Protocols and Methodologies, What They Are, and Why They Are Different
Lots of arguments have evolved over the past few years regarding these two subjects and as a result have produced lots of new mythology and confusion. It is a difficult issue to understand, but I would like to try to make it a bit easier.
It would be a mistake to say that the difference lies simply between what scientists believe and what others believe. I've met as many scientists who don't understand what a proper protocol is, as non-scientists who do. So you can't really make that kind of an assumption here.
Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, defines a protocol, as it applies here as: "a detailed plan of a scientific or medical experiment, treatment, or procedure."
However, it lists a methodology as: "a body of methods, rules, and postulates employed by a discipline: a particular procedure or set of procedures." As a secondary definition it gives: "the analysis of the principles or procedures of inquiry in a particular field."
It certainly isn't difficult to see why these two terms are commonly mixed and/or interchanged in the remote-viewing field. So why does it matter a hill of beans, if we are talking about a procedure in either case?
The problem lies in the use of the term "scientific" in conjunction with remote viewing. If you are going to claim the fact that something is different for "scientific reasons," from something that would otherwise look and smell the same, then you have to define what makes that difference "scientifically." You do this with a protocol and not a methodology (or approach).
If you remove the specific protocols that have developed around remote viewing for the past twenty-five years, you are left with a very generic something, called "psychic functioning." Many don't remember the reasons for using the term remote viewing versus any other nom-de-plume, but I do. It was specifically done to identify something that was far and away removed from any other form of psychic functioning. Referring to remote viewing protocols as methods does a major disservice to the original studies, research, and intent.
Quite a few methods have grown out of the remote viewing culture that are not well seated in proven scientific protocols, and can't be called scientific by any stretch of the imagination. Since that is true, their continued success becomes almost solely dependent upon a waffling of the terms. I guess some figure, "After all, the average guy on the street won't know the difference." And to be frank, the average guy on the street doesn't.
The Basic Scientific Protocols, How They're Implemented and Why
The basic scientific types of protocols were designed to address real world or physical targets in the past, present, or future. These might include places, objects, people, events, technology, or photographs, all of which might either be stationary (fixed in place) or moving, indoor or outdoor, close-by or a long way off.
Protocols developed within the military during Project STARGATE stretched many of these well known protocols to address additional areas that include ideas, concepts, plans, thoughts, feelings, and/or emotions as targets.
Areas that were not formally addressed, by either the military, or the scientists, are the types of targets that remain largely in an "unknown category," such as; space type targets, mythology based concepts, and of course, aliens.
Unfortunately, rumors now run rampant regarding these latter kinds of targets and the use of remote viewing for ferreting out information about them. With few exceptions, the only reason remote viewing might have ever been attempted in the first place on such targets was because of the personal interest among viewers. In truth, the possibility of ever producing verifiable information on such targets is remote in the extreme.
Physical or Real World Targeting
This can be easily identified from published documentation in scientific journals, most of which has been done over the past twenty-five years. Real world targets have the fullest range in difficulty, the kinds of information they produce, and certainly in the way they are accomplished. The following provides a brief outline of some of the more important types of physical target protocols:
Outbounder Targets
Historically this is the baseline protocol that brought notoriety to remote viewing following publication in the IEEE by Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ in 1976.
1: Participants in this protocol are as follows:
A Person Who Decides What the Target Is. This is someone who is not otherwise associated with the remote viewers or anyone else directly involved in the remote viewing effort. It is the person who establishes the target pool. In the case of research or study, the person who creates the pool should not have any contact whatsoever with anyone else involved in the remote viewing effort. This precludes any possible contamination or sensory leakage to either the remote viewer, or the judges involved in performing or evaluating the remote viewing. In a case where it might be used in an application, the person who creates the pool usually has no direct contact with the remote viewer. There is usually a middle person who handles the targeting materials between the person who runs the pool (or targets) and the viewer.
A Remote Viewer. This is the person who actually does the remote viewing and produces the psychic information (this is also where you will find people who largely talk about and describe their methodologies and not the actual protocol[s]).
A Monitor. It isn't always necessary, but sometimes there is an additional person with the viewer while the remote viewing is going on. This person's title might be determined by what s/he might be doing. For now we will simply call them monitors. Monitors sit with viewers while they are doing remote viewing. They really aren't monitoring in the purest sense of the word, but are there for one of two reasons. If it is a remote viewing for research or study, then the monitor sees that the protocol is being adhered to, and that there is no fraud or mistakes in protocol that might interfere with the study. Monitors might take care of other things like recording of data, time and record keeping, perhaps bio-monitoring chores, that sort of thing. If the remote viewing is for an application purpose, or to collect information for someone, then the monitor is there to see that the remote viewer doesn't stray from protocol, or in some cases to help the viewer with the specific collection methodology. In any case, the monitor is never there to guide, lead, imply, or otherwise interfere with what the remote viewer is doing. Nor is the monitor there to provide information to the viewer. There is a way of using the monitor to provide minimal guidance, but since this deals with front-loading issues, it is more thoroughly covered in Chapter Eight.
