This is a target reveal for a remote viewing session done by @taz here:

➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/78975-tasks-please#post-466390

Although the viewing wasn't done in a professional manner – I call it now the MTL protocol ("Mow The Lawn™ protocol") – the results are still interesting.

First of all, the target is part of my "Verifiable Targets" which you can find here:

➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/remote-viewing-practice-forum/78757-verifiable-targets

Taz managed to choose the target that's least verifiable, and I probably should have put this target in the "experimental" category. But there are verifiables, depending on the remote viewer, and that makes it quite intriguing.

TARGET REVEAL:

The physical reality of the dog or pack of dogs that's nearest to the remote viewer in a physical sense.

RESULTS:

➡️ https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UQ0DP8SjrF-RbV0b2jVSouMwBrFDY49n

MY THOUGHTS:

My intention was to provide a target with the least amount of guidance from the tasker. If the viewer has a dog, I would expect the viewer to find his dog immediately and describe it. If the viewer doesn't have a dog, I would expect the viewer to come up with the dog of the neighbor, or someone walking dog(s) in a park nearby, or something along those lines.

Taz came up with an urban environment. This is a verifiable if Taz lives in that same urban environment. But he didn't see a dog at all. The reason for this could be that he doesn't have a dog himself and doesn't know where the next dog is, therefore sending his "subspace-mind" on a search mission.

This is interesting because I, as the tasker, didn't provide guidance at all. I also don't know where the dog that's nearest to Taz is located. I made this target with no expectations regarding the outcome – I only expected the viewer to describe the physical reality of the target. Could be a city, an apartment, a dog park, a desert, whatever.

I think the idiogram reflects this lack of guidance. Taz draw a line that looks like someone jumping around, as if he's trying to find something.

At the end of the first session, Taz came up with "flashy hubcaps". In my opinion, this matches the physical reality of a dog in an urban environment where cars are to be expected. The hubcaps are on the dog's eye level, and if they are flashy, the dog would definitely pay attention to them.

In the second session, Taz saw the urban environment again. As the target time defaults to the present moment, the dog now could be somewhere else. Taz seems to be on the same search mission again, but doesn't detect a dog. He focuses on a person instead, which could be the owner of the dog. But it's also possible that he is being attracted to a different idea that's in his mind, based on the urban environment he was arriving at.

CONCLUSION:

I made a target without the intention to guide the remote viewer. The viewer looked around, but was somewhat lost. The flashy hubcaps are a clear indicator that he was getting close to the dog's eye level, which is fascinating, because I didn't expect that the viewer could describe the dog's point of view. I expected the viewer to describe the dog inside the environment.

Also, my intention was to look at physical reality. Taz saw stuff, not a computer running a simulation.

This session made me scratch my head.

It seems like the tasker has more control over the viewer than I thought. Making a target with the intention to see reality, while being open to unexpected outcomes, seems to result in the viewer being more "on his own".

This implies that if the tasker expects a certain outcome, the viewer will be attracted towards that expectation. Which raises the question about the reality of the target. Is it just the expectation of the tasker? Is the viewer connecting telepathically to the tasker, and therefore able to see constructs that only exist inside the mind of the tasker, like Tanner Dam?

Looks like it.

But, remote viewing still seems to work. The viewer always arrives somewhere, even if the tasker doesn't expect it.

🤔

Courtney does say that the viewer always works through the mind of the tasker.

There is a dog that lives next door to me. Several I'm sure, but one I see often. Funny about the hubcaps, you're totally right. If I were a dog it would easily catch my eye ...

I wonder if dogs perceive the world as "busy". My immediate surrounding is definitely urban but not on the busy side.

Fun task anyhow. I wouldn't consider it a success but a decent practice run.

I wonder if you would have found the dog next door more easily if I had known that it's there.

It's definitely an interesting category for research: Targets that the tasker knows nothing about, but the remote viewer can verify.

I probably would have added just a time constraint such as "at the time of the viewing."

Verifiables are always a plus. But there's no harm in experimenting with things that lack verifiability. For example, Birdie Jowarsky once did "the nature of God" and that was a fascinating viewing. You can tell she's very on target the whole way through and it (at least for me) teaches some new things about the nature of God.

Unfortunately my barrier for remote viewing is so often this "wait I'm not ready yet" kind of reasoning. Which is why the MTL factor "just mow the lawn" - there's also often too many thoughts clouding my head (hence things like the AI dumps, and just offering it to AI so I can clear my head. But occasionally the AI gives new ideas and just snowballs it)

Last thought on the dog thing. It now makes me wonder if that's how dogs typically see human society. Like "Jesus, it's so busy. Nothing slows down." It makes sense if you think about how they get stressed out and do naughty things when caretakers are in the middle of big transitions, not taking the time to just walk or relax.

Hopefully in a few hours I do another target.

@taz:

"I probably would have added just a time constraint..."

If you don't have one, it seems to default to "now". Which could be the reason why you had to start from scratch with the second session. Without a time constraint, the target changes between sessions, especially if it's moving.

"It now makes me wonder if that's how dogs typically see human society."

I think that's exactly what you picked up. You saw physical reality from the dog's point of view. And the person you picked up could be a metaphor for how dog's see humans.

Here's another interesting thought:

You didn't see a dog at all. If the target was interpreted as the physical reality how the dog perceives it, it could mean that the dog has no perception of itself. There's only instincts and perception of the surroundings.