I am always asked if we have already examined this or that topic with Remote Viewing, or if you can look it up somewhere. Unfortunately, attempts to establish an active international comparison database have failed so far. That’s why I’ll just write down here which topics we (ie my RVers and I) have worked on so far. Some of the sessions and projects were also presented here in detail in this blog.
Ark of the Covenant Baltic Sea Anomaly
Mysterious Underground Caves
Disc of Sabu
Wonders of the World
Various private Sightings and close Encounters
Various Alien Species
Most beautiful humanoid life form in the Universe
Points of light near Aachen, Germany
Sky Lanterns Triangle UFO of the Belgian UFO wave
*Entries without links mean that either no session excerpts or articles are available, or the data density that has been worked out so far does not yet correspond to the desired level of quality. In the case of this translated version of the german “Signallinie-Blog“, there still is the need for further translations of a lot of articles. You can find the german version of this list HERE.
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.
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. 😉
In the paranormal scene there is a well-known and controversial topic: Is the earth hollow inside? And if so, are there even life / civilizations there?
Protocol: CRV (with monitor via Skype)
Coordinates: 5568 2985 4984 7906
Number of viewers: 1 (Benny Pamp)
Number of sessions: 1
Time: 9:09 p.m. – 9:57 p.m.
Duration: 48 minutes
We wanted to know more about it, and went on an extrasensory short trip across the interior of the earth. What did we expect there? A huge cavity, with continents on the inside of the earth’s shell and the central sun in the middle? Or a dense environment with markedly high temperatures (as in the official theory)?
Since this topic may be contaminated with some collective assumptions, I chose the Target cue as neutral as possible:
*Translation: “Describe the Enviroment below your feet, beginning with 10km depth! (O1 = 100km, O2 = 2000km, O3 = 5000km, O4 = 6250km)”
The journey should begin for the viewer “10 km under his feet”, and then lead through instructions to move to coded locations (O1, O2, O3, O4) through different depths of the earth’s interior. The lowest point (O4) corresponds roughly to the area of the theoretical core of the earth (at approx. 12800 km diameter of the earth).
The first three stages showed unspectacular data, with some suggesting a rocky environment. A kind of fluid vein was also perceived with the AUL “water”. It was interesting that the viewer had the impression of an artificial intervention in stage 4. He found this intervention inappropriate, banal and arrogant. In a further analysis from stage 6 on , impressions such as “align”, “make flat”, “aesthetics”, “luxury” and “bring into shape” were added. Could he have come across the remains of a mine tunnel somewhere between the surface and 10km depth? Whereby something would probably have to be higher than 10km, since that would be excessively deep.
At a depth of 100km
Now it was time to go into the more interesting depths, starting with 100km. There the viewer described the surface impressions as “clunky”, “unstable”, “rough” and “wet”. The colors were “red-brown”, “gray”, “pale green” and “silver” (similar to before at a depth of 10 km). The temperatures seemed to be getting warmer here, and the dimensions were perceived as “geometric” and like “falling terrain”. The AIs were “I don’t like it” and “reminds me of an abandoned industrial site”.
Jump to 2000km depth
We still had a long (or deep) way to go, so we went straight to the next depth. This time we made a big jump to 2000km depth. After the ideogram, the viewer immediately got the impressions “warm” and “thick air”, even before anything was even categorically queried. Smooth and rounded impressions then dominated the surfaces. The dominant color impression was a lot of brown, but there were also traces of blue hues. The temperatures were now felt separately as “muggy”, “warm” and “like thick air”. The viewer could only describe the dimensional impressions as “cramped”.
