It is currently Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:32 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370 
Author Message
RV Professional
RV Professional
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:02 am
Posts: 2064
Location: Under the Electric Sky
Post Re: Where is MH370 ?
Since this is an educational forum, let's try to set up a cue WITHOUT the benefit of a photo, just to work through the thought process of cue development.

What would be the most useful part of the aircraft for cue development without the use of a photo?

_________________
Download your free TRN - Cue Blind Pool Generator
"Disclaimer: The opinions of Космодром are not necessarily those of all rv community forum members, but they should be."


Fri May 02, 2014 6:06 am
Profile WWW
Ultimate User
Ultimate User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 12:30 pm
Posts: 265
Post Re: Where is MH370 ?
I would think the black box.

_________________
Whether you think you can or cannot, you are right!


Fri May 02, 2014 11:02 am
Profile
RV Professional
RV Professional
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:02 am
Posts: 2064
Location: Under the Electric Sky
Post Re: Where is MH370 ?
Excellent. Now you know where you want to end up, how do you get there?

_________________
Download your free TRN - Cue Blind Pool Generator
"Disclaimer: The opinions of Космодром are not necessarily those of all rv community forum members, but they should be."


Sun May 04, 2014 8:32 pm
Profile WWW
RV Professional
RV Professional

Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:18 am
Posts: 4306
Location: Shackleton Crater (provisional)
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
Not so excellent...

In Matrix mind-idea-pattern terms, WTF is a 'black box?'

Doom

_________________
"Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take...but by the moments that take our breath away"
(Don't be afraid that your life will end -- be afraid that it will never begin)


Mon May 05, 2014 6:00 am
Profile WWW
Ultimate User
Ultimate User
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 1:55 am
Posts: 549
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
The black box is orange.

Would cockpit (where black/orange box is) not a better cue?


Mon May 05, 2014 3:46 pm
Profile
Advanced User
Advanced User

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:19 am
Posts: 95
Location: St. Louis, Mo. - Pre DVD04
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
From wiki:
A flight recorder is an electronic recording device placed in an aircraft for the purpose of facilitating the investigation of aviation accidents and incidents. Commonly referred to as a black box,[1] there are two common types of flight recorder, the flight data recorder (FDR) and the cockpit voice recorder (CVR). In some cases, the two recorders may be combined in a single unit.

The Flight Data Recorder would probably be a better term to find the aircraft.

_________________
"Wretched mind, do you, who get your evidence from us, yet try to overthrow us? Our overthrow will be our downfall." -Democritus


Fri May 09, 2014 7:09 pm
Profile
Advanced User
Advanced User

Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 6:25 pm
Posts: 63
Location: Long Beach, Ca
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
If events transpired as reported in Linda Moulton Howes report on her earth files.com website which was posted recently in this forum, I would expect the U.S. Government to have tampered with the recorder at Diego Garcia and it could then even be a different recorder with new faked data and the same " serial number". How would that affect our target?
If / when they ditched it at sea (13.5 degrees north, 97.5 degrees east) it would be preferred to have the correct tail number. Can we target the tail number even though numbers are not generally recognized by the Matrix? And we are referencing 370, are we not?
Many if's and maybe's to be sorted out here.


Sat May 10, 2014 2:44 am
Profile
Advanced User
Advanced User

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:19 am
Posts: 95
Location: St. Louis, Mo. - Pre DVD04
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
Ok. Even though I don't believe a data point with out even one other source to be enough to change a live operation, I'm game for a challenge on this thought experiment.

If we are going to assume the FDR and CVR are untenable what questions/ what do we need to think about?

The question was the most useful part of the aircraft for cue development?

Do we even need to specify a part? Could we let our unconscious pick?

We would need to focus on a part that would clearly identify it as belonging to the plane. Let's make it the most easily identifiable part.

Also, let's make that part significant in anyway we might need.

Putting it together so far:

MH370/ most significant easily identifiable part

I am unsure, at this point, if MH370 would need clarification. But I will pause to see how this gets received


Edit:

It dawned on me that my order of operation my be mixed. Another go would look like:

MH370/ most easily identifiable significant part

Vs

MH370/ most significant easily identifiable part

Compared to before where the emphasis was on the significance and we would rather have identifiable emphasized.

Or am I just off.

