How Remote Viewing Works 5: Dr. Simeon Hein


Uploaded by Fractalfriend on 18.01.2008

Transcript:
Uh
this is the attack on Pearl Harbor. Now notice the gun
turret in the middle, here.
What I liked about this viewer session is, they,
drew that turret, there, right in the middle where it should
be, just at the right angle.
They didn't get much else but they got these sharp,
contrasting lines like the turret of the gun on the
battleship
and that kind of uh lift, that crane in the back
and you can see it's reflected there in -- in the pictures,
those, kind of straight lines.
Now this is what's called in viewing, 'entropy. '
It seems to be easier to pick out objects for our, viewer,
that are in contrast to all the other objects around. A spire,
something that really sticks out and this is an example of
that. It's called entropy, not quite the way physicists use
it but just in the general sense of,
disorderliness can create a target that's -- that is easier
to view than a very smooth scene.
And in his post session summary,
he didn't get anything like what we might have gotten
about the horror of war or the danger, he had a sense of fun,
explosions and a lot of metal and a lot of stuff going on
and it's lots of fun.
Now we found this at Farsight, a long time ago,
that in some of the natural disasters that we viewed
from time to time,
you might not always get a feeling of sadness, you might
just have a sense of activity and adventure;
perhaps that's how our soul or other aspects of our mind
view the same situation.
We may have different levels of reaction to one situation, it
may not be uniform.
Now, there is a picture here of a man
on a camel, it seems, in the background here and a cross.
This viewer was able to describe,
she first draws these two beings and this object here,
this spokey-like object.
She mentioned that they were two beings and that there was
a sense of uh
something like a temple,
wheel-like spokes.
She describes one higher, one lower
and a sense of uh "awesome to behold; humbling before
heaven," the kind of the sacredness of it.
And then in her drawing,
look, she draws a -- you know, a person apparently
sitting on an animal and a spokey-like thing, which
to me seems like the cross.
It wasn't literally a spokey- like thing but it
I'll take it,
it's pretty close, so it's
the -- the two people are there,
the object,
the cross-like object,
the sense of expansiveness,
it all came through in that viewing session.
And she described um a being one higher, one lower,
together,
in a beautiful colorful environment.
Now, here's another session where the viewer was able to
read the words off the page.
This apparently is some sort of frequent flyer mile ad,
which she described in her session, at first, something
we can't see there, it was a person running.
We -- I couldn't quite verify that but then she later went
on to describe
a plentiful, bounty, a harvest, a -- like a cornucopia,
continuous, seasonal, like the production of food;
man-made, yellowish colors
or it could be a long way distance- wise,
as someone would go miles for it,
perhaps, to be fed.
Now, I -- I don't know what's going on there but she picked
up the meaning of that advertisement. I mean, this
whole point of frequent flyer miles, how many miles did
she go and she describes the story of a person running and
then they're running a long way to be fed
and she read the word off the page.
Now,
I haven't seen that very often but of course, if we go
people who are occasionally able to do this, especially
viewers like Pat Price,
who apparently, never missed.
He -- whatever they said, you could take to the bank.
There are not many viewers like that, eve -- even the
viewers that we know about, miss many of their targets
often.
We certainly miss them a lot of the time, it's part of the
viewing experience
but in this case, she was able to literally read the words off
the page and uh
it's exciting when that happens.
Here's another session that she did uh
these are the Easter Islands Stone Heads.
She draws the picture of a man,
pounding or someone,
pounding on something and gets the sense of something
collapsing, falling down, being shaped with a hammer;
a solid material.
And then she says, "A very heavy object, that's black-
grey in color, it's fixed on the ground, it appears
immovable,
it has a flat top. I see a live organic pounding on the
object, to shape it. He's using a tool like a hammer.
The object is hard, so it's like being sculpted, like a
blacksmith.
It's dirty and grimy work but he's making something
monumental and lasting.
The object could be falling down or in danger of falling
over. "
Now, in my mind, she's viewing this same target at
two different points in time.
She's viewing it when it was constructed and later when
it's falling over.
She's describing objects that are big and black and in
danger of falling over and there, they are falling over.
It raises a lot of questions about what we're doing when
we are viewing.
Does time really exist, like, we've been taught?
Or, is everything happening at once
and it's just simply different frames
of reality,
that the ticking of our clocks,
is just a mechanical illusion
that we are trying to
ascribe to our consciousness,
putting all these frames together in a linear sequence?
This type of result suggests to me that,
people can be at the target 500 years ago
and in the present. And in case you're wondering,
we tend to think that the viewer is not viewing the
picture, they're at the target location.
