False History

This page discusses a particular type of inaccurate information which can occur during remote viewing, to which I have given the name "false history".

Logic produces the false history

A considerable source of inaccurate information in my remote viewing happens if a "false history" is formed. I tend to blame all or at least most inaccuracy on "logic". "Logic" is a part of my thinking mind which is not taking part in receiving remote viewed information. Instead, logic is a part of the mind which analyses the data and tries to make sense of the data by making logical connections. I also blame "false history" on logic, as it seems that logic is responsible for creating a false history.

Mainstream literature on remote viewing, the way that remote viewing is traditionally taught, I refer to as "standard remote viewing". I was never a student of standard remote viewing, instead I started to test my remote viewing skill finding myself already somewhere in the middle between a skill of not being able to remote view and an expert remote viewing skill. I continue with developing my own methods, vocabulary, and concepts of remote viewing, which will differ from the standard remote viewing. In standard remote viewing, inaccuracy is referred to by the term "analytical overlay" or "AOL" in short. Me on the other hand I have also had enough observations of my inaccuracy during remote viewing, to form a term for the inaccuracy, and I have come to refer to inaccuracy as "logic", as I see that the logical part of my brain seems to be responsible for the information which turns out to be inaccurate, at least in a significant majority of cases to make it seem like all cases, but the exact extent of inaccuracy that can be blamed on logic should be determined first, before stating that all inaccuracy would be caused by logic.

What standard remote viewing calls analytical overlay or AOL, and what I call logic, seem to be referring to the same thing, so I seem to have discovered the same thing that was already found and defined in standard remote viewing. This is more than just it being "inaccuracy". The way that I refer to "logic", implies how I relate to and understand this thing that produces inaccurate information. "Logic" does not simply mean "inaccurate information". "Logic" is the thing which produces inaccurate information, and so it implies that we have the opportunity of studying exactly what or who in the mind is causing all this trouble, and how to remote view better once we understand logic or AOL.

I have done plenty enough of remote viewing targets to be able to start to identify already a few different kinds of the inaccurate information which I hold logic accountable for. One particular type of inaccurate information which is produced by what I call "logic", is what I have titled "false history", and is the topic of this page.

False history

False history is a very special kind of inaccurate information during remote viewing, so much that it is rightfully placed into its own category of false information to set it apart from all other kinds of false information. It should be helpful, as well as informative and interesting, when we start to identify different kinds of inaccurate information of remote viewing, so that we can study the different kinds in greater detail and to study each kind on its own. Not only should such a detailed understanding, as well as sectioning into separate categories, lead to the possibility of improving the accuracy of the remote viewing skill, but such a detailed analysis should also be interesting to consider.

I need to mention that "false history" is something that I have experienced during my remote viewing sessions, and that I do not know if other people are as likely to also experience false history or if it is something that is more unique to my own sessions. So my findings about false history might not belong in a general understanding of the topic of remote viewing, in case it is a problem that mostly only I experience. Still, false history is discussed here.

My most memorable encounter of a false history was in remote viewing # 80 which I have titled "Climbing" (see all targets). At the feedback stage of this session, which is the stage where I find out what the target actually is, was when I for the first time experienced the phenomenon that I would name "false history". Looking back at the previous targets done prior to # 80, there may or may not have been a few previous false histories as well, but it was from this target that I had my first huge experience of a false history where I saw it for what it was and for how it had affected my report, and I would thereafter be aware of the possibility of false history appearing also in all subsequent sessions.

My understanding of the inaccurate information in my remote viewing is detailed and experienced enough to where it is more than just "inaccurate information". False history is not just that I was wrong. False history is a very particular type of wrong information, I know a great deal about it already, and I may have also found ways to try to prevent false history from taking place in a RV report.

A false history is when I am remote viewing and my mind will suddenly start to construct a very long and very elaborate detailed story about people and their lives, seemingly always set in a past historical time of interest, it could be Mayans, Jesus and the ancient Romans, or the people who were living at Stonehenge. Characteristic of a false history is that, as far as I can recall (a more detailed analysis might change this assertion), they appear not as initial elements but somewhere in the secondary stage. A false history also flows very easily and very quickly, it is a very rich and vivid information flow, with images and objects that are more clear than initial elements are in their initial stage. A false history involves often many people, and talks extensively about what the people did and what happened to the people in their lives and presents the story of their lives, and is typically if not always set in an ancient or past historical time.