_________________
"Wretched mind, do you, who get your evidence from us, yet try to overthrow us? Our overthrow will be our downfall." -Democritus


Tue May 13, 2014 6:08 am
Profile
Advanced User
Advanced User

Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 10:11 am
Posts: 94
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
Can we use the plane's registration number? It is: 9M-MRO

Albeit, these numbers could be repainted with another number, but, the original registration number still belongs to that one, single plane. Kind of like changing a vin number on a stolen car, truck, etc.; the original number still belongs to that one vehicle.


Fri May 16, 2014 4:45 am
Profile
Advanced User
Advanced User

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:19 am
Posts: 95
Location: St. Louis, Mo. - Pre DVD04
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
How would you incorporate that into a cue? I have a few ideas and that is what I was getting at when I said MH370 might need clarification.

_________________
"Wretched mind, do you, who get your evidence from us, yet try to overthrow us? Our overthrow will be our downfall." -Democritus


Fri May 16, 2014 1:35 pm
Profile
Advanced User
Advanced User

Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 10:11 am
Posts: 94
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
All right, numbers would pose a problem.

MH370/most significant identifiable part

I would drop the easily. A 'most significant identifiable part', still, might be different for each viewer, but we might not know unless we experiment.


Sat May 17, 2014 4:05 pm
Profile
Advanced User
Advanced User

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:19 am
Posts: 95
Location: St. Louis, Mo. - Pre DVD04
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
Well I think that in this case, where we are using numbers as identifying information, it will be ok. I have used numbers in addresses and of course CRV originally used number coordinates. I think the history has been not being able to perceive alphanumerics.

Also, I can see dropping "easily" but it depends on additional cue qualifiers. For instance we may want to qualify it with:

.../location now

Then 'easily' may have an advantage if going to ground truth.


As it stands I like:

MH370/most significant identifiable part


Now if we could just get a pro or two to chime in...

_________________
"Wretched mind, do you, who get your evidence from us, yet try to overthrow us? Our overthrow will be our downfall." -Democritus


Sat May 17, 2014 6:58 pm
Profile
Advanced User
Advanced User

Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 10:11 am
Posts: 94
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
I have an old CRV manual, I just have to reread it. I don't know what CRV entails, but that's
ok in this situation. I thought about using 'easily' since my last post, and, it seemed to me, that using it would be dependent entirely upon qualifiers, as you have stated in your post.


Sun May 18, 2014 1:49 am
Profile
RV Professional
RV Professional
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:53 am
Posts: 537
Location: Planet Earth
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
Cue Formation: Gross > Specific > Detail

Your cue as stated will not give you what you are looking for.

The front end of your cue needs work. It lacks a starting point. Why would the matrix know you were talking about that plane? Flight numbers are used over and over again every day. they just describe the time of departure and arrival on a specific flight path.

Assumptions are... well... you know that means...

What is it you are after?

Something about this plane that is "significant"? The word identifiable is not only ambiguous, (identifiable to whom?), but is also most likely untested. At least as far as I can recall. I may be wrong though.

Re: CRV; The LearnRV protocols are the second, probably third, step up in the evolutionary chain from that method. Don't get me wrong, there is knowledge there about how this skill has evolved into what it is today, but I would imagine it would be best suited for a "research" project or interesting read.

_________________
Keep at It and Keep Posting It!


Sun May 18, 2014 4:50 am
Profile
RV Professional
RV Professional

Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:26 am
Posts: 360
Location: USA
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
Hi Kocmodpom,

This specific cue is one I have been working on for a while now.
It looks OK.
Non-photo cue.

[nnnn / nnnn ] " Current most significant recognizable missing Malaysian Airlines airplane / location now "

Dan


Sun May 18, 2014 5:10 am
Profile WWW
Advanced User
Advanced User

Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 10:11 am
Posts: 94
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
DaingMaing,

All right, the cue as Rossu & I stated won't work. The Learn RV discs cover cueing, although, cues are best understood by working through them as a skill set. Major Dames' cues in Learn RV are so precise, that one would think hardly any work went into them. (Only about 30 years.) But, a solid cue is the first path to a session.

As to CRV: I've heard that the manual is not the first go-to for up to date info. Thanks for your input.


Mon May 19, 2014 3:18 am
Profile
Ultimate User
Ultimate User

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:35 am
Posts: 447
Location: Tennessee/in flux
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
kocmodpom wrote:
What would be the most useful part of the aircraft for cue development without the use of a photo?

Ok, so I'm assuming Kocmodpom is asking what is the most useful part of the aircraft to help us locate something that will be useful in solving the big mystery of where the plane or wreckage is now, as well as what happened to cause the disappearance. Keep in mind we are over two months into the disappearance.

