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:
Target Cue-Translation: “Describe the image at the time it was taken and investigate the highlighted object (supposed dwarflike creature in the forest)!”
Viewer #1
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 …
Leave a Reply