Note: This first draft is not complete. It is being distributed prior to being finished in order to obtain feedback during the writing process.Copyright 1997 by Courtney Brown. All rights reserved. But this Internet edition of this partially completed book may be copied and reposted elsewhere without further permission as long as all parts and chapters of the book are included in the posting, and as long as no alterations of any type or form are made to the book in terms of content, style, substance, or anything else. Individuals may print a single hardcopy of this book for their own individual use only. Permission to reproduce multiple hardcopies of this book for sale or otherwise is strictly denied.
PROLOGUE
Remote viewing is a trainable mental technique. Remote viewing enables a person to extract accurate descriptive information form distant locations. It also works across time, in the sense that a remote viewer can extract information from the past, the present, or the future. Using any level of reasonable (and even some unreasonably excessive) scientific controls under laboratory conditions, we can now teach remote viewing to virtually any normal well-balanced individual.
Scientific Remote Viewing SM (SRV SM) refers to a set of protocols that are a highly modernized and extended version of the original techniques developed and used by the U.S. military in the 1980s and 1990s for espionage purposes. These protocols allow nearly any normal, well-balanced individual to remote view with tremendous precision. Scientific studies using a number of highly proficient remote viewers employing these protocols can yield results that approach near complete accuracy consistently. Effective training and proficiency are the key factors. Remote viewing is like everything else, careful practice improves things enormously.
SRV SM has several distinct phases. Each phase brings the remote viewer into closer contact with a target. A target is the location, person, or event about which information is desired. In each phase, different types of information are extracted about the target, and the overall result is typically a complete set of descriptive information, including sketches.
Scientific Remote Viewing is both taught and researched at The Farsight Institute in Atlanta, Georgia. This volume includes much of the information that is included in the course titled "Farsight Voyager" that is taught at the Institute. This course typically involves approximately 50-60 classroom hours on the subject. This current text is designed to be used in combination with classroom study of Scientific Remote Viewing SM. However, this book is also intended to reduce much of the popular mystery about this new subject.
While learning how to remote view from a book is not optimal, this book will nonetheless be used by many to try the procedures out, both seriously and for fun. I see no harm in this, and indeed I encourage this use of the book. But students of remote viewing must understand that the effectiveness of any procedures that involve subtle interpretations on the level of consciousness depends not only on the procedures themselves, but also on the exacting and delicate execution of the procedures. This, in turn, is critically dependent on the quality of instruction and feedback. In a classroom, regular corrections directed at a student's work while the initial learning process is underway (and before counterproductive habits are formed) are optimal with regard to obtaining the highest level of performance and accuracy using these procedures. Nonetheless, a minimal level of effectiveness can probably be obtained by many individuals who seriously attempt to study these procedures systematically by themselves.
The teaching of remote viewing is delicate, especially if high rates of accuracy are desired. But there is no reason why people should not know the mechanics of the process prior to obtaining classroom instruction. Some may wonder if publishing this text would financially hurt The Farsight Institute, since some people may choose to learn remote viewing from a book rather than to take a course. But there is no reason to believe that the dissemination of knowledge hurts educational institutions. For example, colleges and universities have not been made obsolete simply because of the publication of textbooks.
The Farsight Institute maintains an extensive Internet Website (www.farsight.org). It is natural for visitors who visit the Website to wonder about the procedures that are used to collect the data that are presented freely via the Internet. This volume thus serves the purpose of helping people to interpret and understand the nature of such findings. Moreover, since The Farsight Institute is a nonprofit educational organization, the planetary educational role of the Institute is assisted if the Farsight data that are presented on the Website, as well as in books, become more real to people as they better understand the data collection process. Thus, this volume is also aimed at the wider audience that needs to know the nature of remote viewing data so as to be able to interpret and use such data effectively.
The Farsight Institute is a scientific institute. Our procedures are the result of countless hours of experimentation and research. As are all such products of experimentation, these procedures are similarly subject to further change as our research continues. For as long as The Farsight Institute exists, we will continually be experimenting with new ideas. Our readers should not view this book as the ultimate word on what is best. Rather, these are the procedures that we have currently concluded are optimal for initial training in the basics of SRV SM. We teach these procedures in our introductory Farsight Voyager course. This volume does not include the advanced specialized procedures of SRV, the advanced Phase 4 (sketching, vocalization, and physical movement) procedures, the SRV Technology Transfer Protocols, nor the Medical SRV SM Protocols.