An Outbounder. Of course, this is the person who physically visits the target site, and acts as the target individual or beacon. The Outbounder's job is to simply interact with the site and in that way, provide an address to the target by his or her presence. Some believe the Outbounder is there to pass telepathic information back to the viewer, but this is probably wrong. While telepathic information transfer is certainly taking place, so are many other forms of communication. If an Outbounder were being used for an applications type of target (which would be rare), if telepathic communications is all we are trying to accomplish, why add the additional cognitive filter of remote viewing? That wouldn't make any sense. Usually, a viewer will provide a considerable amount of information that the Outbounder never has direct access to on the target site.
An Evaluator (Analyst). The last person in an Outbounder protocol is the person who evaluates the material. In the case of research or study, this is the person who judges the material and determines through a strictly designed and pre-determined evaluation system whether or not remote viewing or a transfer of information has actually taken place. In the case of an application, this is the Analyst who checks to see if the pre-determined questions have been answered. In either case, the evaluator should have no contact with any member of the out bounder team until after evaluations or analyses have been made and no other visits to the target site are intended.
2: A protocol flow chart and timing sheet is provided in Appendix D.
Targeting with Coordinates
There is myth about how and why coordinates have come to be used. Some of it is true and some isn't. The following is my understanding of the reasons behind it, as related to me by most of the people involved.
Initially, the Outbounder protocol was used exclusively by the SRI-International scientists. Obviously because they were achieving such remarkable results, there was no hurried attempt to change it. But eventually it began to raise some difficulties.
While the San Francisco Bay area offers a wealth of possible targets locations, after the subjects have worked the area for some time, they begin to become bored with the target pool. Also, scientific questions begin to arise as to what else might affect remote viewing. Is distance to the target a factor? Is loss of information an effect of differences in time zones? That kind of thing. So, a different methodology for targeting needed to be devised. But, how do you get remote viewers to focus on a specific place or event that's totally remote from their location when you don't have someone standing there acting as a beacon?
It's true, they could still send an outbounder to the site (which could be half way around the world), but the expense over time would be enormous. Also, one needs to remember that there was considerable interest in remote viewing by certain intelligence agencies. This presented certain types of target opportunities that no one might have access to.
As I understand it, one of the psychics working at the lab, Ingo Swann, suggested the answer. They could use map coordinates to identify a specific location on the ground. Hence was born what is now known as the "coordinate system."
The initial targets selected and identified by coordinates were large geographic features, such as islands, rivers, mountains, waterfalls, cityscapes, and the like. To everyone's surprise, it worked just as well as the outbounder protocol.
There were some problems, however. It didn't take long for skeptics to begin clamoring about eidetic memory. This alleged that remote viewers could have memorized (at least unconsciously) all of the major land features that can be identified from topographical maps, by their longitude and latitude gridlines. (I interpret this as a nice way of saying we were all cheating. Which of course we weren't.)
In any event, the use of coordinates also appealed to the military, especially for their types of targets (airfields, bunkers, buildings, etc.) So, to deal with the skeptical issues, the military side of the house did what the military does best—they improvised. Instead of using standard grid coordinates that anyone can read, they used military maps, which use a different coordinate system. Instead of 29 Degrees, 37 minutes, 15 seconds North, by 082 Degrees, 22 minutes, 11 seconds West; it might read something like, HM 3487 9864. Based on the specific military map being used, both the letters and the number combinations constantly change with no real logical order. To our surprise, it worked just as well, but there were still complaints about eidetic memory. After all we were "military remote viewers."
So, at least on the military side, we began putting the real map coordinates inside sealed and opaque envelopes, and then we would write false coordinates on the outside. Since they were false coordinates, we simply left off the degrees, minutes, and seconds. The coordinates that were visible looked something like, 457816 987602. Point being, they really had no actual meaning, other than to identify that day's project. To no one's real surprise, the remote viewer still went to the intended target with very little trouble.
The target coordinates quickly became almost anything that was written on the exterior of the envelope that might continue to differentiate one target from another. As long as they say nothing about the character or content of the target of interest identified within, almost anything can be used as an identifier label or coordinate without.
There are only two differences between the outbounder type of protocol and the coordinate protocol:
1: There is no outbounder. Someone still decides what the target will be, but, instead of handing the target to an outbounder, s/he instead seals the targeting specifics inside an opaque envelope and then writes an identifying coordinate on the outside. In the case of research or study, the envelope is never given to the monitor or viewer. Only the identifying "coordinate" is. In the case of an application type of target, it generally doesn't matter, as what is being done is not being done for scientific record, but is being done to obtain information. Participants realize that violating the protocol by tampering with the envelope will only preclude information collection and spoil the data collected.
2: The other difference is in the feedback for the target. Since there is no outbounder site that the remote viewer can visit for feedback after the remote viewing has been completed and information evaluated, it becomes necessary to provide the viewer with as much information as is feasible about the original target after the remote viewing has been completed. The person who controls the targeting information or the target pool is usually the person tasked with this.
All the other elements found within the outbounder protocol remain the same for the coordinate protocol. An example of a protocol flow chart and timing sheet are provided in Appendix D.
As you can already see, very little in the original protocol is being changed. Only the parts dealing with getting the viewer to the right target is being modified. One could argue feedback as well, but since feedback never takes place as long as a remote viewing target is active or being evaluated, it probably doesn't matter.
This now brings us to photographic target protocols.
