TIME AND FUTURE VISION
Some of you may have already heard about STARGATE, the secret government program that used remote viewers. The classified program was designed and developed by the United States Army for the specific purpose of using military intelligence personnel as psychics, to collect intelligence and to evaluate the degree to which our enemies might be capable of using psychics against us.
Normally I wouldn't feel a need to do more than just touch on the details of the remote viewing program but, unfortunately, the media blitz that followed the exposure of STARGATE resulted in a plethora of statements about remote viewing that were filled with inaccuracies and disinformation. Most of it contained very little information about what remote viewing actually is or is capable of.
There have been long and airy dissertations regarding the appropriate or inappropriate "methods" of remote viewing that are now accepted as representing the scientific protocols. Numerous statements about the accuracy of remote viewing and remote viewers have been made that do not even come close to the findings generated by twenty-five years of research in support of remote viewing science. These inaccuracies, along with gross exaggerations regarding real remote viewing capabilities, leave me very little option but to comment.
It would take almost an entire book to address the huge volume of misconceptions, so I've chosen only from those areas that apply to the subject at hand—time and future vision.
A Brief History of STARGATE
Originally titled GRILLFLAME, STARGATE began in 1978. It was originally based on the results of experimentation at SRI-International from 1972 through 1975 under the auspices of the CIA and other agencies. Because of those findings and publications, a proposal was made by elements within the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command to recruit, attempt to train, and utilize psychics for the collection of intelligence information. I was one of the original six viewers recruited. I was known as Remote Viewer 001. Over the next seventeen years, the project was renamed CENTER LANE. When the project was moved to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in the late 1980s, its name was changed to SUN STREAK, and finally STARGATE.
I was assigned to the unit as an intelligence officer and remote viewer from 1978 through the latter part of 1984, at which time I retired from the military. Following my retirement, I was hired as a consultant to the Research and Development portion of the project, which was located at SRI-International. It was there that I continued to provide support as a viewer for both intelligence collection as well as the research efforts. I moved with the Cognitive Science Laboratory (CSL) at SRI-International to Science Applications International Corporation in 1991 and stayed with the project until its termination in November 1995. While not the longest-surviving viewer with the project, I am certainly one of two or three who went the distance.
Contrary to popular belief, and like nearly all experimental projects, it was never 100 percent successful. However, during its full operational period, I know that we did provide information of critical intelligence value in hundreds of very specific cases. On scores of occasions, this information was also described within government documents as being unavailable from any other source(s).
Also contrary to popular belief, the program operated throughout its history under the very watchful eyes of numerous oversight committees, which were both scientific and governmental. During the seventeen and a half years it ran, it provided support to nearly all of the United States intelligence agencies. Its very existence was approved on a year-to-year basis by these committees and agencies and it was judged and funded not only by its successes, but according to how well it operated within the rules and scientific boundaries set by those agencies and oversight committees. Any suggestion that the program operated loosely, or with a lack of control, is pure bunk. To understand why such bogus rumors persist, one must understand that, historically, it suffered, and suffered greatly, from the inability of those within management to deal with its nature. It was a political, social, and managerial hot potato. "Put it in anyone's back yard except mine!" Or to put it in the elegant terms of a very good friend, who still swims in the upper crust of government, "Nobody has the guts to admit they fear it."
As a consequence, many people have become bogged down in arguing the percentages of success in using psychics, a false measure by anyone's account. What's important to understand here is that by the time we received a mission, all other intelligence attempts, methods, or approaches had already been exhausted.
The practice of alternative medicine provides a good analogy. Having exhausted all traditional medical practices, a patient has usually been declared terminally ill and without hope by the time s/he walks through the door of an alternative medicine practitioner. In such cases, even a recovery rate of 15 to 20 percent would be considered miraculous.
In context, we viewed a remote viewing success rate of 60 percent as pretty remarkable.