As a note of warning, there are many people and groups who claim to do remote viewing. This volume is worthless as an aid to understanding what these other people and groups are doing who are not associated with The Farsight Institute. It is not that other people or groups are not doing things that are worthwhile, for indeed many of them are. It is just that this is not a volume that describes what they do. This volume details the basic procedures of the Farsight Protocols of Scientific Remote Viewing as taught and practiced by those who work at The Farsight Institute. This book is not a general survey or similar treatment of remote viewing variously defined. This is a specialized book that explains an explicit and narrowly defined set of procedures.
Finally, in the development and refinement of these protocols, many changes and enhancements have been made to the original procedures that were used by the U.S. Army for espionage purposes in the 1980s and 1990s. Thus, a direct comparison between the procedures described in this volume and the original military procedures is neither wise nor valid, since this would inevitably result in an "apples and oranges" comparison.
An Apology
Our current understanding of remote viewing is based on a rich history of experimentation and discovery spanning a number of decades. Moreover, the literature on remote viewing both historical and otherwise is quite extensive. Over the past few decades, a long list of brilliant scientists and talented remote viewers have risked public ridicule and their professional reputations to pursue research in this new and controversial field. Rarely have their efforts been reported fairly or accurately in the media. I do not reference any of these great pioneers in this volume. This is not meant as a slight against them in any way, and I ask their forgiveness for my not being able to discuss their contributions to this field in this volume. The purpose of this volume is simply to describe the procedures that we are using at The Farsight Institute.
My reading of the needs of our current age suggests that this manual will be more effective in causing a shift in attitudes on this planet if it is presented sooner rather than later. This book is not intended to be a thorough treatment of the extant literature, nor a historical reference, broad or narrow. I look forward to the time when I can write more broadly on the rich historical development of this subject, and to give credit to those great minds who have made all current accomplishments possible.
Chapter 1: An Overview
Remote viewing has evolved from an art to a science through a striking history of progress and refinement. Research conducted at The Farsight Institute during the 1990s has led to enhancements in both technique, theoretical understanding, and accuracy. Scientific Remote Viewing (SRV) is a set of protocols, or procedures, that allows what is often referred to as the "unconscious mind" to communicate with the conscious mind, thereby transferring valuable information from one level of awareness to another.
In the most broad and theoretical sense, remote viewing is possible because all humans are composite creatures. This means we have (minimally) two aspects that are merged together. These two aspects are a physical body and a soul. The soul is no longer a theoretical abstraction. There is now no longer any doubt as to the existence of the soul, since remote viewing would not be possible in the absence of a soul, as I explain below.
It is the soul that is often labeled the "unconscious mind." At The Farsight Institute, we no longer use the term "unconscious mind," since we now know that this aspect of our existence is very much self-aware, and thus conscious. Moreover, we also now know that our souls exist within a realm that is at least as complicated as the physical world. This other realm we refer to as "subspace." In subspace, there are beings, planets, galaxies, parks with benches and hot dog stands, and much more. Thus, a soul or unconscious mind is more accurately identified as a subspace mind. We are composite beings because we have electrochemical minds as well as subspace minds that coexist.
Information coming from the subspace mind is typically called "intuition." Intuition is a feeling about something about which one otherwise would have no direct knowledge on the physical level of existence. For example, many mothers will claim that they simply know when one of their children is in serious trouble. They feel it in their bones, so to speak, even when they have not been told anything specific regarding their childs situation. More generally, intuition operates across time and space without any physical means of information transference. SRV systematizes the reading of intuition and allows it to be accurately transcribed onto paper and later analyzed.