5000km inside the Earth
The next jump was 5000km deep, more than twice as deep as the previous one, and closer to the center of the earth than to the surface. Interestingly, the first impression the viewer got here was “fresh” and “smooth”. The surfaces were then “smooth”, “slippery”, “hard”, “immobile” and “firm”. The colors were “foggy”, “milklike tone”, “blue-gray light” and were generally perceived as “cold light colors”. The viewer perceived the temperatures as “fresh” and “clear, but expansive”. As an AI he still felt a sense of freedom. This layer still seemed to be dense or opaque, but apparently not as uncomfortable as the previous layers. The surroundings seemed to shine by themselves in their brightness, which could indicate energized, continuous fluid (magma?). It is interestingthat the colors were perceived as bluish-white.
Near the center at a depth of 6250km
The end of the line was now at a depth of 6250km, which, according to the official assumption, should already be within the Earth’s core. There were surface impressions such as “dry-slimy” and the colors “gray”, “yellow-pale” and “brown-pale”. The temperatures were perceived as “warm” and “cold” with extreme differences. The dimensional impression was “round” and “large”. As AOL/S, the viewer compared the environment with a multi-layered shoe sole. The overall impression was “exotic”. In addition, there were intangibles of the processes there: “sucking in”, “turning over” and “negative pressure”. Apparently the viewer got the physical processes in the target area. For the viewer it was like a constant exchange of extremely different components, which he also sketched on the occasion:
On the next page I had spontaneous measurements carried out on the temperatures of the visited locations. The scale began at -270°C (almost the absolute, physical zero point) and went up to 10,000°C. The results of the measurement were shown as follows:
The temperatures seem to rise gradually the lower you go. An interesting exception was the core area at 6250km depth, where they again appeared to be a little lower than at 5000km depth. With such extreme temperature ranges and large dimension scales, inaccuracies are a well-known phenomenon. But still it is interesting how close the impressions come to the official temperature assumptions for the different zones of the earth’s interior. Using the measurement, you can roughly say:
Because of the inaccuracies mentioned, it is not possible to say exactly whether it is really significantly cooler in the core than in the “briefly” area above. However, it again fits the perceptions of the viewer that extremely warm and cold temperatures occur there in an exchange process. If we again assume the official structure of the earth’s interior, the temperature ranges come together well overall. That it usually gets warmer the deeper you go, indications from boreholes over 10km deep, at which the temperatures already went in the direction of 190°C, suggest. A variant of the hollow earth theory assumes that there is actually a layer of hot magma between the earth’s crust and the hollow inner world, but that underneath (after more than 1000km) there should be more or less “free sky”.Here, however, we only got dense and opaque impressions from the viewer, and temperatures hostile to life, if the dimensioning scales can be trusted in this case.
Finally, I let the viewer draw the structures in their entirety at a depth of 6250km, which then turned out to be:
The impressions “sultry” and “very hot” came spontaneously. Then “too much info” (apparently too large a target area?), And “known” but “new” at the same time, which the viewer found implausible for itself. Structurally, he still had the impression that it was “rocky” and “onion-like” (built up in layers like an onion). An indication of the assumption that the Earth has a solid, compressed core. At the end there was still the strong impression “makes a headache”, which according to the viewer was definitely due to the conditions in the target area. We already know similar AI phenomena from strong, bi-local impressions from target areas with high ambient pressure (e.g. deep sea).
Summary: The data go in the direction of the official theories about the structure of the Earth’s interior. Even if there were a few surprises, they contradict the hollow world-view of a life-friendly environment and a central sun. This is especially true for the rather hostile to life-temperature ranges and pressures, which the viewer also found uncomfortable. A long time ago I had a newcomer see the inside of the earth, but only at a depth of 5000km. He found it mainly tight and overwhelming. But we did not go into more detail at the time.
But does that mean the rejection of underground life or even civilizations? Not necessarily, because one could well imagine large cavities in the earth’s crust that house entire cities. But that would probably not be very low (5-10km), as the temperatures rise quite quickly. And from a technological point of view, you would have to have a lot to do with it to keep such a civilization alive down there. But these are targets for other sessions, and it should be much more difficult to formulate neutral taskings (unless you might have a geographical reference point or approximate coordinates).