Photographic Targets
This is where research and applications took distinctly different paths. There are a lot of different ways to use photographs as a targeting mechanism. Each one requires a detailed adherence to a specific protocol or procedure. Since I could actually write a book on photographic targeting alone, I will stick to the central issues, which are: differences between research types of targeting and applications targeting. What, and how much of what, do you allow the viewer to see.
1: Research and study targets.
This one I'll do first because it's the easiest. The simple rule is: if you are using photographs as targets, then they are never shown to the viewer till after the remote viewing has been completed, and the results have been evaluated. When used as targets, they can be sealed within an opaque envelope and given an identity number that is then used as a targeting mechanism, just as in the coordinate system. They can also be stored in a way that prevents viewing them until the remote viewing and evaluation has been accomplished, such as inside a computer file where they have been given coded identity numbers. The coded number is provided to the viewer, but not the photograph, until viewing and evaluation has taken place and the results filed. In research and study, there are no variations on this theme. The reason is because the photograph itself is the target (or at least is a paper representation of the location, object, person, or event).
2: Applications targets.
This is very different from research use of photographs. In this case the photograph is not generally the target, but is one step removed from it. In other words, the photograph is used to get a viewer to a specific target or element within the target that might be of greater interest.
There are lots of ways to use photographs to get a remote viewer to a target. However, each way presents a change in the basic protocol, so extreme care must be taken when handling photographs as targeting material.
Using Personal Photographs:
You can use photographs of people as unwitting outbounders. In the case of wanting to know "where" a missing person might be, since there is absolutely no way the viewer can know this information anyway, showing the actual photograph of the individual to the viewer is probably okay. It wouldn't be okay if you were going to ask the viewer something about the person that might be derived from the photograph. Photographs of individuals known to be in an area of interest would be another reason for showing the viewer a photograph of an individual, but you should never tell the viewer specifically what you are interested in with regard to the area.
Using Other Photographs:
It is actually easier to state what a remote viewer shouldn't see rather than what they should, as it is always a judgment call. Viewers should not be shown photographs of the specific target of interest. If you are interested in what's going on inside a building, you do not show the viewer (or monitor) a photograph of the building. If you are interested in what someone might be carrying in a briefcase, you don't show the viewer a picture of the briefcase. Everyone automatically wants to argue; why not? Well, one of the beautiful things about remote viewing is a viewer's ability to provide what otherwise would be very surprising information. But this can only be done when they have not been steered into some sort of expectancy, or their boundaries have not been perceptively fenced. If your interest is in what the person is doing who is carrying the briefcase, your assumption that the briefcase might contain information pertinent to that interest may be false. By showing viewers a photograph of the briefcase, you will encourage them to limit their perceptions to only the contents of a briefcase, or what might fit within it. In fact, anything the viewer does in reference to this target from that day forward will be mediated by what they feel about briefcases and their possible contents. It would be better to cut a very small square from that photograph that depicts the person's face, and ask what the person is doing.
To shorten what would otherwise be an inordinately long chapter in this book I will suggest the following rules when using photographs:
1: Always provide as little as possible in the way of photographs to a viewer. You can always go back later and expand on what you may be providing, but you can never undo what someone has already seen.
2: If a photograph implies anything at all about what you might be interested in, put it in a sealed envelope and give it a coordinate.
3: Don't assume that because you can't ferret out information from a photograph, the remote viewer can't either. Most really good remote viewers are a lot more sensitive to information in photographs than the average person.
4: Above all else, never assume a photograph is the most accurate way to target a remote viewer. Whatever limits the photograph may also limit the viewer; that is, fence them in psychologically with regard to other possibilities or information.
Moving Targets
Outbounder, coordinate, or photographic targets can all be affected when the target is mobile. Unless there is a very, clear description given by the viewer of a car, bus, train, plane, boat, etc., it is nearly impossible to evaluate a target while it is moving. The solution, of course, is to stop it from doing so.
A variation in location can only occur across time. A moving target therefore almost always requires multiple remote viewings at different times, and you must always use targeting material that is itself moving. A kidnap victim is sometimes moved frequently. Therefore it would be a good idea to use a photograph of the victim as targeting material and not something that might have been there at the time of the kidnap, like a victim's car or purse.
Those who are analyzing the remote viewing material should be told that there is a possibility that the target is a mobile target. Otherwise, they will assume—because elements of information they might be providing do not seem to be connected, one element to another—that what they perceive must be wrong. This is one of the few times the Analyst should be told something about the target. Clock speed is not material to the efficacy of using remote viewing. What this means is any derivative or function of time can be used. For example:
1: Describe the target at noon over a four-day period.
2: Describe the target in 30-minute intervals.
3: Describe the target in one-second hops.
4: Describe the target's change in four even increments from 1012 through 1013 centimeters.
In these examples, the viewer can be told the specific tasking (1-4), as long as the target is being targeted through the outbounder, coordinate, or photographic (sealed envelope) protocols.
Non-Physical Targets
Obviously these preclude the use of the Outbounder protocol, unless possibly you are targeting someone who was supposedly abducted by aliens and you have a specific date, time, and place for their alleged abduction—and, of course, don't really care whether or not you ever obtain a verification of your information.
All humor aside, lots of things can be targeted using a coordinate system (sealed envelopes), or photographs illustrating ideas, concepts, plans, thoughts, words, and feelings.