JessieT wrote:
I would think the black box.

I would agree that that would be the most useful part of the aircraft to help achieve the purposes stated above.

Ed Dames wrote:
Not so excellent...
In Matrix mind-idea-pattern terms, WTF is a 'black box?'

Indeed. I have several "black boxes" around my house.

RossU wrote:
There are two common types of flight recorder, the flight data recorder (FDR) and the cockpit voice recorder (CVR). In some cases, the two recorders may be combined in a single unit.

The Flight Data Recorder would probably be a better term to find the aircraft.

Now we're getting closer and more precise. I would not use the above abbreviations in a cue as they could refer to anything from the recorders to a person's initials and possibly to other pieces of equipment.

richardg wrote:
If events transpired as reported in Linda Moulton Howes report on her earth files.com website which was posted recently in this forum, I would expect the U.S. Government to have tampered with the recorder at Diego Garcia and it could then even be a different recorder with new faked data and the same " serial number". How would that affect our target?

Possible conspiracy theories aside, I think it best to target the location of a known, designated piece of the aircraft and work backwards from there which would presumably reveal any deceptive/diabolical 'funny business' that may have subsequently become associated with said aircraft piece.

richard wrote:
Can we target the tail number even though numbers are not generally recognized by the Matrix?

If numerals are not recognized by the Matrix then how/why would target reference numbers (TRNs) be useful to us? Now targeting and perceiving alphanumeric characters via remote viewing is another story. It is extremely difficult but can be done sometimes by natural psychics and/or by using newer, advanced RV/HARV methodologies. Don't ask me. I don't know how yet.

RossU wrote:
Do we even need to specify a part? Could we let our unconscious pick?
We would need to focus on a part that would clearly identify it as belonging to the plane. Let's make it the most easily identifiable part.

Identifiable to whom and for what purpose? Identifiable to a search plane/boat with spotters and searching equipment? I doubt the information produced would be of any use to such a crew as they would likely already be prepped to spot what they needed to. But I understand the thought here and under some circumstances such information could actually be useful. Maybe if they were trying to see a tail fin but RV data revealed they should be looking for one of the engines that has identifiable pieces floating on the water whereas the tail fin was obliterated and/or buried in the sea floor. But like Daing said, identifiable may be an untested, vague search term.

Josephine wrote:
Can we use the plane's registration number? It is: 9M-MRO

That is exactly where I would start.

Josephine wrote:
Albeit, these numbers could be repainted with another number, but, the original registration number still belongs to that one, single plane. Kind of like changing a vin number on a stolen car, truck, etc.; the original number still belongs to that one vehicle.

I would assume you are correct but I am not completely sure. The serial number could apply to two planes in this case. But I would hope that when one uses that particular serial number in a cue, the Matrix would deem the missing plane the most significant in terms of RV results due to all the emotional/mental 'energy' associated with it.

DaingMaing wrote:
What is it you are after?

Something about this plane that is "significant"? The word identifiable is not only ambiguous, (identifiable to whom?), but is also most likely untested. At least as far as I can recall. I may be wrong though.

I agree. I don't think it's a good attack strategy for these purposes.

DaingMaing wrote:
Re: CRV; The LearnRV protocols are the second, probably third, step up in the evolutionary chain from that method. Don't get me wrong, there is knowledge there about how this skill has evolved into what it is today, but I would imagine it would be best suited for a "research" project or interesting read.

Indeed. If you were working to become a good, experienced, knowledgeable doctor, would you rather go to medical school in 1986 or 2014?

Dan Ellis wrote:
[nnnn / nnnn ] " Current most significant recognizable missing Malaysian Airlines airplane / location now "

Dan

That's not too bad. But no part of the plane was specified, which was the point of this thread. I think you could even probably drop most significant recognizable from the cue and it would still work. Of course if Malaysia Airlines has more than one missing plane at the moment then I would leave the cue alone, or just drop recognizable. But if the plane is not actually missing to certain governmental entities then the cue may be problematic. I recommend we be specific for our purposes/goals.

All that said, my first try would be:

Malaysia Airlines airplane 9M-MRO/flight data recorder/location now
Malaysia Airlines airplane 9M-MRO/cockpit voice recorder/location now


I believe the two recorders in this particular plane were located separately.
I would substitute location now with pinpoint location if I were going to then use a HARV/specialized methodology to zero-in on the location.