The project was closed in November of 1995, when the American Institutes for Research filed an unclassified report with Congress. That report had been written at the request of Congress and the CIA. I believe that the report is totally bogus. Those interested in understanding why can read about it in Chapter 21 of my revised edition of Mind Trek (Soon to be available as an eBook from Crossroad Press).
The largest portion of the project papers (95 percent) are still classified and lie within more than a hundred sealed boxes in a government basement somewhere in Washington, D.C. If or when those documents might be declassified is anyone's guess.
However, the research lives on. Since termination of the project in 1995, I have continued as a research associate with CSL, now located in Palo Alto, California. We still do research and pursue the hidden answers to why or how remote viewing works.
After twenty years of effort, I still do not pretend to understand, nor do I claim to know all that can be known about it. But to set the record straight, here are some things we do know.
Protocols
Many people don't understand what the word "protocol" means. In spite of the fact that remote viewing should always be performed within an accepted scientific protocol, there are those who call themselves remote viewers even though they don't have a clue what a protocol is.
According to Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, a protocol is a "detailed plan of a scientific or medical experiment, treatment, or procedure."
The protocols, or procedures, used within the intelligence collection or applications side of Project STARGATE were developed and based on the remote viewing protocols designed, tested, and developed within the research side of that project. This research was accomplished at SRI-International from 1972 through 1991, at Science Applications International Corporation from 1991 through 1995, and is continuing at the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Palo Alto, California.
These protocols are the same ones now being used at other labs located in England, Germany, South America, Russia, and Hungary. Some of the most notable are:
The Koestler Chair of Parapsychology, Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Laboratory, Princeton University
The Department of Psychology at the University of Amsterdam The Rhine Research Center, Durham, North Carolina
One does not have to be involved with one of these institutes or labs to design or produce a protocol. In other words, you do not need a "Dr." in front of your name to construct a protocol. It is also wise to remember that having a Dr. in front of a name doesn't guarantee you are faultless when you do.
Regardless of source, a protocol is not a valid protocol unless it is:
published (usually within a study)
it is open to peer review and criticism.
These requirements are generally ignored by many who are now claiming expertise in the "development" of such protocols and the scientific controls associated with remote viewing. Surprisingly, there are even some laboratories that violate these principals.
Protocols used for remote viewing have a number of requirements that must be met. These are usually nonnegotiable, or if changed, are only done so after years of study. Generally, the protocol must ensure the following:
The target is totally blind to the remote viewer.
The target is totally blind to the facilitator or monitor (person in the room with the remote viewer, if any).
The person who may be judging or evaluating the results does not participate in any other portion of the remote viewing.
The person who selects the target for remote viewing does not participate in any other portion of the remote viewing experiment or in the attempt at information collection.
While these rules may appear to be extreme, they aren't. They exist to ensure that real "psychic functioning" is taking place and not something that simply looks like it.
For example, if someone knows what the target is and is sitting in the room with the remote viewer during the remote viewing, even as an observer, they are communicating something about the target, the correctness of the response, or otherwise affecting the process. Human beings do not communicate by voice alone. A raised eyebrow, the way we shift in a chair, the actions of our hands and arms, even our head movements or the workings of our jaw line when we clench our teeth, speak volumes of information about what may or may not be correct about what the viewer is saying. Since most of these nonverbal actions are subconscious, we don't even know we are communicating or passing information.
So, by necessity, the use of an appropriate protocol for the production of information by remote viewing must follow strict and unforgiving guidelines if we are to guarantee the information to be psychic. There are no exceptions.
Front-loading
As a result of many stories regarding the applications of remote viewing, specifically those addressing its use within Project STARGATE, a number of myths have evolved and have recently become popular. One of these deals with front-loading.
Front-loading is a belief that a remote viewer must be told something about the target for him or her to obtain information about it. This is not true.
In the case of researchers using remote viewing within a lab, front-loading is never allowed. There are no exceptions.