Using SRV, the information coming from the subspace mind is recorded before the electrochemical physical conscious mind (from hereon referenced as simply the conscious mind) has a chance to interfere with it using normal waking-state intellectual processes, such as rationalization or imagination. With nearly all physical phenomena, there is a time delay between sequential and causally connected events. For example, when one turns the ignition key to a car, it takes a few seconds for the motor to "catch." Similarly, when one turns on a computer, it takes awhile for the machine to boot-up. Remote viewing is possible because we now know that there is an approximate three-second delay between the moment when the subspace mind obtains some information and the time when the conscious mind can react to this information. The subspace mind, on the other hand, apparently has instantaneous awareness of any desired piece of information. In general, remote viewing using the protocols of SRV is accomplished by the novice viewer by moving with a steady pace through, say, 600 things to do at basically a three- second clip for each one. The tasks carried out in the protocols are carefully designed to accumulate an accurate picture of much or all of the target by the end of the session.
It is crucial to emphasize at this point that there must be no deviation from the grammar of the protocols during the session if one wants to ensure the greatest level of accuracy. If there is a deviation from the structure, one only has to be reminded that it is the conscious mind that designed this deviation. If the conscious mind enters into the session to such a degree as to redesign the protocols on the spot, then it can be generally certain that the subspace mind has lost control of the session, and that the data from that point on in the session are usually useless.
It is best to think of the Farsight Protocols of Scientific Remote Viewing as a language that allows the subspace mind to communicate accurately and directly with the physical body (which includes the conscious mind). Since the communicative ability of the subspace mind with respect to the physical body is limited, any deviation from that language puts the subspace mind in a distinct disadvantage, a disadvantage that inevitably results in the transfer of control of the session to the conscious mind, which in turn completely terminates all abilities to obtain any useful data during the remainder of the session.
Target Coordinates
Scientific Remote Viewing always focuses on a target. A target can be almost anything about which one needs information. Typically, targets are places, events, or people. But advanced viewers can also work with more challenging targets as well, such as a persons dreams, or even God. One relies on the subspace mind to deliver the required information in a way that will be understandable to the conscious mind.
An SRV session begins by executing a set of procedures using target coordinates. These are essentially two randomly generated four-digit numbers that are assigned to the target, and the remote viewer should not know what target the numbers represent. It is convenient to use numbers for these coordinates, but letters would work as well. These coordinates are, obviously, not indicative of the targets geographical location. The numbers are themselves meaningless to the conscious mind of the remote viewer.
Extensive experience has demonstrated that the subspace mind instantly knows the target even if it is only given its coordinate numbers. The remote viewer then conducts the SRV SM protocols on these numbers to obtain target information without being told the targets identity until after the remote viewing is completed.
During the SRV session, the mental connection with the target produces what is called a signal. In the early days of remote viewing training, all information coming from the target would be distinguished from contaminating information (such as from the imagination) by the viewers learning to discern the distinct mental flavor of signal information. At the end of each session, the viewer is given the actual description of the target to allow a comparison with the remote-viewing data, thereby obtaining reinforcing and instructional feedback on the flavor of the actual signal. In the modern remote viewing classroom, however, much less emphasis is placed on learning to discern the feeling of the data signal, recognizing that this occurs naturally as an automatic consequence of sufficient training. Rather, and as I describe more thoroughly in the pages that follow, emphasis is placed on the rigid adherence to the grammatical structure of the protocols during the session. Indeed, consciously focusing on the mental flavor of the signal actually invites the conscious mind to begin a judgmental process during the session, which in turn shifts the balance of control of the session from the subspace mind to the conscious mind, thereby negatively influencing the remote viewers ability to obtain the best possible collection of data. Using the conscious mind primarily to adhere to the strict rules of the structure effectively "ties its hands" and allows the subspace mind dominant control over determining the substance of the data. This, of course, requires that the session be conducted at a sufficiently rapid pace so as to keep the activities of the conscious mind fully occupied with staying in structure.
The SRV Protocols
The modern form of the SRV protocols have five distinct phases. In each phase, different types of information are obtained from the target. The phases are engaged sequentially during an SRV session, and nearly always all five phases are utilized to at least some extent in each session.