Mon May 19, 2014 8:12 am
Profile
Advanced User
Advanced User

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:19 am
Posts: 95
Location: St. Louis, Mo. - Pre DVD04
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
DaingMaing wrote:
Cue Formation: Gross > Specific > Detail

Your cue as stated will not give you what you are looking for.

The front end of your cue needs work. It lacks a starting point. Why would the matrix know you were talking about that plane? Flight numbers are used over and over again every day. they just describe the time of departure and arrival on a specific flight path.

Assumptions are... well... you know that means...

What is it you are after?

Something about this plane that is "significant"? The word identifiable is not only ambiguous, (identifiable to whom?), but is also most likely untested. At least as far as I can recall. I may be wrong though.


DaingMaing,

Your input is welcomed and I appreciate help. However, your claim that cue “will not give you what you are looking for” is not persuasive or supported well.

You stated that the cue needs work and lacks a starting point. On this point, using “MH370”, there was discussion and believe there was a recognition that this may be a weak link. We thought about using the registration numbers in the cue as a clarification. This brings me to my first of two rebuttals to your claim:

1. You asked “Why would the matrix know you were talking about that plane?”. This was something I did not idly toss out. The support for using “MH370” is two fold. First, “MH370” returns over 43 million hits on Google. It (MH370) is used in the news around the globe. It is by now a cross cultural and diverse “term”. Arguably even more so than “TWA Flight 800” which I offer as secondary support. I believe “TWA Flight 800” a proven cue term and, although I have not RV’d this personally yet, I offer this link as supporting evidence:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9858&p=51978&hilit=TWA+800#p51978


2. You state that identifiable is ambiguous and a reason to support your claim. It is true that identifiable is ambiguous in the way you mentioned. But isn’t “recognizable” ambiguous in the same way? Recognizable to whom? What about significant? Significant to whom? Yet aren’t these proven search terms? The deduction is that ambiguity, specifically the way you defined it, does not invalidate a search term. Obviously this could be a case of induction. But, as you humbly pointed out, and I believe you are correct, it is an untested term. Unfortunately, it does not prove induction nor substantiate your claim. Just because a term is untested does not mean that it will not give what is sought.

In addtion, I find parts of your post contridictory. You state that the cue will not give what is sought but then you ask the question: “What is it you are after?” This question indicates that you do not know what it is that we are looking for. How can you definitively state truth or non-truth for something for which you do not know the answer to? I realize this may have been a rhetorical question but those are generally asked and answered or obviously answered in the questions form. I don’t know how to respond to this. However, since you did ask:

What I am looking for is a hands on learning experience in cue formation and some guidance on what things to think about while processing a cue. Secondly, I am always looking for cues which offer diversity and practicality.

You did offer this to think about:

Cue Formation: Gross > Specific > Detail

I thank you for the formula and will add it to my notes. In this case, luckily, I do believe that the cue we used follows that formula. Although we had not “stepped down” to the Detail level the discussion did touch on this.

MH370>most significant identifiable part
Aircraft>Part of aircraft
Gross>Specific

I believe I parsed this correctly. Please correct if I have not.

Last, I would just like point out that not using the Flight Data Recorder or Cockpit Voice Recorder was an extension of the original thought experiment and are what I think should be the most useful part of the aircraft for cue development without the use of a photo

Thanks for your input,

Ross U.

_________________
"Wretched mind, do you, who get your evidence from us, yet try to overthrow us? Our overthrow will be our downfall." -Democritus


Last edited by RossU on Mon May 19, 2014 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mon May 19, 2014 12:45 pm
Profile
Advanced User
Advanced User

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:19 am
Posts: 95
Location: St. Louis, Mo. - Pre DVD04
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
Tiger74 wrote:
All that said, my first try would be:

Malaysia Airlines airplane 9M-MRO/flight data recorder/location now
Malaysia Airlines airplane 9M-MRO/cockpit voice recorder/location now


I believe the two recorders in this particular plane were located separately.
I would substitute location now with pinpoint location if I were going to then use a HARV/specialized methodology to zero-in on the location.


Using registration has a few drawbacks. First, you can not assume that Malaysia Airlines holds the registration as the company Malaysian Airline System Berhad has a number of other brands including Malaysia Airlines. Which brings the second problem, registration numbers can be reused. The reasons can be anything from vanity to retirement of aircraft and the legalese depends on the location.