Within applications, or when remote viewing is being used to collect information on a subject or topic that is inherently unknown in the beginning, confusion has arisen as a result of not differentiating between material used to "target" a remote viewer and the type or style of information that would be considered front-loading.
When a specific target has been chosen for an application of remote viewing, there has to be a means for centering the remote viewer on the actual target. This is commonly referred to as targeting material (s).
As an example, if you want to know what kind of a machine an unknown engineer is in the process of building, there are a number of ways to target a remote viewer without telling him or her.
You could use a photograph of the engineer as the targeting mechanism, obtain a physical-location coordinate for the machine, or even use the photograph of the exterior of the building in which the machine is being constructed. Ideally, you would put these items inside a sealed envelope and ask the remote viewer to provide information concerning the target contained within the envelope.
However, if the individual in the photograph or at the location is totally unknown to the remote viewer and monitor, then actually handing them the coordinates for the location, or the individual's photograph, along with instructions to describe what's inside the building may be appropriate. In such a case it would be considered a form of "targeting."
Some argument can be made that the size of the building infers what the target might "not" be, but this is a reach. Anyone in the military program who was targeted against a prototype "tank" hidden in an "aircraft hanger" can attest to that.
In a way, this does front-load the remote viewer with something connected to the actual target, but it isn't considered front-loading in the negative sense that you are telling them what you are specifically looking for.
A good remote viewer will eventually tell you something about the "machine" during the course of the remote viewing session, because that is the expectation of everyone participating in the collection effort, not because they were told what kind of machine it was.
However, if you ask a remote viewer to "describe a machine" identified within a sealed envelope, or connected to the photograph, or the coordinates, then you are front-loading the remote viewer with the concept of a machine. That is not acceptable.
It's really very simple. If you are saying anything to the remote viewer that directly identifies what you are interested in, or that gives any hint of what the actual subject of the remote viewing might be, you are front-loading inappropriately.
As another example, let's look at a building as a target. It is obvious that sometimes a photograph of the exterior of a building says something about what is going on inside it. It may be the building's name embossed on the side, flags hanging on the outside, the types of or even lack of windows, the position of security cameras, the fencing, guard uniforms, even how close one is permitted to park to the actual facility. In this case, a proper "targeting" photograph might be a section or fragment of the building's roof, a snapshot of the actual entry or a doorway, from which all other data has been cropped.
Front-loading, on the other hand, would be any photograph that says something about what the facility might be, what it does, who works there, etc.
The difference between good "targeting" material and what would be considered front-loading is sometimes a very fine line. Making such a decision is generally applicable only to applications types of targets, and it should be left to an expert in remote viewing. Even then, mistakes are made. In the event anyone believes a remote viewer has been front-loaded, the information should be abandoned, as it is no longer being produced through psychic functioning and therefore holds no value as psychic information, since its point of origin can no longer be determined.
Front-loading is the most common source of contamination in a remote viewing session and is never tolerated by anyone, especially a professional remote viewer. Front-loading is an easy mistake to make, since far less focus is paid to the person setting up the target than the viewer, when it should be just the opposite.
To put this into contemporary terms, let's take the Comet Hale-Bopp as a target. How would you approach this problem?
Any coordinate system used (right ascension/declination) would be quickly recognized as being celestial, so that is out of the question. Any mention of the comet's name or how it is codified or referenced by astronomers is easily accessed and available, and as such would probably be recognized, so that is out as well. This is especially true of anyone who has an immediate interest in the Comet in the first place. You could expect them to have read all the available news and commentary about it. If they have, then everything they've read or heard becomes a heavy possibility for contaminating the results if there is even the slightest hint that Hale-Bopp might be their target.
What if you are someone who is known to be interested in celestial targets? In other words, it is common knowledge that you are interested in comets, asteroids, or possibly UFOs. Just knowing that you are the person who selected the target will sway some viewer's perceptions and taint the process, causing them to give you what you want to hear.