The five phases of the SRV process are as follows:
Phase 1: Phase 1 establishes initial target contact. However, it also sets-up a pattern of data acquisition and exploration that is continued in later phases. This is the only phase that directly utilizes the target coordinates. Once initial contact is established, the coordinates are no longer needed. Phase 1 essentially involves the drawing and decoding of something that is called an ideogram (defined later) in order to determine primitive descriptive characteristics of the target.
Phase 2: This phase increases viewer contact with the site. Information obtained in this phase employs all of the five senses: hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell. This phase also obtains initial magnitudes that are related to the targets dimensions.
Phase 3: This phase is an initial sketch of the target.
Phase 4: Target contact in this phase is quite intimate. In Phase 4, the subspace mind is allowed total control in solving the remote viewing problem by permitting it to direct the flow of information to the conscious mind.
Phase 5: In this phase, the remote viewer can conduct some guided explorations of the target that would be potentially too leading to be allowed in Phase 4. Phase 5 includes six specialized procedures that can dramatically supplement the productivity of a session by addressing some particular informational needs. For example, one Phase 5 procedure is a locational sketch in which the viewer locates a target in relation to some geographically defined area, such as the United States. This procedure would be too leading for Phase 4 since it would require that the viewer be told that the target is indeed in or near the United States.
Categories of Remote Viewing Data
Remote viewing data can be obtained under a variety of conditions, and the nature of these conditions produces different types of data. There are six different types of remote viewing data. There are three distinguishing characteristics of the various types of data. The first is the amount of information the viewer has about the target prior to the beginning of the remote-viewing session. The second is whether or not the viewer is working with a person called a monitor, as I explain more thoroughly below. The third is determined by how the target is chosen.
Type 1 data
When a remote viewer conducts a session alone, the conditions of data collection are referred to as solo. When the session is solo and the remote viewer picks the target (and thus has prior knowledge of the target), the data are referenced as Type 1 data. Knowing the target in advance is called front-loading. Front loading is rarely necessary and should be avoided in general; but sometimes a viewer simply needs to know something about a known target and has no alternative but to execute the session under these conditions. Such sessions are very difficult to conduct from a practical point of view. The difficulty with this type of session is that the viewer's conscious mind can more easily contaminate these data, since the viewer may have preconceived notions of the target. Typically, only very professional viewers should attempt such sessions if the data are to be used for anything serious, and even then, the findings should be corroborated with data obtained under blind conditions (see below).
Type 2 data
When the target for a given remote viewing session is selected at random from a predetermined list of targets, the data are called Type 2 data. In this setting, the computer supplies the viewer with only the coordinates for the target. Ideally, the viewer should not be familiar with the list of targets. But sometimes this is unavoidable, and indeed the viewer may have been involved in choosing the targets for the list. Nonetheless, only the computer knows which numbers are associated with each specific target. Since the conscious mind of the remote viewer does not know which target is associated with which coordinates, the viewer essentially limits the intervention of the conscious mind. Thus, it is said that the viewer is conducting the session blind, which means without prior knowledge (or front-loading) of the target. In this data situation, it is best if the list of targets is quite large. The Farsight Institute normally supplies to its viewers Windows and Mac OS versions of a target management program that is used for working with Type 2 targets.
Type 3 data
Another type of solo and blind session is used to collect Type 3 data. This is the type of solo data that our professionals at The Farsight Institute collect. With Type 3 data, the target is determined by someone other than the remote viewer. For example, someone (a "tasker") can communicate target coordinates to a group of remote viewers who live across the United States, usually by fax. The tasker may or may not know the target, but the viewers definitely do not. Moreover, the viewers would not have contact with one another while conducting their sessions. During training, viewers may receive some limited and uncompromising information regarding the targetperhaps whether the target is a place or an event. Professional viewers are normally not told anything other than the target coordinates. Viewers then conduct sessions using the coordinates and then fax their results back to the tasker or analyst.
Solo sessions can yield profoundly valuable information about a target, but trainees often find that more detailed and in-depth information can be obtained when someone else is doing the navigation. This other person is called a monitor, and monitored sessions can be spectacularly interesting events for the new remote viewer.
