It would be foolish to believe that everything you are going to learn from this book will agree with everything other people say or write about remote viewing. One of the great mysteries of remote viewing is the fact that so many different individuals can perform equally well within its structure. However, having said that, it is also important to know that a few rules do apply and that it is necessary to learn and strictly follow them if you really wish to use remote viewing as it was originally intended.
Not just anything can be called remote viewing. There are students of the paranormal, skeptics, government officials, military, teachers (real and self-proclaimed), and even scientists who think they know something about remote viewing but who, in truth, haven't a clue. I would find myself in one of these groups, were it not for the fact that I have spent a considerable period of my life totally immersed within the research and development side of remote viewing, primarily with the laboratory that started it all, the Cognitive Sciences Lab (CSL).
If I had to pick a single place where remote viewing has been tested, re-tested, and evaluated, or where the many aspects of targeting, analysis, and the methodologies associated with them have been looked at the most, it would have to be CSL. I have spent almost fifteen years there as both research associate and subject, and I am still employed full-time by that organization. In addition, I was one of the original remote viewers recruited into what is now commonly referred to as Project STARGATE, the once secret Army project designed to use trained remote viewers for intelligence purposes during the Cold War. As such, I did applications (sometimes referred to as operational) remote viewing in support of that unit for a period of nearly eighteen years, until it closed in November 1995. Since then, I've continued privately to do applications remote viewing for numerous companies and individuals, and research remote viewing for CSL and other laboratories.
I've seen a lot of water pass under the bridge and developed a unique perspective on teaching and learning remote viewing. Twenty-one years' experience in something as ephemeral as remote viewing may not be something one would normally want to claim, but it is what I do and I do it very well. And, as a result, I know quite a bit about it.
One very large caution needs to be introduced at this point. It would be wrong to imply that I am the only one who knows something about remote viewing. Over the course of eighteen years, counting support and viewer personnel, probably eighty to eighty-five people were involved in the project on both the scientific and the operational sides of the house. For a time, operations were performed by both as were some scientific testing and evaluation. Probably fewer than three dozen people were viewers. Of the others, about half were scientists, and the remainder performed support functions, such as evaluation, analysis, and operational monitoring. It's important to understand that no one individual was ever considered to be more important than any other. It always took a great deal of teamwork and effort to accomplish the mission—scientific, operational, or otherwise.
So, why would there be differences of opinion regarding remote viewing, especially regarding teaching or learning it?
Contrary to what one might think, these differences are usually not as great as they may initially appear. To the uninitiated, they may seem to be, but they really aren't. Also, many things that are being stated as fact about remote viewing need to be put into context in order to understand why such differences of opinion occur.
For instance: some members of the unit may say that they believe anyone can be taught remote viewing. Others seem to say something quite the opposite—that remote viewing cannot be taught. In actuality, neither statement is quite true within such a narrow context. This is one of the unfortunate results of living in an age where the single line statement or "sound bite" is important. It is usually all you get. It is not surprising that given the above two sound bites, one would assume that two different things are being said and that there is a great chasm of difference between them. In writing this handbook, I hope to clarify for the reader where real difference lies and where it doesn't. I want everyone to understand that most of us really are in agreement and the diversity of opinion is not only healthy but a requirement if we are to progress in any growth of understanding of remote viewing.
A Short History
It is not my intention to re-write the history of remote viewing. What I will do, however, is to tell people where they can get it. If you are interested in one person's viewpoint about the early days of remote viewing and his own role within it, then you will have to gain access to the Internet World Wide Web. Once you have, then log onto Mr. Ingo Swann's web site at:
www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/RealStoryMain.html.
He has written one of the most detailed and lengthy early histories available on the subject. Everything he says on that site is probably about as accurate as one can be with personal perceptions, at least from a historical viewpoint. However, you should remember that it is also a singular and one-sided view of those events, and that it contains very little data relating to the classified military project. Arguments will almost certainly arise about those years from others who were there at the time and perhaps saw things somewhat differently. One should remember, however, that disagreements should not affect how one thinks about the veracity of remote viewing itself.
Also, in commenting on the history of remote viewing, it would be unethical not to refer to a little known writing by a man named René Warcollier. He wrote a book titled Mind To Mind, which was published by Creative Age Press of New York in 1948. It was originally conceived as a lecture that he delivered at the Sorbonne in June 1946, under the title, "A Contribution to the Study of Mental Imagery Through Telepathic Drawing." This lecture was essentially a report on hundreds of what he called telepathic experiments that he had carried out over a period of nearly forty years. His approach, attempts at control, unique deference to drawings, and the statistical results in his experiments are very applicable to remote viewing research going on today. Those truly interested in pursuing remote viewing as something more than a hobby should try to obtain a copy of this book before beginning.
That the Cognitive Science Laboratory at SRI-International put Remote Viewing on the map cannot be disputed. CSL received a considerable amount of funding, carried out and supported extensive experimentation, and provided support to intelligence operations from 1972 through 1995. If this had not occurred, then no Project STARGATE would have existed, and remote-viewing history would have been very short indeed. A little-known fact about CSL that needs to be said here is that the money spent on experimentation during the 23-year period was not all spent there. It was shared through numerous sub-contracts with many other labs, enabling a great deal of research into the paranormal to be accomplished in areas sometimes only peripherally related to remote viewing. This led to greater understanding of everything from methods of evaluation, to establishing statistical standards, to how a human brain might be appropriately studied.