Some good examples of things that should not be targeted are inaccessible areas like deep space, mythological beliefs or beings, aliens, or other unknowns that might be inaccessible; or for which there is not or cannot be feedback. An argument against this statement might be: well, you target nuclear-particles for physics and you can't see them. This is true. However, testing with accelerators and through other means can eventually verify what might have been postulated through the remote viewing. In other words, other forms of proof might eventually be proffered that verify the viewing information.
I'm not dead set against targeting things like the possible sites for downed UFOs, or crop circles, because in reality these events may not even be a direct result of UFOs or aliens; in which case verifiable information could be located, thus providing feedback. Such targets may also provide information that is testable in some way that provides further elucidation regarding their reality, even when they might be assumed as alien in origin. It's just that they should be targeted with extreme care and caution, and one should not make assumptions based on whatever information is provided. In other words, if these things are targeted, the targeting should be left to experts who have garnered sufficient experience with good remote viewing protocol to know the differences.
Targeting a remote viewer correctly in our time-space is difficult in the extreme. Unverifiable targeting in what might be seven or more dimensions, or beyond our known space/time, only exacerbates the situation. At this point, no one knows for certain if there is any truth at all to such hypotheses. Certainly I don't.
But, ideas, concepts, plans, thoughts, words, and feelings are fair game and can be targeted. There are a number of ways to do this, all of which are equally haphazard.
1: You can wait until the remote viewer brings up one of these subjects during actual targeting and then ask him or her to expand on it. There is a great risk that if there is no further information available, the remote viewer will invent the information because you have shown an interest. So, if you ask, don't accept the response until it's been obtained more than once over a period of time.
2: Ideas and concepts can be written out as questions and placed in sealed envelopes. The more care and thought that is put into trying to minimize the amount of viewing necessary to obtain an answer, the better off you will be, of course. Let's say you have a question about whether or not an idea will take hold; e.g., "Will body art increase in popularity?" Writing this question out takes a considerable amount of planning and thinking. For instance, there could be a substantial increase in tattooing, very little growth in body painting, but a whole new field could open up in decorative body jewelry implanted just below the skin. So, how you phrase the question is extremely important. A good rule of thumb is, the more abstract the idea, the more difficult it will be to provide appropriate targeting.
3: Thoughts and feelings are almost always going to be spontaneous. If you want this information over other types of detail, then you need to take particular care in how you frame your targeting. This is always a sealed envelope directive, or possibly a combination of protocols being used simultaneously. For instance, if you want to know what someone is thinking, you might place a photograph of that person in a sealed envelope, and then ask the viewer to describe what they perceive about the target. They will either produce a spontaneous statement about what the person is thinking, or they won't. You have to trust "intent" to drive them to the appropriate response. Telling viewers that you are interested in what a targeted person might be thinking, even when they don't know that person, generally won't work, because this forces the viewer into what's called a "forced-choice" scenario. There are only a handful of viewers in the world with sufficient experience to deal with a forced-choice scenario, and all of them have more than twenty years of experience in remote viewing while operating under stringent protocols.
Strange or Unique Types of Protocols
Special protocols were developed over the years to address unique or strange requirements. Sometimes they were designed to answer very specific or narrow questions, such as "yes,” “no," and "maybe." Sometimes they were designed to be used with other methods of psychic functioning, such as divining accurate locations, in conjunction with healing, sub-atomic or micro types of targets, or how to tag a specific event within a target when the exact time or date isn't known. There are even ways of increasing the probability of accuracy, although these are sometimes quite questionable.
Associative Remote Viewing
When you are faced with a forced-choice requirement, e.g., is it yes or is it no, is it white or black, do you go or not go, etc., then Associative Remote Viewing (ARV) is usually relied on to provide the answer.
As I said before, you cannot rely on the information remote viewers provide when asked to give a forced-choice response. So the problem is multi-faceted:
First, in order for them to understand that a yes or no answer is required and nothing more, you have to tell them about the problem. This automatically front-loads the viewer with too much information. Too much information drives all the wrong things in the viewer's mind. What they "think" comes into play, instead of what they are "viewing." The viewer's likes and dislikes, preferences for outcome, and even a reluctance to deliver bad news alters the way they respond. So, you have to separate the viewer from the yes/no response in some way—thus the term "Associative" in ARV.
The way it works is identical to the Coordinate protocol, with the following change: First we must know what the specific forced-choice question is and the kind of answers it might require. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that we want to know whether or not to invest in a stock we like for a period of thirty days. There are a number of steps we then take. We identify the specific period of interest: May 1 through 30. Then, instead of randomly choosing a single target from a pool of possible targets, two targets are chosen: Target A and Target B.
The same person who would normally determine what the target is does all of this. But remember no information is shared with the viewer, monitor, or Analyst.
Having chosen two targets, that person then assigns the values (the forced-choice) to each of the targets. In this case Target A becomes "invest," and Target B becomes "do not invest."
Let's assume for a moment that Target A is the picture of a mountain, and Target B is a bridge. Then:
Target A (Mountain) = Invest.
Target B (Bridge) = Do not invest.
All of this information is kept from all the other participants. The viewer is then asked to do a remote viewing one day prior to the day the decision must be made on whether or not to invest—let's assume April 30. The tasking is as follows:
"Please describe the picture you will be shown at 09:00 A.M. on June 1st." (NOTE: Assuming the investment period is May 1-30, then we will know for sure only on June the 1st whether or not an investment would have been a wise idea.)
