THE SCIENTIFIC EQUATION OF MAN VS. WOODEN LOG

By: Bryan Boodhoo

Imagine if you will, a military obstacle course. There 2 are people that are next in line to run through the course. Both have never done it before. The first person gets to the first obstacle and stops. He then questions if it safe to go through with this obstacle. Upon safety considerations. He deems it safe and completes the first obstacle. He then continues to the second obstacle. This obstacle is a wooden log that he must get over, but it is high up. He stops and ask out loud if this obstacle is safe. He is much more hesitant with this obstacle. He computes the height, risk factors, landing area into his equation. He knows that he must finish the course but is caught up in his own head. He spends an hour trying to figure out a way to get over it. Eventually everyone left. He is still there trying to determine the scientific equation of man vs wooden log.

The other person who started the course alongside him has finished. He goes through the course with ease. Taking the challenges as he went but never second guessing or questioning the direction of attack. It was done with fluidity, with carefulness. He wasn’t so caught up in the risks or spending an ungodly amount of time measuring the dimensions of the log relative to his stature. This guy took the plunge with trust and confidence.

This story is an allegory for remote viewing. In this case, the entirety of the obstacle course is the complete story that a remote viewer is trying to convey. The individual obstacles serve as parts of the story. Each part may be different but when all parts are put together a coherent story is apparent.

There is a tendency for a new viewer to incorporate a form of Q&A into their sessions. As a new viewer, this may be disadvantageous to their development. It is my observation that the remote viewing flow is interrupted by active questioning. By doing this, the subconscious may never really learn to relay information in a clear and concise way. It is constantly being interrupted by your active questioning.

This formal and active questioning is more detrimental to a new viewer than a seasoned one. For a viewer to posit a relevant question to your subconscious, a psychic grasp of the target environment would have to be present. This would mean that the subconscious has fed you sufficient information for the formation of your question to be formulated. The conscious questioning would interrupt the flow of information that the subconscious has started to feed to you. Furthermore, your question has limited the scope of information that is available to you. You may only answer with information that is relative to your question. There may be important information on the periphery that is more important than you’ve explored with your conscious questioning.

As a newly trained HRVG viewer, it is important to let the information flow. This is more in reference to S4. Once the information starts to flow, it may take a while before you’d need to posit a formal question. If you get to this point, you’re probably done with this particular gestalt. Each blackboard rush is an obstacle on the obstacle course. If you start incorporating these questions, you’d get stuck at one obstacle. You can tell me everything about it. An hour later, you’d still be there, but the story wouldn’t be complete without going through the rest of the obstacle course.

The ideal posture would be confidence and curiosity. Call it as it is. If you think you see a plane, tell me you see a plane. If you hold the belief that you should not name aspects of the target, then your data will likely remain vague. The hesitant guy on the obstacle course can tell me all about the second obstacle. It’d take him an hour to do so and most of that information would be useless. The tasker doesn’t need to know about the thickness of the wood, how high it is off the ground, the scientific equations of man vs wooden log. He just wants the full picture, the story.  The other, confident guy will tell you about the obstacle and about the rest of the course in that time.

If you take this “call it as you see it” approach. Your potential to produce relevant data will be greater rather than something that is vague and not relevant. I first observed this by watching Dick and Glenn on the whiteboard. They weren’t scared of being wrong. They confidently told the audience what the deal is. They did not find a vague way to be right. It was always direct, take it or leave it. In more case than not, the information would be spot on. If you try this approach, you may fail miserably in the beginning. You are teaching the subconscious how you want the information to be portrayed to you. The feedback process will get you to a point where this approach will work for you.