The only way you could process this target properly would be to place it within a target pool that has no large component of other targets of a similar nature. This means there could not be a lot of other asteroids, comets, planets, or UFOs within the target pool.
The target pool would also have to be large enough to preclude any possible guessing on the part of an individual remote viewer. Targets would have to be chosen randomly from the pool, and you would have to wait until that particular envelope was chosen to get your answers. The actual target material itself (the name Hale-Bopp) would have to be kept sealed within the envelope until after all the remote viewing or information collection has been completed. In other words, it would have to be kept blind to all participants until after the remote viewing has taken place. In truth, the smaller a target pool is, the more difficult it is for the remote viewer. One is more likely to remember the multitude of targets contained within a small pool. While it is true that it is impossible to know which target has been selected if they are in sealed envelopes, it does not preclude one from thinking about all of the targets in the pool, which clouds the mind with useless information, 90 percent of which is not pertinent to the actual target. It actually makes the viewing effort tougher for the participant.
Multiple Viewers
Another myth regarding remote viewing is that multiple viewers are better, more accurate, or increase the possibility of accuracy through consensus. This is already appearing in print in a number of periodicals and books. It is probably born out of numerous observations that took place during the STARGATE program. While observations may automatically lead to assumptions, such observations do not inherently make these assumptions correct.
It is true that more than one viewer was usually targeted against a specific target. It is also true that more than one viewer might have even produced "like" information on any specific target, and at times, this information might have been correct. However, what is not true is that the use of multiple viewers or their consensus on any specific target would in any way guarantee the accuracy or improve the information they were providing.
Over two decades of research fails to support multiple viewer accuracy as an appropriate conclusion. In fact, the results of such research tend to flow in the opposite direction.
If you are using multiple viewers, the one or two viewers who differ from the majority view are just as likely to be the ones that are providing the correct information.
Time and again, when there was 80-90 percent consensus, the consensus group proved to be wrong. While it is difficult to tell what might be the cause for this during research, it isn't so difficult to see why it happens sometimes within applications. The culprit will usually be the type of material that was used to target the different viewers. It was either so close to bordering on front-loading that they all responded as expected, or the front-loading occurred but was not recognized. I've always referred to this as accidental front-loading.
Accidental front-loading is an interesting topic, since it really hasn't been heavily investigated by anyone. The way it probably operates is something like the following:
I am the facilitator or monitor for six remote viewers. We are all blind to the target. The targeting mechanism is considered valid, since it is only a photograph of a plain, smooth-surfaced door, otherwise unidentifiable. As a monitor or facilitator, I am given the instruction "We want to know what's behind the door." (Note: Perhaps what they really want to know is how the people behind the door are dressed, or where the elevator is located.)
The first viewer produces lots of detail about what appears to be some kind of an office. The second viewer does the same, as well as the third, fourth, and fifth. The sixth becomes argumentative and describes what appears to be an elevator shaft, with uniformed guards.
The myth is assuming viewers one through five are correct by consensus, when in fact the location of the elevator and existence of guards is what is being sought. So, we only have to take a closer look at the events to see how this could happen.
As the monitor, even though I didn't know what the target was, because I was the monitor for all the remote viewers and believed the perceptions of the first viewer to be somewhat true, I was already assuming what the others would be telling me beginning with viewer number two.
As soon as I gave weight to the first viewer's perceptions and images (even if only subconsciously), I then began delivering subtle impressions regarding the target to the remaining five vis-a-vis the content or framing of my questions, or perhaps through body language. Only the sixth viewer seemingly displayed exceptional viewing ability, and rather than operate off my nonverbal cues or messages, chose to stick with his raw or psychic impressions.
So perhaps we need to add another rule to the remote viewing protocol (at least regarding application types of targets).
Never use the same monitor or facilitator with multiple remote viewers on the same target.