Just like radionics where you put a picture in a little uh
container and in theory that should send energy to that
person or
as it's been done to forests or whatever, that picture,
the energy goes to that object in reality.
In viewing,
it seems to suggest that
the target is like a radionic queue, it's just showing the
viewer, well, where should I go in space-time.
They're actually at the location and that's why we
can move them around in time and space, with
movement exercises, into the past, into the future,
back
20 feet, forward 20 feet,
move forward
half an hour, whatever.
It's all there
and the -- the -- whether it's an actual
holographic replication of the target that the viewer is
at, or if it's actually is the place and maybe if they were
viewing us right here, we would see them.
I don't know the answer to that question, it's -- raises a
lot of great questions and I don't think we know all the
answers yet
but in theory, we believe the viewer is going to the target
location and that can be verified with different types
of experiments, where you put things at the target
location, that are not at the target picture and you see if
they pick it up or not,
or you could tell the viewer to go to that location at a
different time, than is in the picture
and see if they are able to do that.
So, we're still learning a lot about this whole process of--
of viewing.
There's a lot we don't know and that's partly why it's so
much fun.
It's really like being at the edge of something that's
really, really different.
Well here's a picture of -- of, uh of Mars
and if you saw Tom Van Flandern's presentation,
the other night, we know there's a lot going on there,
that we haven't been told about
but here is our picture.
Now look at this -- here's the canyon going across
and
look at that.
There is the gash, I mean, there's something planet-
like.
This is all the viewer got but I mean, it's good enough for
me.
This could've been any -- anything and they got a --
something like a planet-like, with a big gash going across.
In theory, if there at the location, we could send them
to one of these locations that Tom has, you know, on the
NASA site,
these very
high-resolution pictures and walk around there and see
what
are there really planets or what are they?
Maybe we'll do that.
Here is a picture of a pool player.
This viewer
did the session at their
the husband's construction site. She just had a piece of
sheet rock and a pencil,
here's the session.
The target was in a folder on her desk, it was one of the
take-home targets that we give people to take-home
and it was one in the folder. She hadn't opened it, thick
manila folder, she just said,
"I will do a viewing session, I've got half an hour. "
She sat down on the steps, there, took a piece of sheet
rock
and you can see, here's the
the cue stick
and the pool player and
the balls, the cue balls are in the lower right hand corner.
So it's a -- perfect.
It's amazing!
Distance does not seem to affect the accuracy of the
viewing.
In fact,
some people like William Tiller, Dr. William Tiller uh
Emeritus of Stanford University, have suggested
that,
viewing gets more accurate the more distant the target is
from the viewer.
We're dealing with a different type of space.
He calls it, 'R-space' in contrast to this uh
direct space of our senses. There is a reciprocal space of
the quantum world,
it's -- he's suggesting that
the viewing becomes more accurate the farther away the
target is from you.
In other words,
if the target is right in front of you, it's harder than if it's
farther away.
I don't know if we've enough data to know if that's
true
but the implications are kind of interesting.
There were some experiments done with Ingo
Swan, where they sent him down in a submarine,
this is in the Bay, in L.A.
or I believe, is somewhere off the coast of California.
They -- they found that he could still do the viewing
with the same level of accuracy
and it suggests that,
well, it's not an electromagnic -- mag --
magnetic signal which will be filtered out by Faraday
Cages and things like that,
where the experiments have been done to see, well, can
we filter out the signal. No! You can't filter out the signal
and
when Ingo viewed, I believe, it was Uranus.
He found these rings
there
that -- that the Voyager
craft had not detected in 1976
and when the craft got there a couple months later, there
were the rings that he got in his viewing session.
This seems to suggest that viewing works at any
distance.
It's not limited by uh
distance or time in the way that conventional
electromagnetic signals are.
Here's another double-blind session.
It's an advertisement for a laptop computer
and they are focusing on the picture of the person there.
It's a juggler and here's the picture.
I mean, that's --
Can we have the picture up there, on the screen?
Yeah! See that?
It's pretty, pretty close.
Pretty close description of the --
the artwork. Now the viewer never saw the computer and
was disappointed with the session
and this is what we call, 'door knobbing,'
when the viewer sees the door knob but not door.
This viewer was disappointed with their session but I
thought it was fantastic because the -- the angle of
the knees, the bending knees and the uh
the shape of this person there, is exactly like the
picture
and it's a double-blind session.
And she described someone juggling and twirling,
acrobatic motions.
In a sense, it's a story.
He raises questions of what we're doing when we view
but she's describing a story, it's just a piece of artwork
but it's an accurate description of this story.
And here it is moving around twirling and
all the colors are correct and so forth.