Here is a long anecdote about the topic: ‘Find missing things through Remote Viewing‘
Please take the time, it’s really valuable. Beforehand: The hidden Key were found.
In September 2006 a familiy member were instructed to hide a key in my home. Anywhere. In the cupboard, on the cupboard, below the carpet – wherever. I then tried to describe the place the key is located. My first session were done frontloaded, means I know it was about the hidden key. The task reads: ‘The main feature to find the key, hidden to be found by Remote Viewing.
The viewer describes the main features from an optimal observer position and have a look on the physically configuration of the items‘.
Actually too complex verbalized. But it was clear what I should do. The session began easy and I was able to perceive the key lies under something. But the surroundings were completely uniform and unidentifiable. Keep in mind what’s in our homes today: Little items from holidays, cables for satellite receivers etc. Anything without real use instead to collect dust. A Stage 4 (my RV method uses eight stages) on these details is very painful!
(Click on left picture to enlarge)
A short explanation: The [X] marks the target, here the key. Aspect [A] and [B] is context information of the environment. The numbers in brackets (,  und ) should be investigated in more depth for later sessions. This representation is for sure inaccurate and many will be surprised, because they heard so much more about Remote Viewing in the past. This is a typical representation of a Remote Viewing result from an average viewer. But this should not hide the fact of its information content. It is is only for the first contact with the target shown as a diagram. The topic about how the media and internet debate remote viewing and what you can expect will be later discussed in a seperate article in the FAQ (see on top of this page).
Another session with element  brought the following results:
This was the first time the percept ‘Candle‘ appeared, beside several others like ‘vase‘ and ‘glass bottle‘. The object or feature seemed to be round and vertical. A birds eye view (see on the right) showed the round attribute in an angular basic form. To be truth, if you see something like that you will say: ‘What a bullshit!‘. The sketch doesn’t helped to find the object in my home. Being helpless, I sketched the layout of my home and tried to find the room through my intution in which the key locates.
This pen tour ended in the living room. At last I drew Sketch #4 of an egg shaped object. After the session ends I searched for everything looking like a glass vase or bottle which can be seen on Sketch #2. But it was useless.
On the left you can see Sketch #4.
After this disaster I used a new task added to my target pool: ‘Most recognizable feature of the hidden key’s present location.‘. At the work I didn’t knew the task was about the key. Such a session is called blind. Maybe not the smartest task. The result can be seen on the right in Sketch #5. It looks like something water splashy. I thought about the water faucets in my apartment. But there are too many similarly possibilites. Useless to find the key through that task.
One year later with the task: ‘Current location of the hidden key‘, done blind from my target pool, gave me the Sketch on the left. Now again something angular with something round on it.
The blind done sessions were all very hard to understand. I was demotivated and tried a new session, done frontloaded, knowing it was about the key. After 45 minutes describing unidentifiable elements I tried the following movement in Stage 6: ‘180° from Element , looking into the room, something should be visible‘.
Element  was the aspect I suspected the key were covert. I sketched a room with a table and something like a “mirror” and the idea of my living room. Finished the session and going into the living room I saw the corner were Element  must reside. It was the same corner from Sketch #3. There were nothing else than a wall mount for a candle. Searched everything but nothing. Lifted the Candle: Nothing. Seems Remote Viewing is not easy to use to locate objects.
Two years later sitting in my living room thinking again about the hidden key. I stand up and searched again. Everything in the corner of the living room. To make it complete I had another look under the candle of the wall mount and there he was, the hidden Key. There can only be one solution: Someone else have moved the key within all the timeframe from the first sessions to two years later. I was angry. That was not part of the experiment. Leaving for a moment to get my camera at hand, looking again under the candle: No Key!! Very strange. I was the only one in the apartment. What’s up?? Where is the key?? In the moment I put down the candle on the wall mount I see something glued under the candle: The key! He must be there since the beginning of the experiment but I never saw him because of the the sticky wax.
Some photos for illustration:
On the left you can see the sketch with the table and “mirror”, on the right the real living room table and the cabinet with pane. The photo was done exactly 180° rotated from the key’s location.
All photos were done two years afterwards in 2009.
Here you can see the candle on the wall mount. Something round on an angular object. On the right photo the key is sticked under the candle. The egg shaped structure of the candle can be seen in Sketch #4 including the wick! During the session it looked more like a computer mouse. But this is typical for a Remote Viewing session: The viewer never knows what he describes. The order is describe, not identify.
Ten session were done altogehter and most were not helpful. Skeptics may rightly argument only frontloaded session were useful. Who knows how humans communicate unconsciously and which signals were transfered between the family member and myself througout one year. But the key was never mentioned in that time period. Also this Blog is here to give you insights into my experiences and should not be seen for correct scientific experiments.
January 17th, 2010