Historically, both the research and applications fail to statistically support a reality that multiple viewers will increase the amount or the degree of accuracy about a specific target. To state otherwise at the present time would be unwise.
Target Selected by Viewer
Within research, the only way a viewer should select his or her own target is indirectly. For example, viewers can access the numbers of targeted envelopes using random number generators. The envelopes themselves should never be turned over to the viewer, and the viewers should never have access to the target pool once it's been constructed (targets have been placed in the envelopes).
The reason for this is to preclude marking or otherwise surreptitiously identifying target envelopes. Many interpret this as a lack of trust and balk at participating in experiments where such controls exist. However, these controls are not meant to denigrate the honest remote viewer, and they are certainly not exercised to cast an unfavorable light on any viewer.
It has taken years of effort and perseverance to establish parapsychology as a valid and sophisticated science. Throughout those years, a number of cases of fraud were observed and uncovered. While these cases are rare, the damage done to the credibility of the science is incalculable. Because of the high "giggle factor" associated with paranormal research especially by the ignorant and misinformed, when fraud is discovered, the effects are far more devastating than when they occur in other areas of science.
An article exposing an aeronautical engineer for falsifying research data hardly rates a back page in the local newspaper, but perpetuate deliberate fraud in a parapsychology experiment, and it doesn't die out for months, even years in some cases.
Efforts taken to prevent fraud do not imply something is wrong with an individual's character or integrity. It has everything to do with protecting everyone involved in the research, to include the viewers. Efforts should be established to eradicate the possibility of fraud wherever it might be possible. It is part of the viewer's responsibility to point out weaknesses within the process wherever or whenever they are noticed.
While there is focus and pressure on science to prevent fraud, I must sadly report that this is not true with many of those involved in remote viewing outside of the lab. Numerous facilities have sprung up around the world that are purportedly using remote viewing for applications, as well as teaching it. It is impossible to determine to what degree they are following the rules, establishing safeguards, or guaranteeing the appropriate controls for the prevention of fraud. One has to walk through the door and purchase services, or training, then judge for oneself.
These comments should not be misconstrued as derogatory to those establishments that have such controls in place, nor does it imply that all establishments are sloppy.
My own company, Intuitive Intelligence Applications, has been tested on more than one occasion. It is the primary reason I have accepted numerous challenges to do a remote viewing under strict controls—while being filmed. Five of eight attempts have been successful, and two were blown targets (in one case we did not get to a precognitive target site in time to film and in the second I was not allowed inside the selected target for feedback). The two most notable successes were the ABC special "Put to the Test," and a remote viewing filmed for Reader's Digest Home Video at the Rhine Research Center titled; "Mysteries of the Unexplained, Powers of the Paranormal."
Other Myths
Remote Viewers Can Be Blocked
There is no evidence that this true. In fact, since 1979 there have been numerous attempts at shielding targets from remote viewers. Attempts to shield targets have always been viewed as a possible back door toward understanding the mechanisms that might underlie the transfer of information.
If we are able to shield remote viewers in some way, then the types of shielding and the effectiveness of shielding will say a lot about what the mechanisms might be for the delivery of the information—something akin to backing in the door through reverse engineering.
Some data suggests that certain electromagnetic noise environments may have an effect on remote viewing, but these are not conclusive. Neither positive nor negative shielded cages have had a decisive effect.
I believe that shielding is possible, but only when using a combination of things/techniques not yet explored. There are times when remote viewing just doesn't seem to work on its own. If researchers are ever able to connect those times to specific environmental elements or events, I'm sure an answer will be just around the corner.
A lot has been said about aliens being able to block remote viewing. This may or may not be true. Since there is no formal contact with aliens who will agree to participate in formal remote viewing experiments, there is no way to ensure the validity of such a statement. It will have to remain in the "unknown" category. Saying it doesn't make it so, nor does saying it make it go away.
Feedback on a Target Isn't a Requirement
Some say that without feedback about a target you might as well be writing science fiction.
