Remote Viewing Community
http://www.rvcommunity.net/

Data Cross Contamination?
http://www.rvcommunity.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=9715
Page 1 of 1

Author:  3.14 [ Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Data Cross Contamination?

Hi,

I just finished two back to back sessions. After finishing the second session, which I started immediately after finishing the first, I realized my chair had rolled on top of the first session which I had placed on the ground. I discovered I had been sitting on top of the first session the entire I had been working the second session.

I know that having a session on your desk when you are working can skew data... Can this happen with the situation described above...?

My second session appeared to be an extension of the first session with much greater detail... The ST showed what I would have expected to see as far as data goes if I had done additional exploration on the first session ST.

Yes, there were also some elements of the intended second cue sprinkled in.

Thanks!
3.14

Author:  Morgan Farrell [ Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Data Cross Contamination?

It's probably because you jumped right into the second session. It's recommended that you take at least a 15 minute break between sessions to ensure you're off of the signal line, and to refresh the tool - your body - just as we like to break after about 45 minutes in-session. And having the other session in visual range probably didn't help either.

Author:  Raptor [ Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Data Cross Contamination?

Wait one hour and you are fine doing another session on a different target. For me fifteen minutes isn't enough.

Author:  Ed Dames [ Sun Dec 02, 2012 9:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Data Cross Contamination?

Question: Were the targets related?

Author:  3.14 [ Sun Dec 02, 2012 10:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Data Cross Contamination?

Hi,

No the blind targets were not seemingly related...

Session 1 = Next catastrophe / Phoenix, Arizona / large loss of human life
Session 2 = "Aphrodite"

2nd target was start immediately after ending first session. Next time, I'll take a break between session to clean up my work space. =]

Cheers,
3.14

Author:  Morgan Farrell [ Sun Dec 02, 2012 11:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Data Cross Contamination?

Good call - stepping outside is nice too, to provide a change in environment. That first cue could use a little tune-up though...

Author:  3.14 [ Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Data Cross Contamination?

Outside - Oh, yes. Good call. Its beautiful this time of year.

Re: cue structure.

What would you suggest? I'm always interested in cueing structure / approaches as proper cueing seems to be very important.

Thanks,
3.14

Author:  Ed Dames [ Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Data Cross Contamination?

You need to be more concerned with the syntax of #1 than with target morphing.

The topical search cue is fine.

Ed

Author:  3.14 [ Mon Dec 03, 2012 2:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Data Cross Contamination?

Would appropriate cue syntax be:

Next large loss of human life / Phoenix, Arizona / primary cause

or

Phoenix, Arizona / Next large loss of human life / primary cause

My thinking is that I am really interested in discovering the "Next large loss of human life" and what caused it... that would be considered a catastrophe.

Thanks!
3.14

Author:  Brett Stuart [ Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Data Cross Contamination?

Wording after a / pertains to the previous section.

So ask yourself, does it make sense that (Phoenix Arizona) is a subset of (Next large loss of human life)?

What is the (primary cause) of (Phoenix Arizona)?

Gross -> General -> Specific -> Detail

Also, a "large" loss of a life is very poorly worded. If you use a dictionary, you'll quickly see why. What might be a better word?

Author:  3.14 [ Mon Dec 03, 2012 7:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Data Cross Contamination?

How about:

Phoenix, Arizona / next catastrophe / significant loss of human life

Thanks!
3.14

Author:  Brett Stuart [ Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Data Cross Contamination?

Much better.

Author:  Ed Dames [ Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Data Cross Contamination?

Next Phoenix, Arizona catastrophe

Author:  3.14 [ Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Data Cross Contamination?

Thanks!

I'll update my blind pool.

Cheers,
3.14

Author:  3.14 [ Wed Dec 05, 2012 3:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Data Cross Contamination?

By the way Ed.... What a gift. Thank you.

Cheers,
3.14

Author:  RossU [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Data Cross Contamination?

I offer a suggestion for the cue part "Catastrophe"

Quote:
Definition of CATASTROPHE

1: the final event of the dramatic action especially of a tragedy

2: a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin

3
a : a violent and sudden change in a feature of the earth
b : a violent usually destructive natural event (as a supernova)

4: utter failure : fiasco <the party was a catastrophe>


to

Quote:
Definition of Calamity

1: a state of deep distress or misery caused by major misfortune or loss

2: a disastrous event marked by great loss and lasting distress and suffering <calamities of nature> <an economic calamity>



I had held off a reply so that 3.14 could respond to bstuart's tutelage. My initial thought was:

Phoenix, Arizona / next calamity / most recognizable cause

I was unsure about the last part "/ most recognizable cause". I haven't finished the LRDVDs yet and I am not going to get a head of myself. So I will end with this thought/question:

Not adding the last part, would the Matrix give enough information to the overarching idea or might it return something quaint or uncommon?

Author:  Brett Stuart [ Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Data Cross Contamination?

Catastrophe has a successful track record. I believe the Matrix also interprets catastrophe as an event with a significant loss of human life (which is why the Major's cue is more eloquent).

On a side note, why would you want to go down the rabbit hole of "causes" when you could just look directly at the event?

Author:  RossU [ Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:06 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Data Cross Contamination?

I realized, at most in part, pitfalls of using just /cause. I thought 'most recognizable' would be mitigating.

Other than some reading in the Advanced Target sub-forum I have no idea what range of data to expect with cues like these. Hence my question.

I really need to finish DVD1 first.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/