I will go from experiencing less clear elements and impressions, to suddenly having a very fast and rich information flow with pictures and lots of explanations and storytelling. I will have a feeling of being excited, happy, elated, and proud to be producing such a vivid and elaborate story which logic in my mind (I blame logic here since this is inaccurate information) makes me feel or believe is completely true, and gives me the belief and feeling that I am on the right track and that I am on a roll. Furthermore while experiencing and reporting a false history, logic is preparing me for the feedback stage and showing me what it will be like and how good I will feel when I am confirmed to be correct and this whole entire elaborate story will be confirmed and true. Logic gives me rewards during the time while a false history is being created, giving me emotional rewards and also rewarding my ego and giving me a feeling of pride and confidence.

Typically at other times of remote viewing however, I will normally be simply looking at and experiencing my perceptions and sort of scouting around the target, and the emotional experience then for me is something more neutral and pondering, like carefully testing things out, and not being personally emotionally invested. Or, also, at some times during remote viewing, when logic has the chance to speak in my mind, logic will also be telling me that I am failing and that my information is wrong and giving me emotions of fear, panic, and shame. So we notice that the emotional experience during the construction of a false history is entirely different from the emotional experience at other times during a remote viewing.

My understanding and observations of false histories is vast enough and detailed enough to where false history can be elevated from just being called "inaccurate information". Also the false history is different from other kinds of inaccurate information, which also elevates it to be worthy of its own name as a distinct concept. But yet a third reason for why false history is deserving to be considered as a unique concept, is the observation that the beginning part of my report will often or always (the frequency of this can be determined by a careful look at these reports) be a very good and accurate beginning, with the false history having been created on top as a continuation of that, and what this means is that the report as a whole is not a failure. It started out building a report which was highly accurate and consistent with the target in the beginning, and the false history can be seen as a later addition which in a way stained what was a perfect start. And this means, that the false history is a "thing" that happened to the report, and not the case of the whole report simply being bad and wrong. And this also makes the false history entitled to be looked at and understood as a "thing" of its own and not just the case of a bad remote viewing.

Identifying a false history

Logic is a part of my mind which tries to help me to solve the remote viewing puzzles. Logic uses everything I have ever experienced and learned. It tries to use everything I know, to figure out what things are. If I see a shape during remote viewing which I cannot identify from the shape alone, logic is likely to try to help by looking into the registry of my past experiences and finding the best possible match and telling me what it thinks I just saw. Logic wants to give my vague remote viewed impressions a title and a meaning, and logic also wants me to be correct. Logic also wants to make me emotionally invested in a remote viewing, it tries to put doubt and shame into my mind and the fear of being wrong, and when logic creates a false history it makes me feel the emotions of being excited, elated and proud and it tells me that I am correct.

When a false history starts, it is tempting to get carried away with the emotions that logic gives me during the false history, to feel elated and proud to be producing such an elaborate and accurate (it says) story. It is however important to notice the false history and to not give it any space and to not add it into the report. Fortunately the false history seems to be fairly easy to identify.

1. Involves people.
2. Describes in great detail what the people did and what happened to them.
3. Is typically set in an ancient or past historical time.
4. Is typically connected to grandiose or majestic historical relevance, such as Mayans, Jesus, or Stonehenge.
5. The information flows incredibly quickly and rampant.
6. Pictures of people and objects are very clear and frequent.
7. Elements are immediately produced with a precise known title.
8. I feel emotions elated, excited, proud.
9. My mind is confident that this information is absolutely correct, that I have solved this puzzle, and that I am going to impress people with this report.

All of the above considered together, is an entirely different mental experience from what my remote viewing experience is like otherwise. It should therefore be possible to notice the false history and to deny it from being displayed and to not allow it into the report, perhaps only to mention it as a short notice such as "false history of Mayans, blocked".