Type 4 data
There are three types of monitored SRV sessions. When the monitor knows the target but communicates only the targets coordinates to the viewer, this generates Type 4 data. These types of monitored sessions are often used heavily in training. Type 4 data can also be very useful from a research perspective, since the monitor has the maximum amount of information with which to direct the viewer. In these sessions, the monitor tells the viewer what to do, where to look, and where to go. This allows the viewer to almost totally disengage his or her analytic mental resources while the monitor does all of the analysis.
The monitor and the remote viewer need not be in the same room during the session. Speakerphones can be used to establish the necessary verbal dialogue between the monitor and the viewer. This allows monitored sessions to take place even though the monitor and the remote viewer may be in different locations separated by thousands of miles. Once or twice during such sessions, diagrammatic data can be faxed to the monitor by the viewer to ensure adequate control of the flow of information. Such situations are referred to as remotely monitored sessions.
At The Farsight Institute, Type 4 conditions are used for initial training of both viewers and monitors. For viewers this is necessary so that they can be helped with regard to their probing and exploration exercises. It is necessary for beginning monitors also so that they can learn how to professionally manage and design remote viewing sessions. However, once viewers and monitors are fully professionalized, then they typically do not participate in Type 4 situations.
One of the troubles with Type 4 data for advanced practitioners of SRV is that the telepathic capabilities of the viewers become so sensitive that they can be led during the sessions by the thoughts of the monitors. This is not so important a consideration with new students since their telepathic sensitivities are usually not so developed. Also, among professionals, even slight grunts, changes in breathing, or anything else however slight, can be interpreted as a subtle form of leading by the monitor, which in turn could contaminate the data. To eliminate these problems, professionally monitored sessions are normally conducted at The Farsight Institute under double- blind conditions (see Type 5 data below).
Type 5 data
In professional and other critical situations, researchers may want a totally blind setting for monitored data collection, thereby eliminating any possibility of monitor leading. In these cases, both the viewer and the monitor are blind, with the targets coordinates coming either from an outside agency or drawn by a computer program from a list of targets. Again, long lists are better if either the monitor or the viewer know any of the contents of the list. At The Farsight Institute, neither the monitors nor the viewers have any information regarding our target lists, and in general, our targeting strategies are kept extremely confidential. Data collected in this manner (i.e., double- blind) are called Type 5 data.
Sessions conducted under these conditions by proficient viewers tend to be highly reliable. The disadvantages are that such sessions do not allow the monitor to sort out the most useful information during the session, and navigating the session "by the seat of your pants" is virtually impossible. To address this limitation on the part of the monitors abilities, scripts are often given to the monitor in advance of the session. These scripts contain no target identifying information, but they do give clear instructions as to which procedures and movement exercises need to be executed (and in what order). Thus, the monitor follows the script while giving instructions to the viewer. Again, these types of procedures are only used with professional viewers and monitors.
Some people may think it best to conduct all training using double-blind techniques, and it is worth spending a minute explaining why this is not a good idea. First, recall from the discussion above regarding Type 4 data that single-blind sessions allow monitors to learn how to manage and design remote viewing sessions. If all trainees worked with pre-arranged double-blind scripts, they would be forever dependent on someone else's ability to design and manage a remote viewing session. In short, we would never have an increasing pool of truly professional viewers and monitors.
Second, it is important to remember that we are no longer trying to prove that remote viewing works. That has already been accomplished to any reasonable persons satisfaction (assuming an open mind and an unbiased examination of the available data). Thus, it no longer makes any sense to train under double-blind conditions when the students are not yet competent remote viewers. It is a bit like asking to prove if an airplane can really fly by putting a person in the pilots seat who has never flown a plane. With luck, a certain percentage of the times that this is done, the person may actually get the plane to rise off of the ground, but a crash is inevitable, and controversy about the airworthiness of airplanes would continue. On the other hand, if one studies the subject and examines the available data, it will become obvious that planes can indeed fly. At this point it becomes important to learn how to fly under the best possible conditions. If a skeptic comes along who doubts that manned flight is possible, let the skeptic observe the aerial maneuvers of a professional pilot rather than the risky ventures of the novice. Analogously, though doubters still exist, it is the policy of The Farsight Institute to let such doubters address their own doubts in their own time. It would be counterproductive to allow one's training methods to be dictated by those who know so little about the field that they doubt the reality of the remote viewing phenomenon. Thus, it is not productive for us to employ novices to continually address the already answered question of whether or not remote viewing is possible. Rather, our interest is in discerning the best possible methods of training such that the ability to remote view can be as highly developed as possible.
