✓

Note: Break the bad habit of retracing key site aspect archetypes in the S3 freehand.

Yes sir. Thank you.

I'd like to encourage you to resume your TRV training, Herr cbutter. Your work requires a lot of improvement, but the potential for excellence is there.

Doom

Note to Snow: Did the rest of your session work get lost in the ether, or what?

"or what" Issues with Photobucket, trying to work that out, been a while since my last use and they've made changes to the site.

Somebody just slap me in the back of my head to jar my memory of how this posting goes!
Like I said earlier, it's been way too long that we've worked on projects together here.

So, without further ado... Ta-daaa!

Data Summary - 1461/1611

[X] There are tiny objects at the sight. These objects are lightweight, flat, shiny and amber colored on one side, pale white on the other.
The area appears to be dense with the objects and cover a wide area. Objects have a musty/chemical smell and have a bitter taste.
Objects resemble confetti or particles of chemicals. Intangibles indicate covering, saturating or destroying the area. AOL Sensory:
"like crop dusting" I have a "worried" feeling about this.

[A] S4 data of this aspect consisted of sound, textures, and movement relating to [X]. There were light popping and crackling sounds,
the area felt moist or humid. Air movement was light and smooth, moving vertically across the area. Intangibles of atmospheric
conditions like wind, breeze, and air movement.

[B] This aspect of the sight consisted of a desert type terrain. Many references to a vast area that was flat, sandy, gritty and dense.
The area was perceived to be moist and cool. Intangibles are mixed with "unused, dead," and "tested" as they refer to
"something that is..."

In 2005, a handful of advanced students ran this same topical search as a blind target. Here are samples of one viewer's work:

No target reference material was associated with the project. I include the following two 'Bigfoot' photos, simply for illustrative purposes (they are authentic):

Regarding the 2nd photograph -- I saw this recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3woZvbMl9U

Does this make any more sense to anyone?

I have heard the Major on C2C explain, paraphrasing (correct me please), that 'Sasquatch' appears to be something like an avatar, used by ETs to have a somewhat vicarious-yet-tangible experience of earth's terrestrial environment, for the purpose of recreation. It uses some kind of connected airborne device (dare I say 'drone'?) which can suss-out the environment, detect threats, etc.

Are we seeing that here in this round of data?

As I thought about what an aggregate summary would look like, I felt pretty confident in the accuracy of the terrain description. No issue with 'place'.

But what about
1) combination of organic and inorganic material
2) the technological element
3) scattered/particle/group/dispersion -- with goals & purpose
4) wave-form concept

Can we get to Occam's razor without speculating about trans-dimensional holographic/remotely-transmutable animatronic-suit making?

Nobody is speculating, cbutter. The viewers will examine the collected data, then discussion (vs. speculation) will follow. It is a highly complex problem set that requires careful thought -- not premature ejaculations. Follow-up work will be necessary.

Why don't you sit on the sidelines for awhile. Watch -- and learn.

Doom

I'll start it off with a key question:

Are lifeforms present in the collective data?

Keep in mind that a topical search implies that we are not certain about the meaning of the question (e.g., The Unabomber, Mu, The Greys, Fairies or Elementals, The Fountain of Youth, Psychokinesis, etc.)

We are not simply solving for an unknown -- a who, what, where, when, why or how -- like we do when attacking a discrete RV problem.

This makes data analysis much more difficult. We must begin with pattern analysis.

Copy. Sorry, kid-in-the-candy-store moment. I appreciate any PM protocol commentary as well. Thanks. Also, thanks for the encouragement. Via the day-job I have developed a lot more patience for hanging in there during the 'not-knowing' phase while in-session; it's been a challenging de-conditioning project. Looking forward to developing more here.

I edited my original post to include my post session analysis postulates, and a clearer shot of my S3[B].(the circle in a sphere archetype)


Major, Which photograph was used for the secondary target TRM?

There are some interesting data points being described in those sessions as well.

I am also curious as to if you have a copy of the mystery student's S3[Site] analytical sketch? Pael and I have some interesting similarities.



The commonality that we do have is a lifeform and life-like thing.

Pael has a life form in both of his primary target sessions, I have an organized thing that displays life form attributes/qualities and the mystery 2005 student has a "Life" Thing. I am not certain we can draw a collective 100% positive answer for a life form in the literal/conventional sense. However, in a case that is dealing with a probable enigma target, I believe what we have is valid. It is the best term to describe this thing conventionally.

Do any of these 'things' exhibit physical characteristics/attributes of what is commonly referred to as a Sasquatch?

To be certain of the answer, their diagrammatic representation(s) in the base S.T. would have to be labelled as elements [1]....[n], and explored.

Pael's has slobbery lifestyle and I have an 'aging' quality; however, beyond those two concepts and in the literal sense: no. None of the lifeforms nor "things" display any of the physical attributes nor characteristics one would expect when gazing upon such a beast.

You don't have enough information to draw that conclusion. Explore the designated elements. Collect more data.

And, you are really fucking up by using the term 'beast' -- use lifeform.

Will do.

Deadline?

Take your time, no rush. Get it right.

The second photo (Patterson-Gimlin) was used as TRM for [0629/6933] Lifeform (I purposely omitted the cue)

S3 [Site] analytical sketch?

(The 'mystery student' was David Rosetta. He was a member of my MIA team, and accompanied me to Wichita on the BTK serial killer case)

My apologies, the freehand sketch. (Batting 0 for 2, eh?). Unfortunately, The opiates are still needed every now and then. I am still having nerve regeneration pains.

I have the time and when free from the opiates I will investigate; sooner rather than later. I will update before posting the follow on.

Because Rainbow Bridge was on the first session, I examined it as element [1] to re-establish contact before going to s5.

Attributes are descriptors of the Objects (in this case, 'cars,' etc.). No mention of 'rainbow' or 'bridge' in Objects.


Incorrect S5

My bad, I was taught advanced material back in 2011 but I dont think I ever used S5 since. Too bad sasquatch came in S3 and couldnt wait till s4

As far as life forms, Pael has a lot of descriptors of one, other viewers have emotions indicating a lifeform.