The remote viewing experience during a false history seems in fact in most parts completely the opposite of the remote viewing experience at other times. At other times there is no great detail as to what happened to people or what they did. The time frame does not appear clearly to me. Nothing tends to feel grandiose or majestic about my findings. The information flow is not quick or rampant. Pictures tends to be felt shapes of one color, and less frequently as clear or complete. During a false history, I see objects and things and I know immediately exactly what they are, whereas in a "real" remote viewing I struggle more to say what it is that I am looking at. My emotions will be neutral and contemplative and I will not be emotionally invested whatsoever, meaning that I would not care if I will be right or wrong it would not make me react emotionally one way or the other. And I will be neutral as to the confidence level of my predicted accuracy before feedback. (It seems, that all fear and panic about worrying to be wrong, as well as all elation and confidence and pride about expecting to be correct, are both created by logic.)

Was there ever an experience of such an information flow which might look like a false history but which was consistent with the target? I have reported many cases of stories of what happened to people where those stories were correct. One example is the Jews who were exiled from the catacombs, or the people in the water who were picked up by the red cone shaped elevator. So this means that the appearance of an elaborate story about what happened to people, is not reason enough to reject this information flow, since we do not want to risk rejecting accurate information.

However, looking back at instances where a story was correct, I see that these stories were produced without the emotions of being elated and excited, and that elements were still less visually clear, also the confidence level remained neutral.

So we have a list of things that characterize or identify a false history, these were numbered 1 to 9. I then think back to some of the cases where an elaborate history about people was accurate, to determine which of the 9 identifiers took place at those times. Identifiers which happen during a false history and during an accurate history cannot be used to identify the false history. So the following identifiers can occur during a false history and an accurate history and can therefore not be used as a sign to know when the history is a false one:

1. Involves people.
2. Describes in great detail what the people did and what happened to them.
3. Is typically set in an ancient or past historical time.

And then, the following identifiers occur during a false history but they do not seem to occur during an accurate history. These identifiers are therefore suitably used in order to know when a false history is being produced, and the false history can then therefore be actively blocked:

4. Is typically connected to grandiose or majestic historical relevance, such as Mayans, Jesus, or Stonehenge.
5. The information flows incredibly quickly and rampant.
6. Pictures of people and objects are very clear and frequent.
7. Elements are immediately produced with a precise known title.
8. I feel emotions elated, excited, proud.
9. My mind is confident that this information is absolutely correct, that I have solved this puzzle, and that I am going to impress people with this report.

So identifiers 4 to 9 occur during a false history but do not seem to occur during an accurate history. What this means, is that during remote viewing, I might be developing a story which involves people, describes in great detail what the people did and what happened to them, and can also be allowed to be set in an ancient or past historical time, and these should not be taken as signs that a false history is taking place, because there have also been cases of accurate history which contained these identifiers.

However, we then find the way to know when a false history is to be suspected, because there are identifiers to a false history which the false history does not share in common with the production of an accurate history. These identifiers are unique to the false history, and can therefore be taken as signs that a false history may be being produced, and to then proceed with blocking the production of this false history. Namely, the topic of the history will seem grandiose and majestic, the information flow is incredibly quick and rampant, pictures of people and objects are very clear and frequent, elements are produced with a precise known title, I feel elated excited and proud, and the confidence of being correct. These then should be used as the identifiers to spot a false history.

Overall, I find that any kind of emotional investment in the session, is an indicator that logic is active in the mind. The remote viewer is probably not in the right state of mind to be collecting data at any time when there is the experience of feeling emotionally invested in the session. Both polarities of emotional investment have the same meaning in this sense. Feeling scared, fear, panic, shame and guilt and imagining what it will look like and feel like to be wrong in the feedback stage, or feeling elated and excited and proud and confident and expecting and imagining what it will look like and feel like to be correct in the feedback stage, are both indicators that logic is whispering to you. Logic is talking to your mind and trying to analyse what it can. Logic is trying to predict the accuracy, based on how well it thinks that it can piece a vague impression that you had, to something that it finds familiar and to be a likely match from your library of knowledge in your mind.