The target is then described or drawn as accurately as possible by the viewer. The Analyst is then given the viewer's results, along with both pictures, and is asked to report which picture the viewer's comments or drawings most closely resembles. Let's assume the viewer comments on or draws a mountain.
This information is passed back to the person who selected the targets, who reports to the person wanting the information that; "You should invest in the stock."
But, at this point, we still do not actually know if the viewer was correct. We only know that the viewer's comments and drawings most closely matched the picture of the mountain, which equates to "invest," and so the stock is purchased. Now, flash forward to June 1st. A review of how well the stock did is made on that date, and a decision is made post-hoc as to whether or not stock should have been purchased. If the stock did very well, then the person who determined the targets actually hands the viewer the picture of the mountain at 09:00 A.M. that morning. This would mean things worked really well. However, if on June 1st it's determined that the stock should not have been purchased, then the viewer should be given the picture of the bridge, in which case he sees that his viewing was not a good one and the remote viewing failed.
In no case should the viewer ever know what the other picture was, once he has been shown the one determined by the actual outcome. Since we do not know for sure how the viewer is actually getting his or her information regarding the target, there is a possibility this will interrupt or corrupt the process of information transfer.
There are ways of increasing the probability for success using ARV. These are:
1: By using more than one viewer. But please note that each viewer should have a different set of photographs representing the alternative choices. The reason for this is covered later in this book under handling of target materials and internal leakage.
2: By picking the specific time for actually doing the remote viewing. This is covered elsewhere in this book under the subject of Local Sidereal Time.
3: By making sure the pictures contain a very clear gestalt, which even the least effective viewers generally have no trouble with.
4: By making sure the dissimilarity between photographs is clearly evident.
5: By not altering the protocol in any way, and carrying it to completion—right or wrong.
But what if you can't decide between the pictures? Well, some have interpreted this to mean that no action should be taken. In the case of the stock investment this is meaningless, but in many yes or no, forced-choice questions, this could be very important. For instance, maybe you are trying to decide if you should buy property in the next week. An indefinite answer might mean to "wait."
Addressing Problems of Location
Contrary to general belief, remote viewing is seldom very good at locating things. Those who say it is should stop fantasizing and deluding themselves.
It can sometimes produce a very accurate picture of a specific location or event, but even in the rarest of cases, when it might be near perfect, it is still difficult locating that place or event on a map. For instance if someone looking for a kidnapped child produces a near perfect description of a trailer in a trailer park, the only problem remaining is placing that particular trailer inside one of the 1,285,000 trailer parks we have to select from.
But, now and then we may get lucky, and the viewing will contain other information of value. Maybe there is snow on the ground and it's early June, which definitely narrows the area in which that trailer park might be located. Or, perhaps the park our trailer is in is located adjacent to an amusement park that has a ride unique only to that park. But these kinds of results occur fewer times than might be expected.
What generates these false beliefs in accuracy is a combination of overselling the results the few times it actually worked well in locating something, and locating something through the use of logic while on a small search site, and misinterpreting this as remote viewing. In such a case, you might have been given a good general search area, let’s say two by two miles, and lead information by a local police department. In which case, it may not be remote viewing at all, but good logical thinking combined with experience in thinking outside the box. (I know this implies that some police departments may have become routine or parochial in their approach, but sorry, people, it's true. You sometimes are.)
In attempting to find something paranormally, if you hope to use remote viewing, then you need to use something else as well—this is called dowsing.
Dowsing
Dowsing has been around at least as long as psychic functioning. Most have heard about this in connection with searching for water or minerals. The way we use dowsing with remote viewing is not much different.
There are numerous techniques used for dowsing, and since this is not a book on dowsing they won't be addressed here (except minimally). However, if you plan on using dowsing to locate something on a map, you probably want to do the remote viewing first. Remote viewing will produce a lot of information that is descriptive of the site; near edge of a lake, in hilly country, major power-lines nearby, some kind of flat roofed building with metal doors, etc. Once you've produced the remote viewing information just as you would for a coordinate or sealed envelope type of target, you then obtain a map of the area you think you might want to be searching in.
Usually this is accomplished in some sort of progressive way. If you are looking for a kidnapped victim who could be anywhere in America, then you obviously have to start with a map of America. Once you've dowsed an area, then you need to obtain a map of that area. As an example, if it's central Virginia, then you need a map of central Virginia. You then isolate the location to a specific county and obtain a map of that county. You can further isolate a specific area within that county, and obtain a map for that area, etc., until you have narrowed it to the point of looking for features that match from your remote viewing. You do the remote viewing first, so that looking at the map details does not front-load you on what to expect. Don't expect to be right on the money the first time you try. I once looked for nearly three years before I found a person I was looking for, and never did succeed through dowsing.
There are cases where dowsing was used by the military with a great deal of accuracy. This necessity of locating things led to two or three of the viewers being formally trained in dowsing.
I was originally trained in dowsing while assigned to the STARGATE unit at Fort Meade. I was later trained formally, at the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory at SRI-International, by an internationally-known dowser with decades of experience. The differences were notable. You always get what you are willing to pay for.