I tried to tie the registration numbers to an entity but the free information on the International Registry of Mobile Assets was not much help:

https://www.internationalregistry.aero/ir-web/

Also, the use of airplane vs areoplane is not standardized. Unless you know of a cue that tested it, I believe we run into the same problem that you stated about the use of "identifiable".

So where to go from here? I guess we could call Malaysia Airlines to find if they hold the registration number and if they know if it was used on any other plane.


I know more about plane registration numbers then I did before. I guess that is good,

Ross

P.S. Tiger74 - Doesn't this:

Tiger74 wrote:
But I would hope that when one uses that particular serial number in a cue, the Matrix would deem the missing plane the most significant in terms of RV results due to all the emotional/mental 'energy' associated with it.


go against a major cue formulating tenant: "Specificity! Intent be damned! To turn a phrase from a chapter of RV best left for “research”. Pshaw!

BTW, I would rather be the passionate Doctor. who knows all the history. I’d want to learn it all. Let it be my passion. I'd want to know the strength and weakness of each methodology. The reason for their inception and passing.

I read the old and the new, Democritus to Warcollier to Dames, and the others and the heretics! Which, out of respect for this classroom, will go unnamed.

I will stay on-topic from here on out.

_________________
"Wretched mind, do you, who get your evidence from us, yet try to overthrow us? Our overthrow will be our downfall." -Democritus


Mon May 19, 2014 2:30 pm
Profile
Ultimate User
Ultimate User

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:35 am
Posts: 447
Location: Tennessee/in flux
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
RossU wrote:
First, you can not assume that Malaysia Airlines holds the registration as the company Malaysian Airline System Berhad has a number of other brands including Malaysia Airlines.

That doesn't matter. I specified the plane with the registration number 9M-MRO belonging to Malaysia Airlines.
RossU wrote:
Which brings the second problem, registration numbers can be reused. The reasons can be anything from vanity to retirement of aircraft and the legalese depends on the location.

I tried to tie the registration numbers to an entity but the free information on the International Registry of Mobile Assets was not much help:

https://www.internationalregistry.aero/ir-web/

If you go here, I find that this particular registration number is still tied to the Boeing 777-2H6/ER in question, as far as I can tell. I'm not an expert in aviation registration websites but I did enough research for a good starting point.

RossU wrote:
Also, the use of airplane vs areoplane is not standardized. Unless you know of a cue that tested it, I believe we run into the same problem that you stated about the use of "identifiable".

We know empirically that airplane is a valid Matrix search term. I'm not sure about identifiable. Yes it could work depending on the cue. Test it and see sometime.

RossU wrote:
I know more about plane registration numbers then I did before. I guess that is good,

Yes, and in addition to that, flight data recorders, ping characteristics, satellite data, sonar equipment, Orion search planes, etc. Working real world RV problem sets is ideally educational for general and technical knowledge as well as RV development.

RossU wrote:
P.S. Tiger74 - Doesn't this:

Tiger74 wrote:
But I would hope that when one uses that particular serial number in a cue, the Matrix would deem the missing plane the most significant in terms of RV results due to all the emotional/mental 'energy' associated with it.


go against a major cue formulating tenant: "Specificity! Intent be damned! To turn a phrase from a chapter of RV best left for “research”. Pshaw!

Yes, but at the end of the day after pulling your hair out researching the internet for registration number procedures, you gotta start somewhere (if there is no photo). While we strive for specificity whenever possible, in the end it's up to the viewer how much time he/she wants to spend in cue formulation vs. sitting down and performing a 45 minute session and seeing what comes out based on the cue they have come up with.

RossU wrote:
BTW, I would rather be the passionate Doctor. who knows all the history. I’d want to learn it all. Let it be my passion. I'd want to know the strength and weakness of each methodology. The reason for their inception and passing.

I read the old and the new, Democritus to Warcollier to Dames, and the others and the heretics! Which, out of respect for this classroom, will go unnamed.

Excellent. We need people like you. Bring that passion to RV and you'll go far.


Mon May 19, 2014 4:15 pm
Profile
Advanced User
Advanced User

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:19 am
Posts: 95
Location: St. Louis, Mo. - Pre DVD04
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
Tiger74 wrote:
That doesn't matter. I specified the plane with the registration number 9M-MRO belonging to Malaysia Airlines.

I find that this particular registration number is still tied to the Boeing 777-2H6/ER in question, as far as I can tell. I'm not an expert in aviation registration websites but I did enough research for a good starting point.



