Greets to all who made it here. This site is essentially still being developed and it's using a blog format that I'm not entirely familiar/comfortable with yet. So we'll see how things go.
Basically, this will be a slightly more informal site than Promethean Communication Underground, with less articles and more small posts. The main objective of this site is to study and develop psi/Remote Viewing. This should become a useful auxiliary tool to be deployed in conjunction with 'intercontextual' thinking to get a more rounded/unified view of the 'Communication'.
For those unfamiliar with Psi/RV, I recommend checking out the links provided in the right sidebar. Although it is not yet a recognized field in properly scientific terms (still widely misunderstood), it is - based on my own experience - a real phenomenon. Multiple endeavours to bring it to a wider audience and have it recognized as a real and potentially useful tool in 'reality-hacking' have resulted in failure, either due to bad presentation, bad scientific method, a closed-mind approach on the part of those presenting (a priori dismissal of its reality without first looking into the supporting evidence), or worse; egotistical corruption of data.
Since the disclosure of the STARGATE project in the 1990s (the US military investigation into the use of Psi/RV for intelligence-gathering purposes), many have come forward with their own methodologies for implementation of Psi/RV, most notably; Ingo Swann, Joe McMoneagle, Courtney Brown, the latter of whom is a bit of a kook if you ask me (not to be trusted). Of these, Joe McMoneagle is by far the most successful 'viewer' and has, unlike anyone else, demonstrated his abilities on live television, sometimes with an astonishing level of accuracy.
He is the first to admit that Psi/RV is nowhere near 100% accurate (at this time, more like 60% at the very best) and I have to agree with him. However, the reason for the level of inaccuracy found throughout most Psi/RV protocols has to do with (by and large) the protocols themselves. You've got SRV, CRV, ERV, ARV and a whole bunch more. I've investigated and practiced at least three of those (SRV in considerable depth) and have had some degree of success (which did surprise me at first). But the problem with all the above 'protocols' is the focus on method itself. The structure of all those protocols is very rigid and is followed to the letter every time you do a session. And the problem with this is that every time you do a session, you have to go through all the 'phases' (which can sometimes take a few hours) and you come out at the end of it with a bunch of useless data and perhaps one single 'hit', because today you just weren't making 'contact'.
My approach (what I loosely call Psi, as opposed to Remote Viewing, for reasons I will explain), is more informal and is about recognizing valid data and being able to distinguish it from 'noise'. In my experience, this is possible; there is an indescribable 'quality' to valid Psi data and this can (sometimes) be recognized. The objective thus would be to get to a point where you can sit down, do a session in a few minutes, make 'contact', recognize the valid data and come out with a reasonably accurate picture of the target, without wasting a load of time.
Regarding the use of the label 'Psi' instead of 'Remote Viewing':
At this point, I'll quote from the blog of Joe McMoneagle...
One of you writes:
is there a difference between the visuals you receive in your remote viewing input and those you receive when dreaming, daydreaming, hallucinating, or imagining? Is there a different flavor or character to them that might differentiate these visuals enough to tell them one from the other? Is there a buried clue, hint, or nugget within these RV visuals that might give them away as being significantly more important than the more run of the mill visuals that come with other subconscious entertainment? Perhaps some way that I can learn to tell them from all the rest that might enlighten me as to what is important as input and what is not?
Right from the start, this implies that “remote viewing” is about seeing the target. Now please pay attention to what I’m about to say next — it isn’t about “seeing” the target — it’s about sensing the target! At best, the most anyone will ever do is distinguish a difference between a deep shadow and a light area in a targeted area from a visual viewpoint. But, because someone way back in the history of the project decided to call what this form of perception is — remote viewing — everyone jumps right in thinking it’s all about seeing the target, which it isn’t.
Obviously, everyone is looking for a way or method of differentiating the RV input from the rest of the mental conglomeration of visual input that floods the mind while you are attempting to capture input. Well . . . unfortunately it all appears to come bubbling up from the same place, which is the subconscious - the common place of origin for all of our visual cues to what is going on deep inside our psyche. [...]
Since we're basically dealing with data that resides (though not necessarily originates in), for the most part, the subconscious mind, we have to be careful about how we access it. Obtaining solid, applicable information from the subconscious mind is notoriously difficult (as anyone with any degree of psychological knowledge will tell you), since the subconscious operates on many different (mostly archetypal and symbolic) levels. And the conscious mind has an established record for corrupting the information coming from the subconscious. It can do this in many ways, but one of the most common would be the twisting of symbolic/archetypal data into something familiar/solid; perhaps an object which has a name; and then the conscious mind runs away with interpretation of the data, through application of erroneous linguistic and sensory interpretations and you end up on the other side with a bunch of useless garbage. Though this was not the fault of the subconscious, it was an error on the part of the conscious mind. So in essential terms, using the word 'viewing' when interfacing with the subconscious is erroneous, suggestive and too narrow a word to describe the process of interfacing with and retrieving information from, the subconscious mind.
If you're new to psi/RV, I recommend you familiarise yourself with the concept and - as soon as you can - try some practice sessions at the Dojo Psi site (registration is completely free). One of the easiest ways to get to grips with psi is to practice it (lots). I myself have been lagging a little in this regard over the past few months, but hopefully the activation of this website will encourage me to delve back in (otherwise there won't be much to talk about, will there?). 
Once I get round to doing some sessions, I'll scan them in and post the results so you can see psi in action. If any of you already have sessions which are ready to upload and present on here, you know where to contact me.