Note that the use of dowsing does not preclude following established protocols for remote viewing. People sometimes fail to remember that when they begin combining methodologies.
Using Remote Viewing for Healing
Until recently I would have stated that I had not yet seen any examples of remote healing. But, in the past year there have been some very intriguing experiments done in just this area. Early findings still do not prove if healing is or is not taking place, but there is a marked improvement in quality of life that cannot be ignored.
Be that as it may, and contrary to what some are saying, remote viewing is not remote healing. They are two completely different animals. Remote viewing has been and can be used in the art of healing, however, usually as an addition to some other diagnostic tool. One must understand that the times when this might be of value are extremely rare, especially since remote viewing should absolutely never be used in place of normal diagnostic tools. It is used the same as any coordinate or sealed envelope target, only you would include something identifying the patient as the target. No information would be given to the viewer except the sealed envelope and a statement such as, "Describe what I need to know to heal the person identified within the envelope."
By not providing any other information, you can use things like gender, age, race, and overall health as sort of a check and balance system for the information you are looking for. If the viewer gets all of those items right, then what s/he says about the patient's health might also be more true than not. In any event, the remote viewing information can be used to more specifically target other diagnostic tools or medical laboratory investigations to pinpoint a patient's illness. In no case should it be used to direct a medical procedure. It isn't that accurate, and it certainly isn't that dependable.
Ways of targeting patients that have been successfully tested in the past are by placing a small piece of a patient's X-ray in an envelope with the patient's identifying number, targeting a patient's lab results, or asking the viewer to describe what might be emotionally disturbing a patient.
All of these might provide indications of where to go next in diagnosing a patient's problem, or which diagnostic tool will prove most profitable.
Sub-Atomic or Micro Structures
Again, using the coordinate or sealed envelope protocol is the normal route here. However the difficulty then becomes how to frame the question, as we can only hypothesize as to how most sub-atomic structures look, and there are very few ways to actually display them. One might deal with this in the way they are specified within the targeting envelope. Some examples:
Normal phrase in envelope: "Describe the wave function for target identified within the envelope."
Suggested: "Describe the wave function for target identified within the envelope as compared to the wave function of an Alpha particle." (Or whatever one might assume to be closely related or similar.) In the case where something has never even been hypothesized, you might say: "Describe this particle in a way that will permit the development of a hypothesis for testing."
Micro type targets can be just as tough. If you are looking for something like the key to a DNA strand, or the primary receptor for the AIDS virus cell, such targets almost always rely on the viewers' ability to communicate what they are perceiving in a way that the receiver of the information can understand and visualize. For this reason, the following is strongly recommended when attempting to tackle such targets:
1: Use only very experienced remote viewers with established and very well tested track records. While this appears simple, it isn't. Just because a viewer claims to have a track record doesn't mean it's real.
2: Use viewers that are talented in the visual arts. There seems to be a direct link between someone's ability to clearly visualize and their ability to correctly pass along information they perceive.
3: Have the viewer attempt to produce remote viewing information on the same target two or three times but do not let them know that they are doing so.
4: Familiarity with the problem seems to bring a better success rate with micro types of targets, even when the familiarity is developed through psychic means alone. (Note: This does not preclude the monitor or anyone else in the room with the viewer from being kept totally blind as to the target as well. No one in the room should know that it is the same target.)
5: Viewers should be encouraged to use whatever visual method is necessary to present the best possible picture of what it is they might perceive. This would include all art forms and mediums of expression: clay, drawing, or even construction from wood, metals, and plastics, pre-formed or otherwise.
Event Related Targets
One of the hardest types of targets is an event for which the actual event time or date has not been well-established. Many feel that some hint as to what the actual event might be needs to be passed along to the viewer. This is absolutely not what you want to do. There are a number of reasons why.
First is the assumption that the event even took place. Since a date and time cannot be well-established, that automatically makes the rest of the information suspect. One cannot assume that an event occurred when there is nothing more substantial to go on than rumor.
As an example, let us use what is presumed to be the effects of a huge explosion over an isolated area of frozen tundra in the northern territories of Siberia. We know it probably occurred sometime within a given 30-day period of a specific date, because of all the rumors coming out of the region, carried by hunters and woodsmen; but aside from this we have no other idea about what happened. So, we actually travel there and talk with people living in the area. They have vague recollections of a huge bang followed by strange lights in the sky that night. We actually see on the ground that there are shattered trees three feet in diameter, and they lay outward in what appears to be a blast effect radius from a center or core location. There might even be fire damage.
One might conclude from this evidence that there has been an explosion. We want to use a remote viewer to actually pinpoint the specific date and, if possible, a time for this explosion. We can do this by narrowing the event down to the approximate 72-hour window we've developed from talks with the locals. How do you go about it?
First, it is a huge assumption that an explosion took place at all. There may be nothing else in our memory banks that could account for the strangeness of the event, but this does not mean one should assume that it is an explosion. There are lots of things it could be, and remote viewing is the best way to open to those possibilities. So, to begin with, we simply target the viewer on "center of mass," or the core of the event location. We can do that by providing specific coordinates placed within a sealed envelope.
Now we already possess some very interesting details concerning the event, but what would be nice would be a description of the event itself and a more accurate time at which it occurred. That way, other data we might want to investigate can be brought into play—e.g., perhaps studying the chemical make-up within the rings of surrounding trees on the outskirts of the blast area, or looking at mineral deposits on ice in the surrounding mountains, etc.
