):
Separate detail drawing of the [x] aspect
Stage 4 brought similar AIs, as from the first session: “boring – strange – stupid” . EIs were in the [x] aspect no one to determine, from which one could probably conclude that it is not a living object. Also interesting are the ITs “stand – nature” .
Finally, in Stage 6 , the structure of the [x] aspect was inspected closer. It came back to the IT “stand” and also unspectacular Ts (tangible things / materials) as “clay” and “wood”. Around the structure, there were also the Ts “meadow” and “area” . As a final AI, the viewer found the target as “boring”.
The detailed sketch of the structure clearly shows that it was an exakt hit. The attached data leads to the conclusion that it is not a living entity or an metaphysical entity, but a static object made of ordinary materials. Note also the AOLs “robot”, and especially “garden gnome”.
Summary: After we published the two sessions, the somewhat impressed photographer gave us a photo with a (fairly broken) garden gnome there in the meadows, that has been deliberately photographed in black and white. Would he have admitted it if the sessions had not brought such clear results? In any case, a great example of how Remote Viewing can expose photographic fakes …
Number of viewers: 4
Number of sessions: 4
I’ve sent four viewers to the mysterious circular structure in the Baltic Sea. All sessions were conducted up to Stage 6. A few background information on the subject can be found here (in german language):
Protocol: CRV (with monitor via Skype) Date: 2012/06/14 Time: 2: 21pm to 3:14pm Duration: 53 minutes Pages: 8
This session took place just before the first dive photos of the Baltic Sea Anomaly were published. Perceptible was the circular structure, which could be more or less differentiated from the surrounding seabed. It also showed something like a hollow funnel and crags that were either on the object, or inside the object (or both). In the properties of these tips, or the whole object itself came out something like “chemical processes”, and “temperature fluctuations” (eg clear cold inside the structure). Also, a sense of “radiation” has been felt, but it is not clear whether it is thermal or radioactive radiation (or something else).
First, sketched impressions of the viewer in Stage 3. The compulsory data of Stage 1 and 2 (colors, surfaces, etc …) already fit well with the published photos . The viewer has subsequently labeled the sketches for readability:
Later, we examined the structure in detail after moving the viewer slightly outside of it to see if he perceived the seabed around it. A funnel-like structure in the interior came into view:
Here is the impression again in cross-section, with the perception of the above-mentioned “lace” inside. The viewer also perceived a kind of circulation, which is also drawn:
Now one of the “tips” in detail. It showed a kind of flow or circulation inside. Whether it is water, radiation or another form of energy, it is unclear:
In the end, we also investigated several options for the target via the action line. Essentially it came out that the structure was used by a group for the extraction of something:
Summary: In a single session on such targets, of course, not much can be said. But apparently the viewer was on target, and generated some essential data that would later become interesting for comparison purposes.
Viewer # 2
Protocol: CRV (with monitor via Skype) Date: 2012/06/24 Time: 7.34pm to 8.11pm Duration: 37 minutes Pages: 6
This time a circle structure was percieved again, but it looked much more artificial than in the previous session. But the viewer always had the impressions “artificial and natural”. Interesting or were box-shaped, arranged around the circle structures that looked hollow. Again, a funnel-like structure appeared, which seemed to lead us nowhere (we did not find anything down there, also no ground). In addition, there is a slight pull there, but not so strong that he could suck a human (that’s what the viewer felt). And in the funnel itself it is considerably colder than it is outside.
After the viewer first appeared somewhere in the murky water, and did not notice anything from the actual target, I did a movement command. He was already able to perceive the first impressions of the circular structure:
In Stage 6 , we took a close look at all the impressions collected since the movement exercise. This is how the funnel-shaped structure appeared, around which box-like objects appeared to be arranged. These acted hollow and tinny on the viewer, serving as a kind of container. In the funnel-shaped structure below it seemed to go in deep and cold. Here, the viewer also took the said suction, but which would not be strong enough to pull a man.
Summary: Here, after initial navigation difficulties, very interesting detail impressions were delivered from the target. Especially the aspect of the “funnel” came across quite clearly here. Compared to the first session, a picture of a circulating process or exchange (of whatever kind) is beginning to appear rather intentional than natural (at least in its original purpose). But that should be specified.
Viewer # 3
Protocol: CRV (with monitor via Skype) Date: 2012/06/27 Time: 10.11am to 11.03am Duration: 52 minutes Pages: 7
The viewer had an immediately strong target contact, and hardly needed to be moved around in the target area to generate the information sought. Like the two previous viewers, the viewer here also perceived a circular structure on the ground, and also noticed very clearly that it is in the water. Already in Stage 1 she drew this first, rough impression of the target:
In Stage 3, the viewer then very clearly got the impression of a round structure on the bottom of a liquid, cloudy medium. Some surface details were already revealed. Only the size estimate (70cm) was still deceptive, but later she noticed that it looks much bigger (see below). Interestingly, she also found the target “lost”:
Finally, in Stage 6 , we focused completely on the structure and made it as detailed as possible:
The viewer almost saw the object as a house or dwelling, except that it was metallic in appearance. It showed something like well-kept rivets and angular structures on the outside, as well as a kind of opening or hatch on top (top picture). There was also something on the side, which could have been a door or an entrance. Then I let her look inside the structure (bottom picture), which she found very unusual. They look like a strangely upholstered and cozy environment made up of exotic, cleverly designed and constructed structures. The structure seemed to have a deeper meaning.