Type 6 data
Type 6 data come from sessions in which both the monitor and the viewer are front-loaded with target information. This type of session was occasionally encountered when there were very few professionally trained viewers and monitors, and some information needed to be obtained quickly and there was no one else available to task with the session. It is done if more information about a known and specific target is required, and if the viewer feels constrained with a solo and front-loaded session. Type 6 data are rarely if ever collected these days. The availability of a sufficiently large pool of trained remote viewers who can be tasked with a large variety of sessions under blind and double-blind conditions has eliminated much of the need for Type 6 data.
Summary of data types
Type 1: Solo, front-loaded
Type 2: Solo, blind, with target selected at random by a computer from a predetermined list of targets
Type 3: Solo, blind, with target determined by an outside agency
Type 4: Monitored, viewer blind and monitor front-loaded
Type 5: Monitored, viewer and the monitor blind, with target selected at random by a computer from a predetermined list of targets or by an outside agency
Type 6: Monitored, viewer and monitor front-loaded
In general, blind targeting is vastly superior to front-loaded targeting, and Type 3 and Type 5 data conditions are the best of the lot when working with professional viewers and monitors.
One additional point should be raised with respect to the advantage of using blind data gathering conditions generally. Recall that we are no longer interested in using novice viewers to prove that remote viewing is a real phenomenon. Thus, we are not testing when we are training. Rather, blind targeting is simply easier to work with for all remote viewers. When the viewer is executing a blind or double-blind session, then the only thing that is needed for the viewer to do is to adhere to the specifics of the Farsight Protocols of Scientific Remote Viewing SM. The viewer need not worry about data accuracy, since it is impossible to judge this during a blind session. Rather the concern is on structural accuracy with regard to the execution of the remote viewing procedures, and experience has shown that this produces the highest quantity and quality of accurate data. Thus, blind targeting works better, gets better results, and ultimately is much easier for the viewer to accomplish.
The Remote Viewing Experience
"Remote viewing" is actually not an entirely appropriate term for what is discussed in this volume. This is because all of the senses - hearing, touch, sight, taste, and smell - are active during the remote viewing process. More accurately, one might term the experience "remote perception." Nonetheless, since remote viewing has been widely adopted in the scientific as well as the popular literatures, it makes sense simply to adopt the current term with the proviso that the experience is not limited to visual pictures. But visual images are a part of the remote viewing process, and it is useful to explain the nature of these images as a way of offering a more intimate portrayal of the overall experience.
When one looks at an object, the light reflected off of that object enters the eye, and an electro-chemical signal is generated that is transmitted along the optic nerve, which eventually ends up in the brain. Scientific studies have demonstrated that this signal is "displayed" on a layer of cells in the brain, very analogously to that of an image that is projected from a movie projector onto a movie screen. The brain then interprets this image to determine what is being seen. When someone remembers an object, the remembered image of the object is also projected onto that same layer of cells in the brain. If one remembers an object and visualizes it while the eyes are open and looking at something else, then the same layer of cells in the brain contains two separate projected images. The image originating from the open eyes is the brightest, whereas the remembered image is relatively dim and somewhat translucent, since one can see through the translucent image to perceive the ocular originating image. For those readers who would like to read an accessible but more in-depth treatment of the physiology of visual and remembered images, I strongly recommend an article in The New York Times by Sandra Blakeslee titled, "Seeing and Imagining: Clues to the Workings of the Minds Eye" (The New York Times, 31 August 1993, pp. B5N & B6N).