Emotional investment indicates that logic is active. Whether it is a positive or a negative investment, logic is calculating how well it thinks that your impressions match with things that it can find from your previous experience and is feeding you with good or bad confidence and emotions. So the emotional investment reveals, quite sneakily, that logic is working. The remote viewing is not optimal when logic is active.

Blocking a false history

I believe that the remote viewing report should be made in a scientific manner. A scientist is not allowed to change any of the notes in a laboratory notebook. Everything that is written into the notes must stay there. Additions or clarifications can be written afterward, but the previous original text must remain there. That is how I write my remote viewing reports. When a false history is starting to end up in your report, and you catch it, then do not delete any of it.

My recommendation would be, to not give a false history the attention that it seeks. A false history will take a lot of time and text because it is a very extensive and elaborate block of information. To add it into the report, places a large chunk of inaccurate data into your report, which, unless you create a summary at the end with your choices selected from your report, this inaccurate chunk would mess up your report. I have also given myself lower grades on reports, even if a good part was accurate but because there was in addition also an inaccurate part, so the inclusion of a large false history might reduce the quality of your report regardless of how much good stuff you have in there.

I tend to find all sightings interesting even if they are inaccurate, however, in the case of a false history, I really do not see any value in allowing this large chunk of inaccurate material into the report. The false history is simply wrong and it does not seem to contain any clues or hints or added angles to the actual target. I see no reason for why one should allow a false history to be written down.

Therefore, once a false history is suspected, and if it is identified as a likely false history by using the identifiers that were unique for false histories and not shared mutual with also accurate histories, the false history should be blocked. First you identify it as a likely false history, careful to not accidentally block an accurate history, by paying close attention to the identifiers. Then add a note of this false history into your report, you could write for instance "false history suspected" or "false history identified" (if you are confident enough to be sure of it), you can of course write a short summary of the nature of the false history, which I would recommend because then later in the feedback stage you can see if it was indeed a false history or an accurate history by comparing to the actual target. And then you could write "blocked".

I would recommend then returning to the initial elements, even though they are not as cool or fast flowing or obvious and labelled and there are no people doing interesting things in a majestic impressive setting and you are back to working on sightings that are not as clear and where you might not really know what is going on or what to call things and you are not feeling elated or optimistic, but that is how the remote viewing process works. The false history is your mind trying to help you out by using something that it saw from your remote viewed impressions and connecting it to a complete story which it will gladly construct for you. Namely, logic knows that the objective of your puzzle which you are struggling with, is to in the best case construct an elaborate story, so as soon as logic thinks that it recognizes some of the clues that you did remote view, it thinks it knows the answer and will help you with the full story and fill in the blanks and make you feel elated and happy and proud in the process.

Logic tries to help, but do not let it help because it cannot. Remote viewing uses passive sensory perception. Logic is a part of your mind which tries to help you out. Logic tries to use the connections that you have in your brain already, such as if you remote view a round yellow element logic might tell you this must be a sun, but in remote viewing you have to form new connections based entirely on remote viewed connections and not using anything that you have learned before or how you make sense of what things are or what things mean. Logic will also give you emotions, fears or confidence, but remote viewing is a neutral and passive experience, you are looking at things and it does not mean anything to you emotionally.

See if you encounter false histories during your remote viewing sessions. You might have to do many sessions before you start to encounter false histories. I also do not know if false histories is a problem unique to me or if, as I still do suspect, it should be a shared experience for all remote viewers (who have not learned to block it or prevent it from happening altogether).

Carrying on after the false history

If you let the false history take up your time, energy, and effort in remote viewing, then whether you allowed it to carry out its full story until the end or if you blocked it, you might be tired or feel that this session has already taken too much time. After a false history it is important to return to your good material and to continue from where you left off before the false history appeared. The time of duration as well as any effort expenditure on the false history, must not be counted towards this session. It means that if you spent 20 minutes on initial information and then one hour on a false history, you should not think that you just spent an hour 20 minutes on this session but think of it that you only spent 20 minutes so far. Do not let the false history detract from this report.

In my experience, there will be accurate initial elements in the beginning part of the report, which were placed there before the false history begun. Therefore, block the false history (or write it down if for any reason you want to), and return to the initial elements which are the confident information, and simply carry on where you left off.