Just because you say it belongs to Malaysian Airlines does not make it so. That 100 bucks in your wallet belongs to DaingMaing.

The link you posted was to a aircraft photography website. Was that what you wanted to post? Here:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/9MMRO

Boeing 777-200, B772
9M-MRO / MAS370
Unknown Owner · Malaysia

The MAS stands for Malaysian Airlines System and it should matter. It would create a syntax/diction error:

A car, owned and registered to your parents, that your drive, has Tiger74 stenciled across the hood with flames down the side and ladies man splash guards, is stolen. Telling the police that car belongs to you is not correct information.

However, there is a case in which it can be correct. Say you made global news with your ladies man status. Everywhere you drove people, clapped and gave you thumbs up on how cool "your" car was. People everywhere think the car belongs to you. So the idea that the car is yours, technically/legally incorrect information, has become socially correct information. (This is an extension of my argument in response to DaingMaing, point #1.)

If Malaysian Airlines is valid then I think that MH370 is too.

Lots of good hands on experience in this thread,

Ross

_________________
"Wretched mind, do you, who get your evidence from us, yet try to overthrow us? Our overthrow will be our downfall." -Democritus


Mon May 19, 2014 7:00 pm
Profile
Ultimate User
Ultimate User

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:35 am
Posts: 447
Location: Tennessee/in flux
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
Tiger74 wrote:
That doesn't matter. I specified the plane with the registration number 9M-MRO belonging to Malaysia Airlines.

Let me rephrase. I specified the plane with the registration number 9M-MRO associated with Malaysia Airlines.

I didn't mean belonging to in the sense of legal ownership, but rather in the way you might say the word rather belongs to this sentence. From what I understand, registration numbers can only apply to one plane in service at any given time. I would rather use a registration number for our cue than a flight number (MH370) for the reasons that DaingMaing stated. Your argument for the current, cultural significance of the flight number is valid and it might indeed work in a cue. In fact, I believe I successfully used it in a cue a while back although it was qualified by airplane crash, as there was an airplane crash associated with that flight number as revealed by our location work. Is there a flight data recorder associated with the alphanumerics MH370? Yes there is but there may be more than one if different planes were used for that flight. We are trying to be as specific as we can and not waste RV time and efforts with ambiguous cues. Legal ownership doesn't always have to be a factor for the reasons in your above example. Things can become associated with other people/places/things. A crash became associated with a plane, and vice versa. Also, anything with a proper noun/name is usually a safe search term (Malaysia Airlines). I would even say it always is.

About cue construction:
Gross / general / specific / detailed

Let's take my suggested cue for example.
Malaysia Airlines airplane 9M-MRO/flight data recorder/location now
Unconscious requests information from the Matrix about a plane. Which plane? A plane associated with the search term Malaysia Airlines airplane 9M-MRO. Chances are there is only one plane matching that request at this time. Yes, the registration number could have been recycled but I doubt that has happened yet. We could always put current missing in front of the cue, or something to that effect. Next, the Matrix-librarian asks "What do you want to know about that specific plane?" Answer: flight data recorder. Ok, "What would you like to know about the flight data recorder?" Answer: location now

Malaysia Airlines airplane 9M-MRO is qualified by flight data recorder, which is qualified by location now.

Ed gives a good example on either the LearnRV DVDs or the Master Tips DVDs about Lincoln and the Gettysburg Address that helps understanding of cue formulation and the way that the Matrix responds to search terms similar to the way Google does.


Mon May 19, 2014 11:08 pm
Profile
Advanced User
Advanced User

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:19 am
Posts: 95
Location: St. Louis, Mo. - Pre DVD04
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
Tiger74 wrote:
In fact, I believe I successfully used it in a cue a while back although it was qualified by airplane crash, as there was an airplane crash associated with that flight number as revealed by our location work.


Are you able to post this cue? I ask for my own edification.

Tiger74 wrote:
I would rather use a registration number for our cue than a flight number (MH370) for the reasons that DaingMaing stated.

We are trying to be as specific as we can and not waste RV time and efforts with ambiguous cues.


Let me be clear about a few things. What I am doing is engaging you in debate over an opposing cue to develop a specific working cue, gain experience, solidify working knowledge, and hopefully learn something. This will end when you wish it, I wish it, and /or a cue is developed that we and others agree with.

I see that you believe the cue I defending may work. Let us both be sure to not hold the fallacious belief that because one cue works another won’t. Multiple cues can work.