When we investigated the purpose of this structure and the object itself, it first came out that it originally had a different function, but now serves as a “shelter” for any living thing. We looked at the creatures for a moment, and they looked worm-like or snakelike, which might indicate marine animals (eels, worms …) now living in, around, or below (the actual interior did not seem to be filled with water). But of course we also wanted to know the original purpose of the object.
When we did this, the following came out (quote):
What was the original function?
– Emit something, serve to tap or draw energy – One puts oneself in, and lets it work on itself – Inside, it’s like something magnetic;It’s supposed to strike you when you get in the act – Energy flow, as if all your polarities align themselves
In the context of today’s “purpose”, it still came out that it was the “last source” of this species, and the creatures living in it (animals?) are there because of it, want to have to do. In any case, this impression indicates that you would feel energetically well-tempered inside the structure.
Then I let the viewer do a spontaneous scaling to find the approximate size of the object. The Ocean X team goes from 60m (~197ft), if I remember correctly. Here is the result of the viewer (~ 65m or ~213ft):
Then I had a timeline done to find out the approximate age or timing of the genesis (which, mind you, is not always reliable, it’s not always as literal as a yardstick, because “pinching” can also occur). The impression was “a few hundred years” , which fits one of the previous sessions. We roughly measured it to 1300 AD. But only under reserve, because at the moment we had problems with our Skype connection (which can bring out a viewer strongly).
Below, I let the viewer again make a summary sketch in plan view and side view. As a final AI (emotional conclusion) she had “makes me curious – something secret inside” . Then we finished the session.
Summary: One could now speculate from this detailed session that it is a kind of forgotten / lost technology, which was used for energetic purposes (see pyramid energy and the like). But from Baltic volcanism to ancient secret knowledge it would be a big jump. It also shows why it is so important to make several sessions on such “mystery” targets, as each viewer looks at individual aspects of the target (depending on the interest of the subconscious), and only a lot of impressions make an evaluation possible.
Viewer # 4
Protocol: CRV (with monitor via Skype) Date: 2012/06/28 Time: 9.17pm to 9.46pm Duration: 29 minutes Pages: 6
This viewer got the same target but with new coordinates (because the monitor did not have the old target at the time):
Here as well, the first stages showed similar data as in the previous three sessions. In Stage 3 , the target was again drawn very clearly, this time with seabed:
In Stage 4 , the AOLs “Mars” and “Baltic Anomaly” appeared, which hopefully did not affect the other data. The viewer found something exciting, which was then examined in detail in Stage 6 . This turned out to be the round structure on the seabed. It was perceived as “smooth” and “artificial”. As AOL came at the point “Land Mine”:
A movement command was performed that centered the viewer on the actual target. The structure was clearly perceived as artificial here:
The ITs showed the aspects “observation” and “measure”. The viewer also had the impression “not for people”. Furthermore, he had as AI “Maybe someday someone will come, and wait for that”. In addition, the viewer mentioned that he felt like under water.
Summary: Here you were on Target, because the circular structure was clearly hit again. The mandatory dates and sketches are very much in line with the other sessions. The impressions from Stage 6 are to be interpreted with some reservations, since the AOL “Baltic Sea anomaly” already occurred in Stage 4. To what extent the viewer could solve it, I do not know. But in any case, it is another verification that there actually exists a circular structure on the bottom of the baltic sea, which is unusual.
Preliminary overall summary: The Baltic Sea Anomaly proved to be quite persistent target. From the sheer quantity of data, it could go in the direction of an ancient building that had a certain energetic (perhaps technological) function. As interpretations there is, for example, a kind of power place or device for energy healing, or a temple that had more ideal or informal value. Strangely enough, our timelines to date point to a time between the early and early Middle Ages, which makes the position of the object puzzling. Because at that time there should already have been water there (in contrast to the ice age, for example). If there are more usable session results, the project will be updated …
Category: Consciousness Protocol: CRV (with monitor) Coordinates: 97 08 16 1000 01 Number of viewers: 1 (Stefan Franke) Number of sessions: 1 Date: 2012/02/05 Time: 3.11pm to 4.30pm Duration: 79 minutes Pages: 11
I’ve been conducting this target during my RV training (as the only “Mystery” target besides normal training targets). It is part of a research project that has been running for some time and has produced similar results so far. The target formulation was:
“The angels – their most important tasks and the opportunity to get help from them.”