These accomplishments were and are directly attributable to Dr. Hal Puthoff and Mr. Russell Targ in the early years, 1972 through 1986—and to Dr. Edwin C. May and his colleagues—from 1986 through the termination of the project in November 1995. (I need to add that Dr. May worked for approximately nine plus years at CSL prior to becoming its director in 1986.)
In addition, dozens of other scientists worked at CSL between 1972 and 1995, some of whom have become leaders in various fields, as well as directors of other labs or organizations on the cutting edge of investigations into the nature of humankind. I am underscoring this fact so that the reader understands there was no dearth of real and solid science within the history or background of remote viewing. This science should rightfully carry a great deal of weight when readers decide what they should or shouldn't do or believe about remote viewing and its appropriate form or application.
I should also state here that findings and materials from the lab were shared and used within the operational element of Project STARGATE, located at Fort Meade, Maryland, at least for most of the time it existed. As a result of managerial difficulties, there were periods during which this did not happen. This is the basis for at least three significant areas of disagreement that might arise among past members of that unit.
These are:
–Research that established changes to specific remote viewing applications was sometimes not viewed as constructive or conducive to the operational requirements by the Fort Meade project managers. In such cases, this research was summarily dismissed as unnecessary or simply discarded. Since these suggestions were almost always implemented at CSL but not at the Meade Unit, there is not only disagreement over their necessity, but a total lack of understanding about their efficacy or the research necessitating the original or recommended changes.
–There was always a large discrepancy between good managers and bad managers within STAR-GATE. Some took the time and trouble to learn about and completely understand both the operational and the scientific minimums and maximums. (In other words, there were things that remote viewing should and should not be used for.) This means that for eighteen years, there were numerous periods of appropriate and inappropriate tasking, the application of various appropriate and inappropriate methodologies, and a multitude of evaluation techniques that may or may not have been appropriate at any given time. Since full managerial responsibility for the project resided within the Meade unit, the science side of the house was sometimes subjected to these irregularities, as were certainly the remote viewers. At times, this had a major impact on both the project overall, and the people within it.
–When you deal with the paranormal, you deal with a unique field that has a tendency to polarize individuals at one extreme or the other—from the hardened non-believer (narrow-minded debunker-type personality) to the zealot (who will believe almost anything). The people in the military are not divinely inspired, so they are no exception to this. The military had and has its fair share of very polarized individuals, some more so than others. Some were inside and others were outside the STARGATE Unit.
So, one can easily understand the vast lines of difference that may be at issue and which are generally responsible for the large degree of disagreement that seems to exist among individuals within the field. Having worked for both the operational and the scientific sides of the house, I must argue that when in doubt, one should nearly always give sway to the scientific version of why things happen or don't happen.
The simple reason for this is that if you attempt to defend remote viewing (which, remember, is a paranormal function) from strictly an operational viewpoint, you will almost assuredly lose the battle. This is particularly true when trying to defend remote viewing against a healthy and skeptical viewpoint. While applications of remote viewing may present some very nice anecdotal examples of success, they leave too many explanations for why they might have happened other than remote viewing. The battles are tough enough when the facts are backed by science, even science performed under the strict guidelines of numerous scientific over-sight committees. This is one of the primary reasons CSL always functioned with at least three of these committees between 1986 and 1995.
Those wishing to pursue a more detailed history of the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory and what it has to say about remote viewing can do so on the Internet at: www.lfr.orgics1/index.html.
Since this is a handbook on remote viewing, there is no reason to go into any greater detail regarding its history. I am sure that many individuals will make this attempt in the future. I only ask that when considering this history, remember that probably better than ninety-nine percent of the hard material required to establish that history resides within three areas:
–The people who were participants in STARGATE, each having a uniquely different view, and each possessing knowledge for a finite period of time within the unit.
–The Operational, or Fort Meade Unit, for which ninety-nine percent of the material has not yet been declassified or made available to the public.
–The Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, where arguably the majority of actual research took place. A significant portion of this material has already been published in peer review journals[1] and within refereed papers. However, like the operational material, quite a bit of this material remains classified.
Teaching and Learning
So, does this mean that anyone can learn to remote view and everyone can learn to do it equally well?
The answer is actually yes and no.
As a result of the research and the applications, there are many things we now understand about remote viewing that we didn't know at the beginning. We know that how one approaches the target, how the remote viewer is managed, or how the information is handled will have decisive effects on the results. We know a lot more about the appropriate versus inappropriate way that remote viewing should be applied and how not to oversell it. We know about destructive versus constructive remote viewer habits while receiving information, processing it, and translating it to paper or tape. We probably know as much about what shouldn't be done as what should be done during a remote viewing. We know details regarding the correct protocols, specifics about differing methodologies, exceptions that exist between training and applications, unique forms of employment, good and bad practices, how to leverage information with time, efficient and dysfunctional front-loading, and dozens of other inside tracks to the very heart of effective remote viewing. We understand to some degree the probable consequences of diet, or the reverse, how remote viewing might affect one's health. All of these things can be taught, learned, and applied.
Can everyone be taught to do equally as well as the next person in remote viewing? No. No more than you can successfully teach everyone to be top of the line competitors in swimming, track, shooting, or golf.
Experience dictates that it's probably a mixture of desire and focus (33%), quality and intensity of training (33%), and the natural talent you walk in the door with (33%). How do you know if you have what it takes? Well, that's what this book is all about.