I believe the registration numbers is the stronger position, maybe not the way you have it worded precisely. If you look back in the thread I didn’t jump on them because I wanted to work from the weaker position. I learn more defending a weaker argument.

In the end a blend of both might prove best. Who knows now. But, I am willing to work through it if you are.

Tiger74 wrote:
From what I understand, registration numbers can only apply to one plane in service at any given time.


Good point. Is 9M-MRO still in service?

Tiger74 wrote:
Is there a flight data recorder associated with the alphanumerics MH370? Yes there is but there may be more than one if different planes were used for that flight.


Your right. I checked. Malaysian Airline Systems is still using this number 370.

So I would need to add ‘current missing’. Also, I would like to update my Cue to bring it closer to cues that we know work empirically. If you still want me to argue for MH370 I will. I don’t think I would be allowed to change in a formal debate. But with the end goal of the best cue I hope you don’t mind.

From:

MH370/ Flight Data Recorder /Location Now

To:

Current Missing/ MH370/ Flight Data Recorder/ Location Now

To:

Current Missing/ Malaysian Airlines Flight 370/ Flight Data Recorder/ Location Now


I took the liberty of piecing together your argument into one point. If you feel these need to be discussed separately let me know.

Tiger74 wrote:
I didn't mean belonging to in the sense of legal ownership, but rather in the way you might say the word rather belongs to this sentence.

Legal ownership doesn't always have to be a factor for the reasons in your above example

Also, anything with a proper noun/name is usually a safe search term (Malaysia Airlines). I would even say it always is.

Your argument for the current, cultural significance of the flight number is valid and it might indeed work in a cue.


Legal ownership was what I thought you were using. But, if you are not using Legal then aren’t you using cultural significance? Why would a proper noun be such a sure thing? Isn’t a proper noun only proper because of its cultural significance? There may be other reasons, a personal level significance for example, like when you RV’d those missing glasses, but may not apply.

As an aside, I don’t think “current” has anything to do with it. If someone RV’d “TWA Flight 800” before they flew wouldn’t they know not to?

Tiger74 wrote:
Things can become associated with other people/places/things. A crash became associated with a plane, and vice versa.


You have touched on something here but I will save it for another thread or the debates end.

_________________
"Wretched mind, do you, who get your evidence from us, yet try to overthrow us? Our overthrow will be our downfall." -Democritus


Tue May 20, 2014 7:17 am
Profile
Ultimate User
Ultimate User

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:35 am
Posts: 447
Location: Tennessee/in flux
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
RossU wrote:
What I am looking for is a hands on learning experience in cue formation and some guidance on what things to think about while processing a cue. Secondly, I am always looking for cues which offer diversity and practicality.

That is why I'm here.

RossU wrote:
Tiger74 wrote:
In fact, I believe I successfully used it in a cue a while back although it was qualified by airplane crash, as there was an airplane crash associated with that flight number as revealed by our location work.


Are you able to post this cue? I ask for my own edification.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370/airplane crash/primary cause

I was asking the Matrix about Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. I qualified that with any possible airplane crash that might be associated with that flight designation. I then qualified that with the primary cause of the airplane crash. In hindsight, I might have dropped primary from the cue in this case. But I feel it worked out OK because first of all, I got exactly what I asked for. The primary cause of the crash was the airplane going in a downward direction out of the sky. But the Matrix (not only a librarian, but a teacher) said "..and since you asked this question, you may also be interested in this additional information." Then I received information about a long, drawn-out plan, a 'war' in the cabin or cockpit, one of the pilots (sinister) away from the cockpit and a pilot being unable to see. According to my analysis, those were all contributing factors to the crash. It appears that my results matched the Major's results which he announced shortly after I posted my work. So in my opinion, my cue worked. Of course that assumption is based on corroborating data with another, professional, remote viewer's front-loaded data and not ground truth, at this time.

RossU wrote:
Let me be clear about a few things. What I am doing is engaging you in debate over an opposing cue to develop a specific working cue, gain experience, solidify working knowledge, and hopefully learn something. This will end when you wish it, I wish it, and /or a cue is developed that we and others agree with.

I see that you believe the cue I defending may work. Let us both be sure to not hold the fallacious belief that because one cue works another won’t. Multiple cues can work.

I believe the registration numbers is the stronger position, maybe not the way you have it worded precisely. If you look back in the thread I didn’t jump on them because I wanted to work from the weaker position. I learn more defending a weaker argument.