Number of viewers: 2
Number of sessions: 2
Exoplanets are certainly one of the most popular remote viewing targets. Since you cannot expect close-ups of it in the foreseeable future (with current, official propulsion methods, a probe would need approx. 500 years to the nearest solar system), it is probably the only standardized method to take a closer look at these distant worlds. Out-of-body experiences also seem to be a possibility, but there it often fails due to targeting and navigation (and it is not available to everyone “at the push of a button”). Dozens of exoplanets are now known to lie in the habitable zone of their star. Habitale zone means that water is neither permanently frozen nor completely evaporated, and where biological life could exist as we know it so far.
Our first viewed exoplanet was Gliese 581c, which was the hottest candidate for habitability at the time. It is about 20.4 light years away from Earth and orbits the red dwarf star Gliese 581. The planet is estimated to be a little more than twice the size of the earth, and the surface gravity to be 2.2g (earth = 1.0g).
Artist’s impression of Gliese 581c (Source: Wikipedia)
Viewer # 1 (Stefan Franke)
Protocol: CRV (with monitor via Skype)
Coordinates: 5874 2939 5428 4987
Date: December 22, 2011
Time: 12:26 am to 1:31 am
Duration: 65 minutes
The first session aimed (rather imprecisely) at describing the surface of the planet. At that time we weren’t that trained in moving instructions. The target formulation for the session was:
“Describe the area around the surface of the exoplanet whose human name is Gliese 581c!”
In stage 1 , two interesting impressions appeared. On the one hand, a movement was noticeable, which expressed itself in an associative way like a conveyor belt running past:
In later sessions on other planets (also known ones) it turned out that this symbolism appeared often in stage 1, and a perception of the planet’s own rotation or orbit seems to be. In the case of low data density, physical impressions should not be associated too literally, otherwise they will be used in technical systems. Another interesting impression was the fairly clear perception of the following structure:
It stood out from the surface and had the colors blue, white and black. The structure gave the impression of a huddled crystal or ice formation, which one could call a “crystal flower” or “crystal bulb” (as we know it from rock crystals). The AIs for stage 1 were “interesting” and “a bit artistic” .
Stage 2 brought some interesting basic data that indicated a rather dim, rough, stony-dusty and above all cold landscape. The cold was quite noticeable, but this could still be in the survivable range (we had not tried a special measurement). But it felt like it was probably below 0 ° C. Later came the AOL “ice cream”The dimness of the surroundings could be explained by the fact that the star Gliese 581 is a red dwarf. But of course you could have ended up on the night side if there was something interesting for the subconscious of the viewer. The stage 2 AIs were “dark” and “abandoned” .
In stage 3 and 4 then, in addition to aspects of the surface, some interesting structures seemed to emerge that artificially wigged. Of course, we took a closer look at the structures. The feeling now seemed more like in a closed space, which consisted of different, platform-like levels. Most noticeable was that something seemed to be hanging from the ceiling. This object looked technological and resembled an oversized triode or radio tube turned upside down. We examined it further in Stage 6 . It seemed to be dangling from the ceiling on chaotic harnesses:
The further impression was that a kind of thin energy or electron beam was emitted at the tip. However, this was more tangible than visible, and could therefore be invisible to the naked eye. The ITs for this were “aim” and “guide” . Related ITs in the environment seemed to be “sizzling” , “changing” and “keeping” . These related to any “beams” or “girders” (elongated parts) that were inserted somewhere down there and processed by this device. The whole thing now seemed like an industrial process.
Of course, the monitor now also allows people to be perceived if artificial structures are already suspected to appear on an exoplanet. 2-3 people were noticeable on site, who the EIs radiated “a little excited” , “tired” and “amused” . However, they didn’t seem to notice the viewer (which can be different in alien sessions). The monitor got a bit nervous anyway and only let the viewer describe roughly one of the people. In terms of appearance, “rather small” , “slim” and, strangely enough, “angular”as data. It felt as if the people had an almost square torso, or such angular clothing. The perceived height of the person was between 1.20m and 1.50m (this could be plausible in view of the suspected 2.2g gravity, if these beings are at home there). The gender was “female” , although the gender information (also for people) is often unreliable. The colors of the person were ultimately expressed in “light gray” and “white-greenish patterned”. It is unclear whether this refers to skin color or clothing (if any). The first, rather fleeting session on Gliese 581c ended there.