Stages 1 and 2 were quite unspectacular.Stage 3 showed a shadowy scenario in which a frightening life-form cowered somewhere and a much larger life-form approached (AOLs such as “Animal Enclosure” or “Animal Photographer” came up).
In Stage 4, we came closer to the cause by the emotional impacts (from two different creatures).
Impressions in Stage 4
Sensory impressions (S): Small hollowed out, red, blue, yellow, bushy, pointed Dimensional impressions (D): tall, narrow, rounded, higher than wide, towering, Aesthetic Impression (AI): Free, wide, calm, clear Emotional Impact (EI): Fearful, Excited, Shocked, Unprepared  – Watching, a little excited, relaxed  Tangibles (T): What high, round, thin Intangibles (IT): Fencing and capturing, emulating
AI (emotional conclusion of the viewer): “Trivial, what is that?”
In Stage 6, we then tried to break down the situation in more detail. We called the small, cowering life form L1, and the great life form L2. L1 reacted to L2. The L2-being acted on me like a kind of upright, very large statue, which was supposed to radiate “impressiveness” (light, gray, white, standing there, handling something, hands rounded to the body, seems to attract something). The task of L2 seemed to be to capture and pull L1. As further data on L2 came “thinks weird / narrowed, irascible, looking down, picking up, higher presence”.
Now I should do a movement exercise to “follow” L2. It felt like this statuesque L2 was just a kind of placeholder or avatar for something else. But the way to the origin of L2 seemed strange, because in the midst of it a kind of “phase shift”, which I perceived only as an “infinity aspect”. It did not only act like a spatial distance, but also like a change of planes.
There was a first, felt stop that led me further to a life form I called L3. L3 looked like a gray-yellow curved or round structure. But that, too, just felt like a placeholder or a representation.
We decided to move on until we came across the “real” L3 (or the source of previous representations).
After we skipped a last placeholder, which strangely acted like two upright tubes, I came in touch with the original L3. It looked very distant like a human figure, but on closer inspection it looked more like a hollow sphere with a thin membrane and yellowish, spaghetti-like energy structures inside. In addition, there seemed to be an opening through which energy flows. I gave the statement “incomprehensible for my frame”.
Now I should have an interview with L3:
V = viewer (me) L3 = L3 ()
(Own additions or explanations to non-verbal processes in italics)
V: Hello! L3: Attention V: Sorry, we would like to know something. L3: Reserved, does not really want to V: We would like to help you. What do you do? L3: Attention, becomes open V: Request for information (what L3 is doing) L3: Push some kind of gray wrapping to me and want to bring me in / welcome V: Can not go now, but we’d like to know what happens when you do that. L3: It opens something in L3, to pick up or integrate V: Sense of the action? L3: Add and store in (head area) V: Will that ever happen? L3: No (L3 seems disappointed) V: Prerequisite for this? L3: Should be more appropriate V: What does “matching” mean? L3: Rolling together, shaping (i’m getting the picture of a rolled-up substance)
V: Procedure to make us (humans) compatible? L3: understanding. Open up to it. V: Physiological consequences? L3: becoming thinner and bony (perceive the image of what is thin, gray, bony – apparently “bones” are meant)
V: Would it be desirable for me? L3: Yes V: Is there a timeline for this? L3: Growth, collect (living beings), group (Age: Aeon / ~ 1000 years) V: What is the end purpose of your activity? L3: Keep expanding until I dissolve. V: What happens after dissolution? L3: Being distributed, transformation, individual parts spread out in a targeted manner, and are inserted / inserted in different places – parts are then in place and thus widen their observation radius. (AOL: Sun)
V: Do you have colleagues? L3: Yes V: How many? L3: Dozens V: Are there any who do something else? L3: Also other directions. V: Thanks a lot, see you soon! L3: Merry bye.
AI: I’m back here AI: Interesting
Summary: An interesting session on an unusual target. I interpret the situation as follows: We witnessed how a nonphysical entity (“Angel”) wanted to capture and apprehend a frightened, stuck “soul”. It seems to be the normal occupation of this entity. The interview also featured interesting, non-verbal impressions, such as “curling in to make more appropriate”, which seems to fit some of Robert Monroe’s descriptions of his communication with nonphysical entities (information / energy in the right shape). “to make them compatible”). In addition, the bizarre impression of “bones” when we asked about the physiological consequences so that it could be “suitable”. It only became clear to me after the session that actually bones could have been meant.
Apparently, there are not too many of these forms of consciousness, and they each perform specific tasks that are fixed. Personally, I found them to be sociable and enjoyable, albeit somewhat biased (which presumably dictates the task). You could put them in the “lightful” category, while the more colorful and polarizing aspects of how humans make them seem to be missing. But they obviously carry out their “craft” competently. Before this mutates into a product review, I conclude with the conclusion: Pleasant, if somewhat pale / one-sided contemporaries with important tasks in the universe. I like to say hello again if they cross my path …