The false history which logic presents to you, is exactly what logic thinks that you could possibly ever hope for in a remote viewing. It is a complete story with all the answers clearly pointed out, with all of the labels and names and detail, plus with feeling elated and excited and proud to be so correct, so blocking the false history and returning to the initial elements can be a hard thing to do, because now you return to building on a report which might not have any clear objects or titles or names or stories or meaning to what things are, and also you go back to feeling gray and neutral and no longer feeling the excitement and elation, however it is important to step off the false history because the false history is simply false.

Even a vague and boring but accurate report is so much better than an exciting and highly details but false history.

1. Identify false history taking place.
2. Block false history by not engaging in it.
3. Make a note of false history being blocked in your report.
4. Return to initial elements and carry on as before.

Just be sure to use the identifiers to see if it is a false history or a possible accurate history. Know what are the signs that are unique for the false history. Should one never block a history, just in case it would turn out to be an accurate one? Is it worse to add a false history or to risk blocking an accurate history? I would prefer to use a big net for the impressions and to ensure that all accurate information is included. My opinion about reports is that there is no harm in having inaccurate information in there, and that it is important to add all impressions into the report, however, the false history is so extensive (and so wrong), that it is a kind of inaccurate information which in my opinion should be identified while it is taking place, and blocked.

An additional reason why false history should be blocked, is that even if we were to disregard false information in the report, the false history takes up so much time and space in the report that the remote viewer is more likely to not return to the confident initial elements to continue building on those, and so the accurate portion of the report remains small because so much attention was given to the false history.

I would be interested to know if other remote viewers are also experiencing false history, and how they may have learned to identify these or how they deal with these. I am grateful to think that I have identified a means of knowing when a false history is taking place, and of realizing not just the possibility for but the necessity for blocking a false history and denying its place from the report.

This discussion of false history has been lengthy, but it was important to explore this phenomenon extensively.

False Histories might be real after all but off-target

I wrote this to a member of a remote viewing discussion group on April 19, 2019.

[Name] I sometimes get what I call "false history" in a session. The session starts normal with listing some simple objects and impressions into the report. Then suddenly whoosh! A huge elaborate story starts to play out and it happens fast and nonstop and I just lean back and write it down fast and I have no active role in building it. The theme is usually historical sites such as ancient Egypt, ancient Romans, the Mayans. What is also characteristic about a "false history" is that my mind is thinking "hey yeah this is so cool look at me go so fast and so much detail and dialogue from people and everything!" and I am so convinced that me and everybody else is going to be so impressed with this masterpiece and small novel that it grows into!

Then comes feedback stage. And I go, huh. I had the initial elements correct, I can tie the first objects and pieces to the feedback before the history begun. But the history is the wrong time and the wrong place and the wrong people and the wrong details and does not match with the target. It's like a diarrhoea happened into my report it's basically full of shit! I call these "false history". I noticed that my mind has a propensity to do this and I learned how to spot a false history at its onset to block it from happening.

When I block a false history from happening, I see that I relax and get back to the basic elements and can continue building a great usual report with correlation to the target.

It is tempting, even irresistible, for the mind to go into a false history frenzy, but I do not welcome them in my reports because I know that they have so far always been off-target, even if they do write a very compelling story filled with historical detail.

Daz was so kind to send me a blind target recently. It was the Washington monument which is an Egyptian style obelisk column. I don't necessarily often get false history on Daz's targets but this one turned into a 19 page history about an Egyptian temple of the cat goddess. All the report needed was the physical description of the pyramid shape and column to be good.

However, in the report I kept saying "there is NO grass on top of the ground", as if to hint at where we were not (Washington).

I usually regard false history as garbage, however, a few days after that session with Daz, a friend mentions out of the blue that Hitler once tried to find a lost Egyptian temple of the cat goddess in Bulgaria which had magical properties. I do not recall him ever talking about Egypt before. I strongly believe therefore, that we cannot exclude the possibility that false histories could be real stories that are hijacking us during RV because there are stories that want to be told. So maybe [Name] this story you wrote down wanted to be told.