Summary: Some interesting aspects appeared to have been viewed. Unfortunately, the session was broken off when it got exciting, and the viewer / monitor was not yet familiar with the use of the stage 6 tools. The first impressions of the landscape and the triode-like device came most clearly. For the landscape, a summary sketch (including “crystal flower”) was created:
Particularly noteworthy are the rather flat-looking, low rock plateaus. This could also be an indication of the high gravity. On Mars, for example, there are also much higher geological structures than on Earth (see Mount Everest ~ 9km vs. Olympus Mons ~ 25km). In addition to the rather dim mood, the viewer also recognized something dark, ring-shaped in the sky. It is unclear whether this is a planetary ring, as the structure was barely noticeable. Overall, Gliese 581c looked to the viewer as a rough, cold, but somehow atmospheric environment.
The second session took place under the Target premise of describing the most interesting natural formation on the planet. On the one hand, it should be more targeted than the first target, and on the other hand it should work towards a possible verification, since with similar approaches by other taskers / viewers a certain structure on the planet was always viewed (a kind of conspicuous volcanic crater). Therefore the target formulation was now:
“Describe the most interesting, naturally formed formation on the exoplanet Gliese 581c!”
The first stages showed earthy colors and stony, but also soft surfaces. When it comes to smells, the AOL/S “Like chalk” is perhaps interesting. The temperatures were perceived as “muggy” and “pulling down”. In terms of dimensions, the target looked quite complex and graduated. There seemed to be some kind of depression to the right, and there were structures of some sort around. An interesting AI at the end of stage 2 was “I don’t belong there NOW” . In the following stage 3 the viewer now drew a complex environment that seemed to consist partly of natural landscape and partly of artificial structures:
Particularly noticeable here was a kind of frame, which was built into the recess on the right side, while there was a kind of cliff or overhang on the left. Furthermore, something was noticed above the target, which looked like dense, pressing clouds to the viewer, and looked purple. After all, the viewer has already received impressions from people in the target environment.
The stage 4 now concretised in AIs as “construction site” and “New Feeling” . The EIs were “ coming from behind ” , “presenting something openly” and “demonstrating” . In the Ts the viewer noted “heavy thing below” and a “construct with feet”(as it was already indicated in the drawing in stage 3). We marked the latter for a further investigation in stage 6. The ITs finally reinforced the building site feeling: “Dismantle”, “lower”, “bring up”, “relocate”, “mill down” and “a lot of effort” . There we marked the attribute “bring up” for stage 6.
In stage 6 let’s take the most interesting, highlighted aspects from the target one after the other. But first there was a perception of people, since the EIs have been neglected so far and are of course one of the most interesting aspects on a foreign planet. The viewer perceived one person in the main focus (P1), and then another group of people standing further apart (G1), who watched the events around P1 rather passively.
P1 with face and activity in the target. The person looked blond with a green cast, very light skin color and obviously dirt on the face. In the area of the jaw something seemed to be attached that looked artificial and angular (respiratory mask?).
The group of people standing further away (G1) only watched passively what was happening around P1.
The events around P1 were described in terms of AI as “something went wrong” , “strained” and “panic and reason alternate” . Apparently the person was involved in a delicate situation. When we investigated this further, it looked as if the “construct with feet” from stages 3 and 4 was threatening to tip over, and P1 tried to hold on to it. That seemed a bit absurd, however, since the construct was much larger than the person. However, in the description of the “mental abilities” of P1 something came out that could sometimes be called psychokinetic ability.
