Applications
How long does it take to become a remote viewer? A day? A week? Longer? The real answer lies in competence. Theoretically, one could walk into a lab and within three hours, do a very respectable remote viewing. In my observation, this has happened frequently. Remember, remote viewing is just another sense, like taste or sight. Where the difficulty enters is surrounding competence, dependability, and/or stability.
In STARGATE we never considered anyone a remote viewer until s/he finished training. But, training in our program was almost always a minimum of anywhere from three to eighteen months, usually depending upon how much innate talent the person had walking through the door. Someone with a lot of natural talent could usually be quite productive within ninety days. Those with very little either took the full term of training, or failed to complete it. (Yes, we did have those too.)
In my own opinion, you can't really base it on training at all. In my own mind, I've been training now for almost twenty-two years, and I expect as long as I want to play in this game I'll always be training to some extent. So, the word "training" really doesn't work for me when it comes to calling someone a remote viewer. This is especially true since so many bogus training shops opened following the release of the original remote viewing information to the press on Nightline in 1995.
I would probably use the following criteria to identify someone as a real remote viewer:
1: Performance. Being able to demonstrate remote viewing ability over a length of time (probably exceeding a year), while consistently maintaining a hit rate in excess of chance. This automatically implies some form of testing, which takes into account a measurement of accuracy and statistics based on a scientific methodology. Unfortunately, while scientific labs all do that, most do not have access to scientific labs. Almost without exception, most people who are trained as viewers are into applications, or are trained by those who are focused on applications. In order not to slight those who are very good viewers and have no access to such a lab, I would modify this requirement to include any form of "testing" that mimics a scientific evaluation, where they can prove a statistical hit rate of any kind within an acceptable protocol. I would not relax this requirement to include "hits" within applications scenarios for obvious reasons—they are uncontrolled and the evaluation is subjective.
2: Contribution to the field. A remote viewer should provide something meaningful to the field of remote viewing, either in helping to understand it or as subjects through participation. Lip service doesn't count. Neither do bragging rights or tall tales of derring-do. Actively participating in a way that is injurious or damaging to the field should be reason for expulsion.
3: Adherence to protocol. Like all good clubs or associations, you can prove your mettle by showing that you not only understand the rules and know why they exist, but that you clearly understand what a protocol is. You must live by these rules and defend them. This sometimes takes a lot more courage than many are willing to expend.
Applications
If you've been well trained, there should be an almost seamless transfer from training targets to applications types of targets. The difficulty will be that the people providing you with the target will know very little or almost nothing about them as well. Which, if you understand anything about what I've said so far, should make obtaining the information even easier.
A really good applications target is a target that someone knows at least something about, but needs additional information in order to make some kind of a decision in reference to it. Since remote viewing is never meant to stand alone in providing such information, it is best used where it can assist in pointing to a more direct way of knowing, or a more direct way of obtaining that which you would like to know.
As an example, let's say I have a Boeing 727, which I know has just been put through a severe shaking. Perhaps it was in route from Panama to Miami, when the pilot had to make a sudden course correction to avoid hitting a smaller plane. Most aircraft can take quite a beating, but it's always good to really check them over thoroughly after such an occurrence; besides, regulation dictates it. How would I benefit through the use of remote viewing? I know I have to pretty much X-ray their entire inaccessible portion of the plane for possible stress fractures. So, how would remote viewing reduce that cost?
To begin, there are certain givens. (Having expertise in aircraft, I can winnow down the areas that are most critical, and probably deserve a first peek, to maybe seven.)
Since I know a lot about the aircraft, I already also know where previous repairs have been made, or there are previous problems noted in the logbook. So, there is considerable information available. Now, I'd like to bring in a viewer to reduce my costs further.
I take an instant photo of the specific plane with tail markings, write, "identify possible damage" on the back side, and put it into an envelope. I then ask a remote viewer to tell me what I want to know about the target in the envelope.
S/he gives me a very crude drawing of what I know appears to be the intersection of a main wing strut with the fuselage. That would be the first place I would X-ray.
Critics might say, "Well, you have to X-ray the whole aircraft anyway, so where's the savings in using a viewer?"
This is true, if you have to X-ray the entire aircraft. But, what if that's where the most severe damage is, and you locate it first? Maybe repairing the damage exceeds the value of the plane, so you decide to write it off. You just saved the cost of all those other X-rays, man-hours in the maintenance bay, etc.
In truth, there's probably a 60/40 chance at minimum, the remote viewing is going to help. For a few hundred dollars, doesn't it seem worth it?
Or, maybe you get word that some terrorist organization crossed a border somewhere in the continental United States, with a weapon of mass destruction. Your problem is that this could have taken place over a twelve-hour period. Even if you knew where they crossed the border, you still have a minimum of seven to ten states to search, an overwhelming task. What you are really up against, aside from finding them, is time. The more time it takes you to find them, the higher the likelihood they will succeed in their mission.
