Archive for Astronomy

1I/2017 U1 (Oumuamua)

Category: Astronomy
CRV (with monitor)
301875 962548 655314
Number of viewers:
1 (Bernhard Reicher)
Number of sessions:
7.05pm – 8.22pm
77 minutes

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!”

First impressions

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:

Oumuamua - Stufe 3 (1)


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:

Oumuamua - Stufe 6 (1)

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:

Oumuamua - Oberfläche


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.

Oumuamua - Rausschleudern

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:

Oumuamua - Stufe 6 (Timeline)

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.

German Flag German version of this article German Flag

Proxima Centauri b

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.

Proxima Centauri b (transcripted)

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”)
Proxima Centauri b (Stargate)
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!):

Proxima Centauri b (collage 1)

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:

Proxima Centauri b (inside)

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:

Proxima Centauri b (lifeforms)

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. 😉

German Flag German version of this article German Flag

A Short Trip To Saturn’s Moon Titan (Update)

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):

RV - Titan (Target 2)
(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:

RV - Titan (S3)

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:

RV - Titan (Target 2) (S6)

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:

RV - Titan (Target 2) (S6-1000x)

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:

RV - Titan (Target 2) (S6-Cassini)

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.

German Flag German version of this article German Flag

A Short Trip To Saturn’s Moon Titan

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:
RV - Titan - Target
(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.
RV - Titan - S3

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” , “hold together” 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:
RV - Titan - S3 - 10x oberhalb

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 :
RV - Titan - 10x vorne

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:

RV - Titan - 1000x oberhalb

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:

RV - Titan - 10000x oberhalb

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.

Update 2015/10/27: Meanwhile, there was another solo session on the Titan.

German Flag German version of this article German Flag

Meteor of Chelyabinsk

In this article I would like to present a session on the event known as ” Meteor of Chelyabinsk “, which was proposed as a target by moderator Tarek Al-Ubaidi in the run-up to the CROPfm program “Wahrnehmung, Interpretation und Glaube”.

The intention was to explore two 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:

RV - Meteor von Tscheljabinsk - Target
(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 :

RV - Meteor von Tscheljabinsk - S3

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:

RV - Meteor von Tscheljabinsk - S3 [x]

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:

RV - Meteor von Tscheljabinsk - S3 (Comic)

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. 😀

RV - Meteor von Tscheljabinsk - S3 (Vorher - Nachher)

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.

RV - Meteor von Tscheljabinsk - S6 (Entscheidungstool)

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. 😉

German Flag German version of this article German Flag

Gliese 581c

Category: Astronomy
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).

Gliese 581c (künstlerische Darstellung)

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
Pages: 8

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:

RV - Gliese 581c (Session 1) - Kristallblume

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:

RV - Gliese581c (Session 1) - Triode

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:

RV - Gliese 581c (Session 1) - Landschaft

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.


Viewer # 2 (Benny Pamp)

Protocol: CRV (with monitor via Skype)
Coordinates: 4303 6461 2272 2617
Date: /2012-02-26
Time: 7:50 p.m. to 8:50 p.m.
Duration: 60 minutes
Pages: 7

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:

RV - Gliese 581c (Session 2) - Stufe 3

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.

RV - Gliese 581c (Session 2) - Stufe 6 - P1

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?).

RV - Gliese 581c (Session 2) - G1

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.

RV - Gliese 581c (Session 2) - P1-Psi

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:

RV - Gliese 581c (Session 2) - G1 (Details)

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” :

RV - Gliese 581c (Session 2) - Stufe 6 - Konstrukt

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.

German Flag German version of this article German Flag

Venera spacecraft on the planet Venus

Category: Astronomy
Protocol: CRV (with monitor via Skype)
Coordinates: 1524-3997
Number of viewers: 1 (Christian Rotz)
Number of sessions: 1
Date: 02/02/2011
Time: 12.11pm to 12.32pm
Duration: 21 minutes
Pages: 5

This target was based on a color image of the landing probe of one of the russian Venera spacecrafts. They survived only briefly in the inhospitable Venus atmosphere (official data: almost 500°C heat, almost 100 bar air pressure and sulfuric acid clouds). It was a short session from our early days in Remote Viewing.

1524-3997 (Target)

The target was processed until Stage 4. It included a separate processing on a single aspect ([x]), and two movement exercises (one for centering, and one from 50m above the target). Here are the most interesting excerpts and aspects of the session:

Stage 2 Impressions

Colors: white, light, black, gloss, yellow
Textures: Soft, hard, yielding, dry
Smells: Artificial, rubbery, plastic
Tastes: Artificial
Temperatures: cool, fresh
Sounds: hum
Dimensions: flat, leveled, tall, far, floating

Stage 2 Impressions [x]

Surfaces: cool, hard, wet
Colors: gray, white, dark
Smells: Artificial, rubbery
Tastes: soft
Temperatures: cool
Sounds: noise, crackling
Dimensions: flat, wide, angular, shallow, upright

1524-3997 (Skizze von oben)

Stage 4 Impressions [x]

Sensory impressions (S): soft, dry, yielding, grainy, mushy
Dimensional impressions (D): outside, wide, heavy
Aesthetic Impression (AI): disorder, useful, endure
Emotional Impact (EI): difficult, coping, concern, intolerance
Intangibles (IT): protection, damage

AI (emotional conclusion of the viewer): “I don’t want to be there!”

1524-3997_Skizze (Schaden)
Spontaneous sketch after Stage 4 with impressions of the environment. Low hills or dunes are visible.

1524-3997_Skizze (seitlich)

More detailed sketch, were we can guess the Venera landing probe on the right side. In addition, there is a movement aspect which may refer to the landing approach.

I would like to emphasize above all the emotional impressions (EI) in Stage 4, which can be understood as foreign emotions on the target. Interestingly enough, these are in keeping with the general mood that prevailed in mission control at that time around this part of the mission (since the probes, as we said at the beginning, quickly became inoperative and one could be glad to get any data from them at all). At least that is more plausible at first sight than that there were any living beings on the Venus surface who felt these complex emotions. In that case, one could even speculate that the probe acted as a kind of “avatar” for the emotions and impressions of the ground crew on Earth who controlled it. Other Venus sessions that have since been made, but were targeted away from the landing probe, did not show any EIs in the local environment (which is really rare when you’re used to targets on Earth).

Venera (CGI)

Another peculiar aspect is the descriptions of “cool” in the temperatures. According to official measurements, the Venus surface is around 480-500 °C. Only the interior of the probe was initially cooled to below 0° C, so it worked for a short time at all. However, the absence of heat is already noticeable. It must be said, however, that a viewer in such sensory individual aspects can also be wrong (apparently often in colors and temperatures).

Several sessions with different viewers on the same target would perhaps provide even more differentiated results of the individual impressions. But apart from the temperature aspect (unless it’s really cooler there and the temperature measurements are flawed), the session is amazingly accurate.

Update 10/10/2012: In the meantime, such unexpected temperature sensations have also been revealed during sessions on other planets or other extreme environments, which are sometimes described as inappropriate, but sometimes also suitable (eg “freezing cold” in space, “as in a furnace” on the sun, “like in a steel mill” in other Venus sessions). It is still unclear what these different sensations are, but perhaps it has to do with the extraordinary temperature conditions in such targets, which are simply beyond the usual temperature sensations of humans (like with hot steam or dry ice one sometimes cann not tell if it is hot or cold).

Summary: An interesting single session on the planet Venus, which confirmed well known facts, but also offered unexpected aspects.

German Flag German version of this article German Flag