There has been enough study in remote viewing, however, to state that feedback may not be a requirement for the remote viewer to perform. There have been remote viewings accomplished by viewers who died prior to receiving their feedback. The results of these viewings were statistically consistent with other remote viewings the viewers did while alive. So, feedback in the formal sense, that it needs to occur for remote viewing to take place, is not necessarily the case.
However, feedback is absolutely essential for judging or evaluating a report for accuracy. If I were randomly targeted against a UFO event that took place at a specific time and place in the past, I might provide information that appears to be consistent with the event, but this does not in itself guarantee accuracy across the board with regard to the information I have provided.
In fact, I was targeted against a UFO sighting that was witnessed by nearly two thousand people in Tacoma, Washington, in the 1950s. The witnesses reported "dancing lights in the sky."
The target was a newspaper clipping that had been placed within an envelope and that was placed within a larger target pool (of more than two hundred targets). It was one of only two or three UFO targets within the pool. The target was chosen randomly some weeks later by a hand-held random number generator.
My first statement in the remote viewing room was "I see lights dancing on the horizon." This was followed by a spontaneous out-of-body experience, wherein I saw and interacted with an apparition of my father, who had died three years earlier, and a multilight, humanoid-shaped entity.
Was this a confirmation of contact with an alien?
No. And it should not be misconstrued as such.
It did confirm the UFO-related target—the dancing lights. As regards the other events, I haven't got the foggiest idea what was going on and neither does anyone else. I've never had any feedback. So, the balance of the experience will, at this time, have to be labeled "unknown" and is not conclusive proof for anything.
On the other hand, if a multilight, humanoid-shaped entity makes contact with the Oval Office and a picture is plastered across the front page of the Washington Post, then I've got the validation for a much larger chunk of the remote viewing session as having been correct.
There are numerous targets for which I have not received any feedback, simply because there wasn't any. For other targets, the feedback came in later, in some cases as much as eight or nine years later. While it is a remarkable experience, to receive feedback that validates something you said in a remote viewing session eight or nine years earlier, the material is still "unknown" for that eight or nine years it sat in a file.
There are exceptions to this. On occasion, we will receive information that is currently "unknown" about a target or location, but this may provide a reason for going to find out.
If I remote viewed the location of a diamond mine and said that it was located in Aunt Zelda's flower garden, few would wait for the feedback. They'd more than likely be out there digging up Aunt Zelda's flowers.
This is one of the strange and unique differences between a research target and an applications target.
Within research, the target will either be correctly described or it won't be. If it is described properly, it's a hit. If it isn't, then it is a miss. Within the applications area, it may at first glance appear to be uncorroborated information and a miss. By providing the information, however, this sometimes generates an action, or ensures that one is taken, that sometimes produces further feedback, which proves the accuracy of the remote viewing in the first place. In some cases it becomes hard to tell which is the chicken and which is the egg.
An example of this occurred within Project STARGATE. In 1979, we provided information on a building in the north of the Soviet Union, where we stated quite emphatically that the Soviets were building a new class of submarine. There was no data existent to confirm this, nor did many other agencies agree with us at the time. However, we also provided information on when the new submarine would probably be launched.
As a result, photographs were eventually obtained of the never-before-seen Typhoon class submarine, which validated our information, and at that point, the remote viewing information was considered to be correct. Bottom line: feedback is always essential for knowing if the remote viewing information is accurate or not.
This feedback loop has a considerable impact on future targets. (See discussion on page 119.) Future targeting can sometimes turn the whole process on its ear.
There Are Different Kinds of Remote Viewing
Remote viewing is subject to being performed within an approved protocol. Numerous protocols have been developed, each with its own brand of target access or control. Some of these include the following:
–Outbounder targeting. This is where a targeted individual actually travels to a target location and interacts with the target while they are being targeted. Generally speaking, this increases the remote viewer's perceived contact with the target. It is primarily used for research, but can on occasion be used for applications purposes as well as training.