As with the Boeing 727, a viewer can sometimes reduce your search area by 80% immediately. A 60/40 chance, on the up side that the viewer will be correct you say? Well, I'd want that advantage. No one knows where to start in the first place, so you might as well be where you have a 60/40 chance of finding the terrorists first. Any increase in odds could mean the difference between success and failure with regard to time. In the event the viewer is wrong, you would have had to search the entire area anyway.
Neither of these scenarios is meant to preclude any other form of participation or information collection and analysis. Remote viewing should be used to enhance, not detract, from whatever is required or necessary. Properly used, it can be advantageous. But, it takes an open mind and an inventive mind to structure the approach.
Some targets are better than others for use in an applications type of effort, and they will almost always be the types of targets where at least something is known and you are looking to fill in an unknown or gap. There are a number of reasons for this.
If you know something about the target in the first place, then when the remote viewer provides information it is easier to see how it might fit within the target overall. It also provides enough information to assist in evaluating the rest of the material the viewer is providing.
Going back to the example of the Boeing 727, if the viewer is totally blind to the target and the information they provide is clearly pertinent to an aircraft, then you can assume the target has been acquired. It's even better if you have lots of background information about a Boeing 727, and many of the details you already know about the plane begin to match the viewer's information. This is not only a clear indication that the viewer has acquired the target appropriately, but that they have also made contact with a 727. So, when you need to evaluate the portion of the material that you don't know anything about, you are more inclined to understand its quality or probable accuracy.
If the information the viewer provides doesn't match anything like a Boeing 727, then you can safely say no contact was made with the target, and then re-target, or go to another viewer.
In this context, it is easy to see why you might have difficulty trusting the information provided by viewers when they are front-loaded with foreknowledge of the target. Simply telling the viewer that it is an aircraft from the outset, "to save time" is the usual excuse, destroys any possibility of using known information to confirm the unknown information when the effort is evaluated or analyzed.
There are application types of targets where very little is known. Since so very little is known, one should take even more care to guarantee that prior knowledge about such targets does not reach the viewer. Otherwise there will be almost no means left by which to evaluate the material.
Of course there is another way to try to confirm whether or not a viewer is on the target. One could conceivably bracket a tough or almost unknown target with two targets that you know everything about. Essentially ask the remote viewer to do all three, then assume that the accuracy of the real target is at least as good as the two you can evaluate. But you've automatically increased the workload three-fold, which further reduces the expectation for success. Not something you want to do except as a last resort.
So, for applications, contrary to general opinion, blind targeting is almost a necessity. The remote viewer should know little or nothing about the actual target.
Double-Blind
There is also something known as “double-blind.” That’s where no one who actually works the problem knows anything about the target. The target is set up as a sealed and opaque envelope and delivered to the persons who will actually interact with the person interacting with the remote viewer.
In applications scenarios, double blind is almost never used, mostly because it requires a third layer of people within the remote viewing collection system. This extra layer of people represents additional requirements for expertise that is already hard to come by, as well as a much greater degree of expense.
Nevertheless, there are times when such a demand is made. Usually this has nothing to do with the specific target that is being dealt with, but it has everything to do with the "belief" of those who will eventually deal with the results.
There is a lot of self-imposed fear surrounding an application that requires a double blind, especially from the viewers. They feel that establishing such a requirement is a less than subtle comment about how far someone is willing to trust them, or that it in some way implies they are dishonest. I have done hundreds if not a thousand double blind targets in research as well as applications and have never been offended. Statistically they fall within about the same parameters as blind targets and are generally no more difficult.
Having said that, I can also say that when it comes to applications, double blind targeting is probably unnecessary except in extreme cases where proof of principle is required to convince a new player or user in the remote viewing field. Double blind targeting will always be essential within the structure of research. In other words, if you want to be a remote viewer and expect to play on the research side of the house, then you will have to get used to it, especially if you are going to have any sensitivity to such things.
Front-Loading
Front-loading is an interesting term that was born out of remote viewing as it was being pursued with regard to applications only. After some years of effort, it was believed by many that in order to cut to the quick of a problem and not waste time with parts of the target that weren't material, you could simply "front load" the remote viewer. That is, provide remote viewers with a minimal amount of information pertinent to the target, which would get them to the important area of interest faster.
There is nothing wrong with this in theory, but there is a lot wrong in practice. It takes someone with profound expertise in the transfer of information—one human to another—to understand when they might be doing it inappropriately. We'd all like to think we know when that happens, but the fact of the matter is that we don't. What usually happens is that the viewer is told too much about the target. This injects an enormous amount of overlay and inventive creation into the process. It then becomes very difficult to differentiate between what is truly psychic information, and information that is solely based on logic. Some feel that it doesn't matter. And in the end it may not, if you achieve what you are hoping to achieve. But, in such a case you cannot state that it was remote viewing (psychic material) that saved the day. This encourages improper use of the remote viewers, teaches them dependence on front loading, and ultimately results in remote viewing being oversold.
