Nobody - This is how highly trained and experienced TRV pros - all of whom know what they're doing - effectively run an operation. The PM/Director/Ops officer fabricates the cue, based upon the client's need (unless it's an initiative project), which is then passed off to the project team as a blind target. When the base session results are completed, there begins a round table discussion. Either the target cue is then refined and reworked, or the u/i S.T. elements are explored, per SOP.

Note: For corporate contracts, I usually ask each team member if they would prefer to work the base session blind or front-loaded. (OH MY GOD, LOOK OVER THERE! DAMES AND HIS TEAM ARE WORKING TARGETS FRONT-LOADED!! THAT IS NOT REMOTE VIEWING!)

Outside of the PM, teams usually consist of 4-6 workers; more than 6 employees/subcontractors deployed on a mission is overkill and a waste of time and money (a data abundance of redundance). All available workers will be needed for complex contracts, fewer for cut and dried ones.

Later, we'll discuss contract deliverables, interim and final reports, how to charge a client, profit margins - and ways to avoid going into the red.

Doom

Thank you for the explanation. A business model discussion would be of interest. At this stage I am confident at running follow-on work front loaded, and often do. I think most others on the project probably do as well.

Nobodyfuel.

I do front loaded stuff, but here on forum the time between posting work is great and I tend to go explore the phenomon. Same as the dyatov pass incident, or this, I read all the facts and skew my perception. If I was a cat, my curiousity would have killed me many years ago

I explored three aspects at the site.

Aspect [X] is a thing like a star. It is yellow and hot. It is dense and spherical, and the surface is amorphous, with no definitive boundary, with a fluid, molten, custard-like texture. I am impressed. The emotions present are energized. The intangible ideas here are intensity, energy, power, fundamental, particle, and singular.

Aspect [A] is a thin strip-like piece of smooth, metallic, edged material. It's hard and gray. I feel a sense of longing, and did not detect other emotions present. The intangible ideas here are material, reactant, and boundary.

Aspect [B] appears to be a passing trajectory, i.e. motion in a curved path. I hear a whizzing sound. My emotion is like 'wow' and the emotions present are laughing.

Well, that settles it. Definitely a fairy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elemental

Cbutter, you made a whole new session off an element, how does that work? I am pretty sure an element is explored just as a aspect, or is that new?

Norbert-- I treated it like a full session. I haven't been trained in advanced protocols, so I treated element [1] as the site, and went with subsequent aspect explorations according to the archetypes present in the s[3] of [1]. I only considered a potential for 'cross-traffic' with base session aspects once I saw Marlin's [X1, A1, B1...]. I hope my lack of numeric subscipts didn't corrupt the data!

It is a continuation of the base session; resume on S.T. page number nn + 1:


S1 [1]
> S2 [1]
> S3 [1] analytical sketch - no freehand
> S4 [1]

At this point, we may engage in S6 and/or target geometry work, or shift our focus to [2], another u/i element in the S.T. Or, if necessary, we could inject sub-element labels [1a], [1b] etc., each at certain parts of [1] (in the case, let's say, of an elaborate, intricate or complex mechanism/cell body/circuit/dynamic process, etc. - virtually 'dissecting' it).


A short TRV SOP review, along these lines, is in order: Let's say that your target is a binary star system with three orbiting planets:

S3 freehand

[X1]
[X2]
[A1]
[A2]
[A3]

Then: S1 [X1] > S4 [X1] etc.


Or a murderer and two victims (ex. Nicole Simpson's death)

[X]
[A1]
[A2]

(Scroll to the bottom for a 'non-simplistic' S3 freehand description of the subject at hand)

Unless this is a training target, we're really not interested in [A1] & [A2] - we're solving for an unknown:

Who? two knowns, one unknown
What? a known
When? a known
Where? a known
Why? an unknown (we can ask [X] when the case is closed)
How? a known

So, all of our problem solving work + follow-on cues will focus on the description, location(s), etc. of [X]

S1-S4 [X] > S6 [X] drawing (Note: never spend more than 10 minutes employing any S6 tool)

Session continuation prompt: The present location of [X] SBP
That movement will, in all probability, redirect/vector the viewer's attention to a different site (Matrix pattern-idea 'metric space'), essentially tantamount to the beginning of a new session - each time there is a site change, there will be a new S3 freehand, so don't neglect those additive subscripts, with each site change.

Any independent session with new TRNs, e.g., [nnnn/nnnn] [X]/present location must include a copy of the S6 [X] session page as target reference material, to distinguish it from all other similarly designated key site aspects in your project case file - staple the TRM to the front of the session. (Same procedure applies when extending information collection of an S.T. element, e.g., [nnnn/nnnn] [1]/origin, [1]/purpose, [1]/fabrication site.

Note: If the cue was [nnnn/nnnn] Nicole Simpson's murderer, then the key site aspects in the S3 freehand would be labelled differently:

[X] = Murderer
[A] = Nicole Simpson (cue/problem key context - her name is in the cue)
[B] = Ron Goldman (cue/problem context)

Q.E.D.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[nnnn/nnnn] Nicole Simpson's death (Nicole Simpson/death)

Actual S3 freehand results will usually be objectified thusly:
[X] Motion (S1-4 [X] will break out into two elements: an object + motion)
[A] Murderer
[B] Nicole

Goldman might not even show up as an archetype - the event location streets and structures may actually eclipse him as site context. (Amelia Earhart's navigator, Fred Noonan, is absent in many of the Amelia Earhart disappearance sessions). Superconscious, in all cases, is the master problem solver, and you get exactly what you ask for and exactly those puzzle pieces required to solve the cued TRV problem - no more, no less.

When I 'find the time' (as the saying goes), I will elaborate upon my own original work vs. this case. My associated S3 and S.T. included a key site aspect and element that took me incredibly by surprise...

Of course, some of you know about my attempted underwater 'L.A. River' murder weapon recovery searches - a story for another day.

Hey, don't squeeze the juice!!

Major, thanks for the procedural clarification and illustration.

Is there anything else we might be able to do to tease out something meaningful from this project?

I don't think so. I had some extremely good photos of large, single 'orbs' (not the scattered-all-over-the-place stuff). We ran into similar results in those cases, also.

https://www.beyondcomprehension.info/book.html

Off topic I think, what about ball lightnings?

A natural electrical phenomenon explainable by present day science. Same with St. Elmo's fire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Elmo%27s_fire

One of the most difficult projects that I ever tackled (before the phenomenon was understood) was 'sprites.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite_(lightning)#:~:text=Sprites%20or%20red%20sprites%20are,underlying%20thundercloud%20and%20the%20ground.

The topic comes up quite often in discussions of RV theory.

Based upon my own RV work, exploring instantaneous communications between parsec-separated Earth engineered 'transceivers,' the core operating principal centers around device group symmetry.

I can go into my session work and associated analyses, if you are interested.

Doom

I don't think there is any sort of remote viewing project we wouldn't be interested in, especially those of us who may no be able to pursue it as far as we would like

Roger, understood. I'll lay out those project results, soon.