There are a few long-term members here who don't see eye to eye on various beliefs and continue to discuss and argue their opposing views. 

I'd love to get some partnered exploration experiments going again.  It's sad that most of the old group is gone from this site but I'm hoping newcomers will come and join in.

Vicky

What kind of PE do you (Vicky & Focus 69) have in mind? Could you maybe explain in short steps how a PE looks like?

I know the OBE style but this is not something i can do at will yet and it requires a lot of time at night.

Then there is Bruce style exploration where i failed.

And last is my own simple method of intent+perceiving impressions like faces, people, landscapes.

Be PE you mean going into NP as a group and then comparing notes or going there to retrieve someone?

Soulmael,

I think any method is worthy.  I like using Bruce's method.  When I've done his workshops it's worked well for me.  And, many of the other workshop participants also had success.  In one group PE we did in our last workshop, each of us got significant verifiable information.  Our target was someone known deceased of someone in the group.


Morrighan,

I totally agree about the time/out-of-time aspect. 

Far as is known to me no "rules" exist regarding PMs in the time allotted for viewing the target. I believe it's common agreement not to share perceptions on the public forum until the target's name is posted so as not to colour the perceptions of other participants.

Yes it's an "observing only" exercise. No retrievals are required and I personally find it irresponsible to interfere with others and their free choices. It's quite possible to do information gathering without affecting another's personal field in my experience.

I'll post a new target today, seeing as the interest remains.

If there were a "Like" button on this forum you'd get one for this post, Vicky. Our experiences and observations match well.

Vicky wrote on Jul 28^th, 2017 at 1:25pm:

I observe mind is the greatest impediment to accurate information retrieval. This just happened today. The following exchange, while not verbatim, is an excellent illustration of this assertion.

N: what is it that made me forget the bulk of the download for today's [mission] work?

Me: Nina. (The actual name is something that is not Nina. Close enough to understand)
[pause]
Checking my field integrity.

N: We know Nina. We encountered Nina before.

***

So while my infos were spot on, my mind jumped in so that I second-guessed myself. To my mind, "Nina" made no sense as N asked me what, not who. Fortunately there was no hesitation in my original response, and that was the correct response respective of what my mind insisted.

And this is in part why sharing your infos in private correspondence with other participants on these targets is totally useful. A partner is quite valuable in verification. After all, this is the partnered exploration forum.