Obviously P1 can “cut aisles” with his mind. We couldn’t find out straight away whether it helped her / him / it (gender could not be determined) to keep the large construct from falling over. Overall, P1 also acted like a kind of foreman, which would go with the EIs “presenting something openly” and “demonstrating” from stage 4. Now we took a detailed look at the group watching:
The appearance of the individual group members looked very different, almost as if they were different species. The EIs felt the viewer like an unjustifiable and smirking “We do not help P1 because he always leaves us!” . According to the motto “P1 thinks anyway, he can do better.” . Apparently P1 was the only person in the target with the described psi skills. The situation was not devoid of a certain sense of humor, not just from a G1 perspective.
Finally there was a detailed sketch of the (unmanageable) “construct with feet” :
The construction gave the impression of a derrick from which something spurted out above. Strangely enough, the ITs came up with “bring up” (still plausible), “roof over” and “show something” . Funny detail: P1 bottom left while holding the comparatively oversized tower. Poor, but self-confident, Gliesean foreman “guy” (if he comes from the Gliese 581 system and is not a guest worker) …
This was also the right time to “bring up” the IT from stage 4 to examine more closely, which was apparently directly related to the tower construct. When asked “What is being brought up?” , The viewer wrote: “The floor”, “Information”, “distribute / sow” . Some of it contradicts a simple derrick interpretation, or this “promotion” is about aspects that are beyond our technical understanding. Quite an interesting anchor point on which one could set up further detailed sessions. The session ended with the final AI “makes me nervous” and the AOL “mining” .
Summary: Here a location opened up, the rough descriptions of which are similar to the Vulkan sessions of other viewers. Mining and production impressions were also reported. A viewer even had similar EIs as in our session, but interpreted them more as a kind of arena environment with uncomfortable gladiator fights. He says, however, that he could have gotten wrong in AOLs. But this is not excluded in any session (not even in ours) if you cannot get hard feedback on a target. In the meantime, as a monitor, I would have multiple sessions including numerous movement exercises on the same target in order to increase the data density.
Overall summary: These two sessions are of course only a very shy and brief look at a strange world that would have to offer countless interesting details. It is well known that the viewer is mostly drawn to the aspects of a target that his subconscious finds most interesting. Locations on a foreign planet can be circled by exercise (or, in contrast, even entire solar systems “mapped”), but there, too, the scope is still gigantic and the choice of what you ultimately want to see is overwhelming. But do these sessions prove that there is intelligent life on Gliese 581c?
On the basis of the experience with apparently dead, known planets, where often no EIs appear, or those that only seem to come through the space probe present, and to which the EIs of the observing ground crew cling, one could make the rather clear perceptions of people (especially in the second session ) as an indication of intelligent life there. But since we cannot get any hard feedback on this planet (unless a sensational, faster-than-light drive system is announced soon), misinterpretations or AOL-chaining cannot be ruled out. Especially not with just two sessions with slightly different target formulations.
Our modest results may, however, encourage other viewers to take a closer look at this or other interesting exoplanets in order to develop even more clues. Even in the Gliese 581 system itself there are several planet candidates that could be worthwhile in terms of content. But a look into our own solar system is also exciting, as there are enough unsolved puzzles there (e.g. whether there are living oceans under the surface of icy moons such as Europe or Enceladus ). Also the asteroid Ceres or the small ex-planet Pluto one could take a closer look, because in 2015 (if the New Horizons-mission works) we will be able to marvel at close-up photographs for the first time and compare them with the session results.