–Coordinate target. Geographic, map grid, military, and other forms of coordinates (encrypted or unencrypted) were used in the very early years of the STARGATE project, but this practice has nearly been abandoned. While it is effective, a lot of questions were raised regarding eidetic memory and the possibility of fraud. Most of the arguments against using a system of coordinates for targeting do not hold water. But since there are other just as effective methods available, there is no sense in arguing about it.
–Sealed envelopes. Probably one of the most common forms of targeting. You can put names, locations, addresses, photographs, almost anything relating to a specific target of interest within a sealed and opaque envelope. You can then put the envelope on a desk in front of the viewer, or you can put it in another room, another state, or halfway across the country.
–Numeric/alphabetic keys. This technique assigns a randomly chosen set of digits, characters, or mixture of both to a target of interest, then uses the sequence to access the target. There are inherent problems with this technique. Unless one keeps a permanent list of all combinations used previously for all viewers, you won't know if you are using the same combination twice. A specific sequence or key should only be used once to identify a single target. Targets stored in computer systems are generally selected in this manner.
The above descriptions represent changes in method of targeting and are therefore changes to the original protocol designed for remote viewing. Almost any change in targeting will alter the protocol, and therefore must be looked at very carefully before being employed.
The titles technical, controlled, scientific, advanced, altered state, natural, or guided are terms used to identify some of the "methods" of remote viewing employed. Remember, methods are only as good as the protocol within which they operate. If the methods are not performed within accepted remote viewing protocol, they have neither scientific nor applications validity.
Numerous methods have been developed over the past twenty years. At least a half dozen methods (if not more) were adopted within the STARGATE program itself, most of which have been used to one extent or another within the research side of the program as well. To date, there is no research or applications evidence to suggest that one method was better than another with regard to remote viewing consistency or accuracy. In fact, some of the methods might have done more damage than good.
There have since been a number of methods developed outside of the STARGATE program, which some claim as being "newer" or "better." Since they have not met the test of fire within a research lab, or have not been open to peer review and criticism, I will make no comment about them or their validity.
Additionally, since the reality of remote viewing is fully dependent on the method (no matter which) being used within the constraints of an approved protocol, any method used can be called remote viewing as long as it works within a valid protocol.
Numerous complaints have appeared in print recently that people are attempting to use channeling, tarot cards, crystal balls, tea leaves, candles, meditation, out-of-body travel, astral projection, etc., as a means or method for producing remote viewing information. The inference is that this somehow invalidates that remote viewing is taking place. It does not. If someone wants to wrap themselves in an orange sheet, hum Dixie through their left nostril, while writing the information down backward in archaic Greek, that's fine. I don't know how well they might do, but as long as they do it within an approved remote viewing protocol, it is still considered remote viewing.
Likewise, producing good information within an approved or strict remote viewing protocol only proves that psychic functioning has taken place, and does not in any way validate the efficacy of scrying, throwing bones, or tarot card reading.
Obviously, there may be constraints that arise from the use of some methods that may interfere with the remote viewing protocol. In such a case where a conflict between the two arises, the method would have to be abandoned—but never the protocol. There are persons and establishments that historically defend their "method" as a protocol. Clearly they have missed the boat with regard to remote viewing.
How Many Viewers Were There Anyway?
In the entire history of the sponsored program, there are only a couple of offices within the government that actually provided remote viewers, and all of the viewing for record was done within Project STARGATE.
Aside from those labs listed at the beginning of this Appendix, there were only a couple of laboratories that actually participated in remote viewing research prior to 1995. Only one of those was funded with government money, or had direct access to the STARGATE program—the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory (CSL).
The total number of remote viewers within the STARGATE program will never be known, unless all the records are declassified. However, it would be more than safe to say that throughout its history, there were less than two dozen qualified viewers. And . . . they all knew one another.