by Maximilian Joachim Sandor, Ph.D.
Exercise in Straightline Remote Sensing - Fourth Installment
Abilities depend on a combination of numerous individual skills.
For example, it is not enough to know the traffic rules in
order to be able to drive a car. Neither is a knowledge of
the technology of automobiles sufficient to safely
operate a vehicle. The motor skills to engage the brakes,
the gas pedal, and turning the wheel of the car all those
must be developed, and the driver should have additional abilities
such as a minimal eyesight, etc. as well.
Again, it is the combination of the various skills that
makes driving a car feasible.
Likewise, in "Remote Sensing" there are different skills that
must be developed. All of them are nurturing a higher awareness
of Life, the Universe, and Everything making them valuable
far beyond the goal of roaming the landscape at will, without
moving a body from place to place.
The first three parts of this series introduced exercises
like branching into multiple, distant viewpoints using the
mirror paradigm as a tool, using different body parts as
sensory receptacles, and zooming into the microcosmos.
Each is a vital skills in its own right. Together they
open the door to Straightline Remote Sensing.
In Remote Sensing, the experience of the exploration is
paramount to any gathering of information (like "Intelligence"
in the military sense). The experience, itself, is the
reward, and any abstract information is nothing more than a
byproduct of the process.
There is a significant difference between the immediate
experience (sometimes called "extensional" knowledge) and
the abstraction of extensional knowledge that results in
a classification of an object.
To give an example, in Viewzone's '"Remote Viewing Challenge"
the results of the October trial (see archives) were described as:
"We had several hundred submissions but only two people managed
to get "gold and tall, but lying on side..."
and "gold or bronze with a round part and a
part that sticks up..." Several described the
object as "metal, hard and cold to the touch"
and "smooth on the outside but unfinished
From an extensional viewpoint, the results described were
"true to the facts" except that it remains unknown if the
participants sensed the object at Viewzone's office or
another, similar object at a different site.
The usual expectation in a "Remote Viewing Challenge" may be
to "guess" the abstracted significance of an object, in this case
a brass bell. But the evaluation of the available information
through remote viewing to yield a concrete, abstracted object
is another, further step beyond the actual "viewing."
Later on, Viewzone's commentator noted that:
A vast majority of people guessed that it was,
in order of frequency, an odd shaped rock, a
coffee cup, an apple, and a small figurine with
The list of guesses above are abstractions. From an
"Intelligence" viewpoint, such results, if they were
correct, would be valuable. From a "Remote Sensing"
viewpoint they are less meaningful than the extensional
descriptions of the object as mentioned in the prior
The object in question was in a box. This means that
there was no light available. Within a "genuine" Remote
Viewing setup, objects must be "lighted" in some way
to give a visual expression if a "true" extensional image
is to be obtained.
To make the difference between "truly experienced remote
perception" and abstracted and evaluated "intelligence"
information even more clear, here is another example:
A "Straightline Remote Sensing" session may yield a
set of set of subjectively experienced perceptions,
such as a big, cylinder-shaped object. A Far Sight
session, using mediated information packages, may
come up with an item such as "a bomb." It should be
clear that "a bomb" is an abstraction based on an
evaluation. An engineer who analyzes the report
of a Straightline session may come to the same conclusion
(that the object would be "a bomb," for example), but
this would happen AFTER the session.
Any kind of abstraction processes belong to the
class of "creative" processes. They will trigger the
creation of thoughts (mockups) which, in turn, will
significantly disturb an extensional observation.
Strictly seen, if a sensory image of any kind is not
yielded, the name "Remote Viewing" is not correct. If
only the abstraction of the object is obtained,
it may therefore be better to talk about "Remote
Information Gathering" instead.
The most difficult step in Straightline Remote Sensing is
the connection with an initial distinct remote target.
This, interestingly, appears to be the easiest part in
the Far Sight protocol. It would be favorable if both
techniques could be combined.
In any case, the greatest obstacle for both are "mockups"
thoughts created by the viewer during the process or the
The "average" human is mocking up pictures compulsively
to such a degree that these pictures continue into the
sleep phase of the person, at which time they are being
Turning off the compulsive creation of pictures is,
therefore, a considerable feat which, when successful,
translates directly into "spiritual freedom."
Once engaging in remote sensing, a person may be shocked
how difficult it seems to distinguish properly between
"reality" and internal thought constructs.
What now is the difference between internal thought
constructs and reality, if there is any? One model that provides a functional description of the
"reality" problem is the model of the "co-created Universe."
Beings maintain their own world in their thoughts, and,
to the degree that the worlds of different Beings are
overlapping, an objective "reality" comes into existence. To decide whether a "reality" is truly an accepted,
hence "objective" reality, the viewer, using this model
as a guideline, would have to ask a certain number of
other observers whether they perceive something similar
In praxis, this is not easy to do. But, fortunately, there
is another clue to the "reality" problem:
- Since "reality" is formed through the congruence of
concurrent observers, the emerging events cannot show
A more thorough explanation of this result of the "co-creation"
model exceeds the scope of this chapter. In a nutshell,
just as it unlikely that a bee hive is jumping from one
place to another, the co-created Universe cannot change
properties without showing inertia. This means, there are no jumps or gaps in neither the time,
nor the space in which "reality" happens.
For practical purposes, once a connection with a remote
sensing target has been established, any sudden shift
of perception is likely to be caused by the viewer's
thought processes. Or, from a different angle, every perception that persists
in time or changes only slowly, is likely to be a perception
of an "objective reality."
Let's put this to work by exploring a remote object such
as a simple brick.