Notpron Forums

Okay, so if you don't concentrate on the number what DO you do? Sit there and have your mind be blank?

Wow, thats few... I was expecting David to get like hundreds of emails a day... Do you get free entrance to your college of choice if you solve this level? xD Seems hard enough

dragonx11x wrote:Okay, so if you don't concentrate on the number what DO you do? Sit there and have your mind be blank?

If you know nothing about remote viewing.. the best thing to do is to research it.

the problem is Jenn, most of the websites ive found say to do exactly what David says not to do, so I'm really struggling with this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6kgZTqJ ... ideo_title

:O

i wish i had listened in German class

Yeah... Lots of sites say something like relax for like 5 minutes and clear everything outta your head before you think about the numbers

These are rubbish sites then.
Remote Viewing works with protocols.

rawr. David, mind translating your video? I am currently staring at the computer with o.0 that look on my face. Didn't take German, took French.

Hello Everybody!

I love browsing this forum -- specifically this thread -- from time to time. I don't remember how long it's been since I solved this puzzle... three years? Maybe four? But the memory of this experience is still pretty clear... mainly because I was doubtful before my genuine attempt. It seems there are newer people around, as the last post was just two days ago! I'd like to try and help via my opinion on the issue of methods.

There seems to be a little bit of discussion back and forth on whether or not you 'focus' on the number or not. I'd personally say yes and no. To me, the numbers act as a "seed". A lot of remote viewing, or at least... as I understand it from various sources, have a target in mind. So there is some kind of established link. This link could be a person that prepared the target before hand, a computer that generates a target, a place that is designated as a target, or a puzzle that hints at the existence of a target. In all cases there is a link.

However. As I said before, I treated the link as a 'seed'. I collected myself (a process that took about 5 minutes... I'm kinda scatterbrained), and thought of the numerical sequence exactly as it appeared. I thought of it in what I call a "flash" type sense. It was quickly thought of, and then subsequently all thoughts and images were erased from my mind. At that point, I observed without thinking. Which is the hardest part for a guy with a wandering mind. Anyways, various imagery developed and I had to suppress the urge to develop it on purpose.

The full image, the one I reported to David, took about 30 seconds to develop. I saw a brown shape, white streams coming from the back, and there seemed to be forward movement indicated. The brown shape was the boat (yep, I'm one of the ones that answered the first image) from a top-down view, the white streams was the wake behind the boat, and forward movement is implied by the object and wake mentioned before.

I should really find another fun puzzle to solve, yes? This little escapade has brought back some fond memories . This was, after all, where I spend a pretty significant amount of time (2.5 years!).

Anyways, I'll check back again sometime and answer any questions. I obviously can't "get" an answer for anyone, but a personal account of the event is another source you guys can use to assist you.

Best of luck!

-Tuen

Thanks a lot Tuen, that seems like great advice! I think ill give it a real shot tonight when i have some time on my hands.

yeah I agree, thanks Tuen

Tuen- what do you mean by genuine attempt?

dragonx11x wrote:Tuen- what do you mean by genuine attempt?

I mean trying this process without doubts. If you hesitate because you think it's too ridiculous, you won't get very far. This is the second biggest enemy of the process (next to creative thought, this has to be done with a mental clean slate).

It's just a notion that preconceptions can drive the results of the test. I read an article about people doing studies on divorce and its effect on people. Regardless of what our own personal feelings are about the topic, the article did bring up a good point about letting our own frame of reference drive the results of a study. In this case, it was a therapist doing a study on the effects of divorce. She chose willing subjects from her pool of clients to be the subjects of the study. Why is this weird? Because only those who struggle with the divorce for extended periods of time would become regular patients. A more unbiased study chose subjects randomly from a list of legal divorces provided by the state.

So the point is, if you let your expectations take hold of your 'test' process (remote viewing, in this case), then it can end up driving the results to their 'expected' outcome. A genuine attempt is free of any prediction-driven results. Hence, in my case, even though i was skeptical at first, i allowed for a genuine attempt which, in turn, surprised me! I can go back after the fact and say 'wow, that's pretty unbelievable', but I can't really say this type of thing is impossible anymore .

I hope that helped!

-Tuen

In my opinion a "doesn't work anyway, I'm doing bullshit"-mentality helps a lot, because you don't give a fuck. For me it works best then, at least.
But I'm talking about doing the protocols this way.
Most Notproners are trying whatever way of clearvoyance, but not remote viewing. Which is a specific protocol way of doing clear voyance, which needs to be learned though.