Category: Consciousness Protocol: CRV (with monitor via Skype) Coordinates: 3657 3454 1767 1486 Number of viewers: 1 (Benny Pamp) Number of sessions: 1 Date: 2012-10-13 Time: 8.45 p.m. to 9.48 p.m. Duration: 63 minutes Pages: 9
What can you find out when you look at people’s experiences of consciousness? The “Monroe Institute: CHEC Units” session already gave a first glimpse . Now, however, the opportunity arose for an even more special target, which comes directly from an experience report of the Thetawaves forum:
The other day, after re-entering the body, I had a situation that seriously gave me pause. At that point in time, I was already completely locked into the physical body with my non-physical body – almost physically awake. Indeed, I suddenly felt for a few seconds how other non-physical arms pushed their way from behind through my physical arms … so into my physical body, so to speak, from behind through the shoulders and into the fingers …. kind of like pushing your arms into latex gloves in an isolation chamber. The arms felt very cold and strange (lifeless) … that was damn scary and I wonder what the intention is and from whom … Especially this unspeakable coldness of the arms shocked me. That might sound a bit paranoid, but it was really very intense and real …
The target cue:
*Translation: “Describe Wendulins Experience that he reported in the Thetawaves-Forum in the following post…”
As is usual with such targets, the first stages showed a tangle of (often indefinable) colors and surfaces. The AIs of stage 1 expressed themselves as follows: “Prison feeling – contrast (free / walled in) – dead end – like course”
In stage 2 these AIs were shown: “Artificial – simulated – sadly authentic and not authentic” . The viewer felt that part of the target was “real” and another part was “fake”. What that could mean later became clearer.
In stage 3 , the viewer drew a strange scene with a person in the center. Here he felt it was half “real + sad” and half “fake + happy”:
So far it was only pretty abstract data (which is typical with such targets).
Of course, it gets more interesting in stage 4. The aesthetical impacts (AIs) of the viewer to the target were “One side is real (the hollow one), the other side is like a kind of hologram / illusion” . With the emotional impacts (EIs) he then perceived two separate persons / entities. Person 1 (P1) felt something like “shock cold, steadfastness, assertion” and appeared “unimpressed” . Person 2 (P2), on the other hand, appeared “hardened, used, waiting” and “bored” . As ITs of the target there was “bring it down, look at it, project” and“Create ideal / demonstrate”. The viewer’s overall conclusion about the situation was:
“Dilemma” “Like shortly before the solution” “Something very small is missing”
In stage 6 we then looked at the aspect “Something is missing” more precisely. We asked what was missing and it was “Idea, sparkling thought, blocked” . Here it became even clearer that only a tiny little thing is missing to something. We then continued with a person perception in order to take a closer look at the two individuals (P1 and P2) occurring in the target.
Investigation and sketching of P1 and its activities (remarkable; the estimated age at 253 years – does that relate to the energy body or soul part?). P1 is on a kind of projection surface that she apparently “operates”.
Here now also P2, after which the “relationship” between P1 and P2 was also examined.
Essentially it came out that P1 tries to break through a kind of wall or blockade, but for which the said “little thing” is still missing. P2, on the other hand, waits on the “other side” and acts like an exam taker or “representative of the supervisory authority”. Obviously, this seems to be a familiar thing for P2, because they just “sit” there, bored and waiting. More precisely, P2 was waiting for a “result from P1”. A guide who should help, but who can only contribute once the OoBe practitioner has achieved the necessary “little thing”?
But how do you explain the aspect of the “strange arms” from the experience report? In fact, no direct contact or touch between P1 and P2 was visible during the session. On the contrary: It all pointed to a spatial / dimensional separation. The viewer developed its own theory afterwards (click for full screen):
So maybe it wasn’t a guide at all, and the experiencer practically “groped himself”? Again one of countless and still emerging puzzles from metaphysical realms …
Summary: An abstract, but interesting session on an experience on the border between wakefulness and sleep. The interpretation of the processes arises from comparison experiences that were made in this state. The symbolism with some kind of projection surface appears more often with such targets. Sessions on dreams also go in the same direction, although further sessions are required in order to be able to accept recurring patterns.
This also opens up the possibility of interesting RV projects in connection with OoBE-experiments: How are the experiences made with the respective techniques or approaches? Are there such things as recognizable constants, or does the data composition remain purely subjective? Can one contribute RV as a verification aid or additional data acquisition? Perhaps a combined OoBE / RV experiment can be carried out in the Thetawaves community in the future …