We accomplish this by giving the monitor working with the viewer the following guidelines:
"Ask the viewer to provide us with a general description of the location within the envelope. If the viewer indicates that a major event has occurred, then walk them backward in four-hour increments. If no event has occurred, then walk them forward in four-hour increments."
The question inside the envelope should read: "Describe the event that occurred before or after 12:00 Noon (and pick the middle date).
Why would we want to do it this way? We know that as soon as you start moving viewers around in time, they know there is an event they should be looking for. Since they were asked to describe what's identified as a location first, then if they describe the location correctly but not the event, we know they are being accurate but have to move forward in time. If they describe the location and appear to be reporting on the effects from the event, then we know they have to be moved backward in time. In both cases they have already demonstrated their accuracy by giving accurate descriptions of the location. If they do not describe the location accurately, we know we don't even have to read the rest of their remote viewing information because they weren't at the right target. In both cases, we've allowed the viewer to be accurate in a double blind fashion first. If you need better accuracy than four hours, you can re-target later using the same method, moving forward or backward in 30 minute epochs. Once a time has been well established, you can then re-target to get more detail about the event itself—which could have been almost anything.
Just for interest sake, I've been using the event at the Tunguska Basin, June 30, 1908 as an example. The event site gives the appearance that a huge explosion occurred which leveled trees for a twenty-mile radius. It reportedly knocked farm animals off their feet nearly 400 kilometers away. It has been variously attributed to a meteorite, black hole, and anti-matter. I would suggest based on remote viewing, that it was actually a fairly large meteorite traveling at a high rate of speed (probably in excess of 60k feet per second), that struck the outer atmosphere layers nearly perpendicular to the bow wave of the earth, dissolving in a single focused cone of energy over the Tunguska Basin, creating damage like a shaped charge would do on the exterior of armor plating. But, this is only conjecture and has not been further verified. [RV Sept. 16, 1988].
Basic Methodologies and Styles Used by Remote Viewers for Collecting and Processing Information
Up until now, I've been talking about protocols and things that affect them. Now I will talk about methods that remote viewers use to disassociate from the here and now, in order to collect psychic information.
Within public forums and on the Internet, there's been a lot of ugly talk in the past about which "method" is genuinely associated with remote viewing and which isn't. This is kind of humorous to me, as anyone arguing this is missing the entire point. Since protocols are scientifically developed and tested with some rigor, any changes require substantial testing and evaluating before they can be considered acceptable. Methods, on the other hand, or how a psychic collects information, do not have to be tested or evaluated. As long as they are performed within the boundaries of acceptable protocols, it is unnecessary.
So, now I will talk about a few of these. The full list is actually pretty long, so I will stick with the most significant of them.
Extended Remote Viewing (ERV)
This is the name given to some to the original remote viewing methodologies used by remote viewers at Fort Meade. It is accurate only in that it designates a time period—approximately September 1978 through September 1984. It is also accurate in that it describes nearly all remote viewers' approaches to remote viewing as some form of self-induced altered state. It is inaccurate, in that no two viewers ever operated the same, were ever in the same altered state, nor produced information through the same method of internalized processing.
Some would point to that and say: "See, precisely what was wrong with the program. No consistency." However, they would be totally wrong, as this was a period of time in which some of the best remote viewing ever produced by the project was generated. It was also one of the most prolific periods of remote viewing output.
Almost without exception, the targets were always contained within sealed envelopes, and the viewers were allowed to offer what is now considered "free response" regarding the target of interest.
Viewers accomplished this by developing their own means of focus or meditation, which in turn induced a very effective self-imposed altered state. This altered state allowed total disassociation from the immediate surroundings and free association with the target's surroundings and events, which were then reported on.
The surviving remote viewers of the time would tell you that this apparent free form, though viewed by many as difficult to deal with, was effective in the extreme. The people who generally didn't like this methodology were of course not the people who were required to produce the information, nor were they the ones who were required to analyze it. They were the people who had to "sell the idea" of remote viewing to others. Those who observe someone using this methodology, if they do not have an open mind to paranormal functioning in the first place, will almost always feel uncomfortable. In shorter terms, it was objectionable to everyone but the viewer.
Learning the methodology is simple. Through meditation, or other devices, training, etc., you learn to put yourself into a semi-trance state, or disassociate with your immediate surroundings, while maintaining a focus on your end goal, which is to establish an association with whatever the target might be. Then you report on what you might be seeing, feeling, hearing, or otherwise perceiving. The ability to learn this requires a considerable focus and lots of practice, which must all be done within protocol. It is not a cheap way to learn remote viewing, since it is time and labor intensive.
Controlled Remote Viewing
(Sometimes Referred to as
Coordinate Remote Viewing [CRY])
Originally developed by Ingo Swann while working at SRI-International, this is now the most commonly referred to or generally accepted method of remote viewing, primarily because of the perceived ease of training, and the numbers of people who claim expertise in teaching it. However, what most people do not understand is, how it is taught and how it is actually used for general applications follow two completely different sets of rules. Those who are trained in it are not automatically vaccinated with all the knowledge they need to apply it properly. Something as simple as following an appropriate protocol in setting up the target, as in protocols for proper target handling, is little understood or even unknown to many.