Using the example of our 727 jet aircraft, you can probably get away with telling the viewer it's an aircraft. You might even get away with saying you are primarily interested in the center section of the aircraft. But, telling the viewer that you are interested in any damage to an aircraft would be too much front loading. If there is no damage, the viewer will probably invent some. There's a risk of that in any event, just front-loading them with knowledge that it's an aircraft.
The time that front loading might be used in a very positive way would be in answering a question about a target without them knowing what the target is. Again, using the 727 as an example: "There is a picture of an object in this envelope. We want to know anything you can tell us about the object's structure that might be important to us."
What's important is whether or not there is significant structural damage. In this case the result is being driven by both the intentions and the expectations for a specific kind of outcome, neither of which has to be spoken aloud to anyone directly connected to the actual remote viewing.
The most important things to remember about front-loading are the following:
1: It should be used sparingly, if at all.
2: If you do not have a minimum of at least three years' experience tasking remote viewers, you probably shouldn't be front-loading them.
3: There is a very grave risk that you will be doing more damage than good by front-loading.
4: If there is doubt in the result, discard it and re-approach the target using a different viewer.
Multiple Remote Viewings
When targeting the same viewer against a target s/he has already worked, many feel very strongly that the viewer should know what s/he said or didn't say that was right about the target in the first viewing. Their reasoning appears to be sound. The viewer got the information in the first place. Positive feedback encourages the viewer to be more productive and helps him or her focus on what's more important. The problem is they are also being told what they got wrong, which thoroughly frames the targeted with respect to what is desired and is the worst kind of front loading.
If you are going to re-visit a target with the same viewers, you can use the material they gave you to direct them, but you can't tell them why. In other words, you can't tell them what they might have gotten right or wrong about the target. The reason is simple. By doing so, you are encouraging them to rely on logic, based on what they know is now right or wrong about the target, than to rely on their innate psychic ability.
Using the Boeing 727 again as an example, let's say a viewer has provided a fairly accurate drawing of a primary wing strut and how it connects to the main fuselage. Let's say there is an indication in the drawing that there might be a section that's damaged, but without more information it's hard to tell. If you have already told the viewer generally that s/he drew fairly accurate drawings of the aircraft, when s/he revisits them in a later remote viewing session s/he will be more inclined to not add to or change what they have already drawn. Since s/he doesn't know specifically what's right or wrong about the drawings or transcript, s/he won't want to alter them. If you say specifically what's right or wrong about the drawings, s/he will want to add what logically "seems" to be missing. This distracts from actual psychic information, or at the very least turns it into a forced-choice test. As everyone knows, forced choice almost never works well. If you have said nothing, s/he is more inclined to go back to satisfying the unspoken intention and expectation, or reason for the remote viewing in the first place.
By not saying anything about accuracy, you can then point to something in the original session's drawings or transcripts, and ask him or her to "expand on that area."
This sort of implies there might be something there that's important, but doesn't say what it is. It encourages the viewer to search for something connected to what's there, but which s/he figure s/he has not yet seen. A subtle difference, but in this business, subtlety is everything. It separates the reality from fantasy and illusion.
If care is taken, the same remote viewer can re-visit the same target many times. You have only to say, "Refocus on this area you told us about," and point to something on the drawings, or in the verbal transcript of the previous viewing. It actually makes the later feedback a lot more meaningful.
Working Alone as a Viewer
There really is no such thing as working totally alone. That implies that the viewer has absolutely no one else helping them. While I usually do all of the actual remote viewing alone, there are two forms of support structure I use dependent upon whether or not it is a research target or an application one.
A research target is almost always somewhere else. That means the sealed envelope, photograph, person's name, event title, whatever, is always somewhere else where I can't actually see it. I'm usually told where it is—on the computer screen, in an envelope on someone's desk—or simply that's it's been prepared specifically for me and they now have an expectation that I will produce a result that will answer their questions. So, in a sense I'm not working alone, as someone else is actually responsible for the target, preparing it in some way, or directing me to it.
In applications, which always take place in my proximity, my wife always decides how the target will be presented. For over ten years she has been preparing my targets for me. These are almost always wrapped very carefully within an inner sheet and then sealed well inside an envelope, usually the kind a banker would use which you can't read through. I never break the seal, nor do I ever open the envelope, even when I'm through. I return it in the same condition along with the remote viewing information. She may reframe the basic viewing information in direct response to the original requestor's questions.
This is absolutely essential for a number of reasons. Primarily, if the customer wants me to look at the issue again, then I can without any problem. Also, they may decide that I did not really answer their question appropriately and may want me to take another look at it. I never assume that because I'm looking at the same target again, I didn't do something right. I assume nothing about my work at all. I always let someone else tell me how good or how bad it was when it has been completed. In all cases, I do not discuss what I do for private customers, whether or not they are people or businesses. Occasionally I've asked for permission, but in all cases where permission was not granted, I do not ask again, nor do I violate the requirement for total confidentiality. This has frustrated some magazine, television, or newspaper writers who would like to use examples of my work, but that's too bad.