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.