The originator of this training system did not distribute an all-inclusive document with this training system either. If you truly understand the training system and the rigorous basis upon which it was developed, then you can understand why. It was never intended for wholesale use within the general population. There are no details, therefore, on how or why something is done in training, and then never done within an application, or vice versa.
There is an extant copy of a document available over the Internet that is alleged to be a complete CRV manual, but because it is designed to address training, it does not address any of the issues regarding applications. But already there are many who are using it as a guide for applications as well as training, introducing further error into the system.
The premise behind CRV is that all human beings receive and deal with psychic information on a day-to-day basis. The problem is, in order to recognize psychic information and willfully use it, it has to bubble up to cognition, where we can attempt to control it. This automatically allows false data to be introduced by the conscious mind, which introduces error through fantasy, lack of control, emotional reactions to the base information, etc. Or, at least, that is the assumption.
The rather draconian CRV training system is designed to teach the unconscious mind to deliver commands to the system without going through the cognition process. In other words, if the target's a mountain, then let the hand be commanded to draw a mountain by the subconscious without cognitive interference.
There probably is merit to this theory, in that one can readily demonstrate that a structured or ordered learning system can be used to entrain the subconscious to respond based on psychic input. But, only under the strictest controls of protocol and only after a long and rigorous training period which takes place outside the protocol controlling process. A point largely missed by many.
Testing of individuals who have been formally trained with CRV sometimes shows phenomenal responses in training scenarios outside protocols. But these same people fail miserably when forced to operate within protocols. Why? Probably because the person doing the training thoroughly understands the training process, but does not understand the basic or underlying theory behind it. Nor do the trainers take into account that students' actual talent level plays a great deal in how well they will do with any methodology in the first place. The trainers have come to put too much faith in a process, which is little understood from the outset.
In my opinion, the CRV process was originally designed to produce almost robotic-like responses from an individual, which could be structured to fall into basic categories or differing degrees of information and complexity. These differing degrees or stages are stacked in a linear fashion, and through rigorous training the student works his or her way down through them over and over again, until they are able to automatically respond within specific categories without thinking. It takes an enormous degree of personal discipline to successfully negotiate the CRV training program, after which the cognitive thought process is supposed to have been minimized within the remote viewing process.
It actually does eventually instill a very controlled response structure on the person desiring to be a remote viewer. But, in most cases they still walk away with very little understanding for the appropriate protocols and why they are necessary. For most people it over-simplifies a very complex issue that no one truly understands in the first place. But does it work?
The true answer is, yes. It works just about as well as any other training or remote viewing methodology invented over the years. No better or no worse. Ultimately, it is still driven by the natural or innate talent of the student and not the teacher.
Tarot Cards, Channeling, Automatic Writing, Scrying, or Other
Exotic Forms of Information Production
There is a lot of controversy surrounding these issues. I feel a need to address them here. This would be a major issue if methodology meant the same thing as protocol, but it doesn't. As I've tried to differentiate between methods and protocol, one is an absolute, and one isn't.
In a number of cases, valuable information has been derived from the reading of tarot cards, channeled materials, automatic writing, or scrying. One only has to look at history to find many references to these occurrences. For advocates of one method of producing psychic information to bad-mouth another is like the pot calling the kettle black. The primary problem lies in the fact that these other methods have not traditionally followed the approved protocols that are used for remote viewing. The psychics or others within the room are seldom blind to the target, there is no effort to control the data once collected, and a lot of the reporting is done in hindsight, without the record keeping that is usually found with remote viewing. This does not mean the methods don't work.
In my observation, over twenty-one years, some very good psychic data has been provided by card readers, channelers, automatic writers, and even the momentarily focused skeptic while operating within an appropriate remote viewing protocol. In my experience, it is just about as accurate as information I've seen produced under ERV or CRV as well. The point here is that the appropriate protocol seems to put all the right puzzle pieces in the right place to allow psychic functioning to take place.
If the target is appropriately set up, the intent of the participants is dealt with properly, an expectation for success is underscored, and all known leakage paths are shut down, there will be psychic information production. If the protocol is an acceptable remote viewing protocol, then, whether the information produced is by looking at a symbol on a deck of cards and psychically interpreting it, or it is produced through the rigors of CRV is not material. The base requirements have been met from a scientific standpoint, so the question is moot.
Many people have heard me say that if someone would like to stand on their head in a bucket of pea soup while whistling Dixie through their left nostril and can produce information within the remote viewing protocol, then I'm willing to call it remote viewing.
It is true that the greater the methodological requirements you bring into play between yourself and the target, the tougher it is to produce the psychic information. I will be the very first to readily admit there is a huge possibility for distraction in standing on one's head in a bucket of soup. The idea would be to reduce the distraction, not add to it.
But, that rule is not only applicable to someone who is upside down in a bucket of soup. It is applicable across the board, to all methodologies.
So once again, I find myself stating that it is more than likely a difference in individual psychic talent and the proclivities that support it that gives best expression to successful psychic functioning within a commonly acceptable protocol.
My observations over many years, leads me to believe that the simpler you can keep the process, the better. The more natural talent you can bring into the room, the better. The fewer conditions you require, or variables you apply, the better.