I'd like to set up a project where we figure out hidden information crucial to the workings of specific inventions.

The premise is simple. We've seen various promising technologies get shelved for whatever reason. Greed and/or paranoia from the inventor, a sell-out inventor, a tragic accident, etc. Like the many roads that lead to Rome, many avenues to have technologies to accompany their respective inventors into the afterlife.

This documentary outlines how effective even laymen viewers were in military intelligence applications.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WUaS_Ynd_M

A friend of mine is a clever guy, holds a highly regarded position firmly in the mainstream world, but is also a remote viewing instructor. He tells me that the viewing is more effective of the viewer has expertise in the target. So a gardener will more easily recognise specific trees and plants in a location they don't even know by name and place, just a randomized case file number, and then the impressions and bits of information come in.

So the ideal people to remote view specifics in the lesser understood works of Tesla, Keely, etc, are people just like frequent this forums. As a theorist, engineer, or builder. A builder would more likely intuit how something was attached, the engineer what it is doing there. You catch my drift.

I feel this approach is well worth a try to gain clues on how to get things to work. A clue a builder would see, an engineer could know a great possible reason for and vice versa.
Remote viewing sessions are very scientific in setup. A target is set, reduced to a randomized number, and then the number is presented to a viewer, and they don't have the slightest clue what they're going to look at. This prevents prejudice to color the readings, which would render all findings a waste of time.
So for a target YOU want to learn more about, you'd work together with a second researcher, and then the 3rd, 4th etc would be doing the full blind viewing.

I'm asking my friend to teach me how to define targets in a way that is likely to bring the best results. If we as a group get out sht together, perhaps I can get targets defined by us in front of well trained highly gifted viewers. Most would be less inclined to be into free energy, but more than make up for that in accurate high resolution output.

Obviously target could be such as "Bessler's gravity wheel, presented on date xyz at the palace of king suchandsuch." To get from viewers ideally whether Bessler was for real or a fraud, and if real: what principles and mechanisms made it work.
Countless more targets will be defined I'm sure. The best result, we get when more of us get involved in the reading. Groups that do this for investments can be quite effective, I've heard first hand. We don't even need to know the future, the past is already great. However, if we manage to target a future OU invention (invention of the century in certain journal?), that would be neat as well, given enough detail. The benefit the future offers is that the veil will have come off eventually, and more descriptive documentation will be out there to be viewed.

Go see the documentary and then convince yourself and others why you of all people would be in the 15-20% that are actually rubbish at this, when most people aren't rubbish at all.

Let's not suggest targets here, that would ruin our results. Let's discuss progress and set targets for each other off-forum.

Here is a quite tutotial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thq8sVv0lps
Keep a black pen and some printer paper ready or print out the attached template for your convenience.

Once you've practiced a bit on generic targets like offered in the above video, and want a free energy target, I'll do my best to set one to high standards. It will unlikely be what YOU want to see, it a community shared service kind of deal. Someone else will be taking a stab at your preferred targets and publishing results.

Hello,

It is good to have as many tools in your tool box.
But,
For me being 68 years old, after watching the video, I am
not ready or maybe able to learn a new concept like this one.

I have come up with concepts that I shared and then after
building some of them, I got results that ether did not work
or worked differently than I expected.

I could have saved time if more people
would have told me,  Jay, that device will not work and here
are the reasons why.

With as many people on this forum,  I am looking forward to the
comments good or bad.

The video does have a sales pitch for purchasing remote viewing materials.
This may be what some people want or need.

The more I work on FE devices,
my thoughts are or what I put on paper
does not mean anything without building a working model.

Lunkster

Sorry to hear that you feel too old to learn any new tricks. I intend to stick be alive and kicking, and learning hard when I get to that age.

You seem to understand that I intend to keep this all on paper? What would anyone's motivation be to acquire valuable knowledge and not test or apply them?
Even with zero correct aspects to all readings, the pondering of what they might have meant, can only inspire souls who still have some hope and ambition left. This forum, to me, is about applying our inherent talent, exapanding them, and applying them to a very specific goal: energy freedom, or at the very least: lower energy costs for all.
If remote viewing is good enough to help law enforcement, intelligence agencies and military, to me it seems worth a fair shot. It's a science though, and it needs to be done right. It's far from a random throught selector algorith that you're supposed to invent meanings to. It's for specific actionable information.

Keeping to my Bessler example, one would need to de desperately tired of life and joy and all that is good in the world, to NOT be curious what proficient remote viewers might find when the target is set as "secret workings of Bessler's gravity wheel". When such a target is viewed, and results published, would any well meaning member of this forum browse on for something more interesting, or merely open it with the full intend to find ways to discredit whatever is in there?

I propose remote viewing as a tool to get something on paper which none of us managed to get on paper, or wouldn't take ourselves or others seriously for. How many good ideas may have been suggested on this forums, that died under the ridicule of forum members? Now, if remote viewers come up with same, not even know what they're looking that, this presents us with a "coincidence" that can be either brushed aside, or explored.

Some of the best inventions were made when actively looking to achieve something else, but at least achieve SOMETHING.

I gave you a SHORT introduction video, well scripted and with ad for paid content.
Where you do you propose, in the year 2023, to find BETTER low threshold free content, than from an expert who's promoting his advanced classes?
If you want to become a racecar driver, or better at lapping your shitbox at public track days, you'll find the exact same kind of content. Actual experts (pro drivers), telling you how it's done, with a link to more in depth coaching. This doesn't mean car racing is dubious, can't be done, can't be learned and is all a big scam.

Maybe take it easy on the sour cream in your double bitter morning decaf one day, while you still have days to enjoy