That is the purpose of this discussion. I don't know that I would call this a debate but call it what you will, we're learning and making progress. Polarized arguments/debates/discussions always facilitate growth and understanding, in my opinion. If you want to argue the 'weaker' position, you bring polarity to the discussion. I consider this productive, so far.
And of course multiple cues can work to achieve the same goal.

RossU wrote:
So I would need to add ‘current missing’. Also, I would like to update my Cue to bring it closer to cues that we know work empirically. If you still want me to argue for MH370 I will. I don’t think I would be allowed to change in a formal debate. But with the end goal of the best cue I hope you don’t mind.

From:

MH370/ Flight Data Recorder /Location Now

To:

Current Missing/ MH370/ Flight Data Recorder/ Location Now

To:

Current Missing/ Malaysian Airlines Flight 370/ Flight Data Recorder/ Location Now

Actually I meant that I might consider adding current missing to my cue. Actually, missing would probably be enough to be sure. Which would make it
Missing Malaysia Airlines airplane 9M-MRO/flight data recorder/location now
RossU wrote:
Legal ownership was what I thought you were using. But, if you are not using Legal then aren’t you using cultural significance? Why would a proper noun be such a sure thing? Isn’t a proper noun only proper because of its cultural significance? There may be other reasons, a personal level significance for example, like when you RV’d those missing glasses, but may not apply.

I think we're adding confusion by focusing too much on cultural significance vs. legal ownership. There is no dichotomy there when it comes to cue formulation. A properly constructed cue will work regardless if either is present. Planet Pluto/smallest rock , for example. I just try to keep in mind how/if something is tied-to or associated with whatever I'm trying to qualify. That was my thought process when I constructed the above cue to find out about the cause(s) of the crash. I hope I'm explaining that adequately.

I believe a proper noun will always return something if used in a cue because by its nature it is a designated label. It is not vague. I didn't say it wouldn't be ambiguous though. Proper nouns usually need to be qualified with something as they may have more than one idea associated with them. Prince, for example. That session that I worked to locate my Dad's missing glasses would have worked just fine if I had used the cue:
My Dad's missing eyeglasses/location now
But I used his full name just to be rock-solid and get in the habit of being as precise as possible. The importance, complexity, time table and number of viewers on any given RV project-problem set will determine how much time a task master will spend in cue formulation/formalization.
RossU wrote:
As an aside, I don’t think “current” has anything to do with it. If someone RV’d “TWA Flight 800” before they flew wouldn’t they know not to?

Indeed, if they were a good remote viewer and analyst. You just illustrated my previous point.

RossU wrote:
Current Missing/ Malaysian Airlines Flight 370/ Flight Data Recorder/ Location Now

This might work(again, due to cultural significance) but the immediate problem I see is that Flight 370 is a like a scheduling procedure designation and therefore can't be 'missing'. It's not a tangible object. Also, like we discussed earlier, there may now be more than one flight data recorder associated with this Flight 370 designation. But if you wanted to try that cue based on its cultural significance (not an established RV term by the way, just one that we seem to have come up with) then I would restructure it like this:
Current missing Malaysian Airlines Flight 370/ Flight Data Recorder/ Location Now
But again, I wouldn't feel comfortable tasking that to someone else. If I wanted to spend my own time on it, so be it. If you were pursuing ground truth then you would eventually prove yourself right or wrong anyway.

To throw in another idea, we could target the flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder directly if we had their serial numbers.
flight data recorder 123456789ABC/location now


Tue May 20, 2014 8:35 pm
Profile
Advanced User
Advanced User

Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:19 am
Posts: 95
Location: St. Louis, Mo. - Pre DVD04
Post Re: Cue Formulation WITHOUT a photo - MH370
Posted twice and can't find the delete. Oy vey, what a mess I made. I'll reuse with this:

Tiger74 wrote:
To throw in another idea, we could target the flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder directly if we had their serial numbers.
flight data recorder 123456789ABC/location now


Here are my other ideas with TRM. Though I don't know about the first(black box). I think I may try to do a better job of getting a more relevant article. One that talks about the missing plane and append with cue:


Image

Image

_________________
"Wretched mind, do you, who get your evidence from us, yet try to overthrow us? Our overthrow will be our downfall." -Democritus


Last edited by RossU on Thu May 22, 2014 7:45 am, edited 5 times in total.

Wed May 21, 2014 4:12 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.
[ Time : 0.189s | 11 Queries | GZIP : On ]