When remote viewing one can also perceive an image, but the remote viewing image is different from the remembered image or the ocular image. The remote viewing image is dimmer, foggier, and fuzzier than either the ocular or remembered images. In terms of ranking the images according to their quality, the ocular image (that coming from the eyes) has the highest quality resolution and brightness, followed by the remembered image, which is in turn followed distantly by the remote viewing image. Indeed, one tends to "feel" the image as much as one visualizes it. It is not easy for the subspace minds of humans to transmit high resolution, bright images to the brain, and this fact is indeed useful in the training process for SRV. If a student states that he or she perceived a clear bright image of a target during a remote viewing session, it is nearly certain that this image originated from the viewers imagination rather than from his or her subspace connection. Teaching students how to discern the difference between a real and an imagined image is one of the crucial components of successful training in SRV.
This does not mean that the relatively low resolution remote viewing experience is inferior to a visual experience based on eyesight. Remember that all of the five senses - plus the sense of the subspace realm - operate during the remote viewing process. Thus, it is actually possible to obtain a much higher quality collection of diverse and penetrating data relating to a target using remote viewing than one could obtain using any one of the five senses. The remote viewing experience is simply different from, not superior or inferior to, physical experiences of observation.
A remote viewer's contact with a target can be so intimate that a new term "bilocation" was adopted to describe the experience. It often happens that approximately halfway through a remote viewing session, the viewer begins to experience bilocation, in which the viewer feels he or she is at two places at once. The rate at which data come through from the remote viewing signal at this point is typically very fast, and it is necessary for the viewer to record as much as possible in a relatively short period of time.
While bilocation is a common remote viewing experience, each viewer who is sent to a target will not bilocate in an exactly comparable fashion with respect to all other viewers. When a project is initiated relating to an important target, one of the considerations involves the number of professional remote viewers (as compared with novices or trainees) that will be used. One aspect of this consideration is the desire to obtain overlapping and corroborating data from more than one professional remote viewing source, thereby enhancing the reliability of the conclusions that are drawn from the data. But even if all of the data obtained by all of the viewers are accurate, this does not imply that all of the data are overlapping.
Experience has shown that each viewer will be attracted to certain aspects of any particular target, and not all of the viewers will be attracted to the same aspects. Thus, one viewer may perceive the psychological condition of people that are at the target location, whereas another viewer may focus in on their physical health. Alternatively, yet another viewer may spend most of a session describing the physical attributes of the local environment within which the target subjects are located. For example, I once assigned a target of a bombing to a group of remote viewing students. One of the students was a doctor, and another student was a photographer. After the session was completed, I reviewed each student's work. The entire class perceived the bombing incident. But the entire class was amazed to note that the doctor had described the physical characteristics of the bombing victims closely, including all of their medical problems resulting from the bombing. On the other hand, the photographer's session read more like a detailed description of the physical characteristics of the event, including an accurate characterization of the geographical terrain where the bombing took place.
Thus, remote viewers go into a session with what they already have...their own personalities. These personalities are attracted to certain aspects of any given target. Professionalization in remote viewing tends to balance these attractions with training that is designed to extract a comprehensive collection of data from a given session. But even under the best of circumstances, some level of individual focusing is inevitable for each viewer. For this reason, it is always advisable to use a number of professional remote viewers for any given project. Each viewer will contribute something unique to the overall results, and a wise analyst can put the pieces of the puzzle together using many sessions from different viewers so as to obtain the most comprehensive analysis of the target.
The Accuracy of SRV
Until recently, it has been difficult to produce a general determination of the accuracy of remote viewing data. There were many interactive facets of this problem. First, there exist a number of remote viewing protocols. The accuracy issue usually revolves around whose protocols are the best in terms of obtaining detailed descriptive information relating to a verifiable target. While this seems like a straightforward question open to empirical analysis, there are complexities that need to be understood before any answer to the question can be understood. The second major issue with regard to accuracy involves the exact criteria for determining the accuracy of any particular session. Again, this latter question also seems straightforward, but there are unexpected complexities, as I explain below.
To begin by addressing the issue of different protocols, it is essential to recognize that some remote viewing "protocols" are not even protocols for remote viewing as such, but rather differing strategies for choosing targets. When natural psychics do remote viewing, they often clear their minds and begin describing a target. Thus, they do not really have a set of detailed procedures which they use to remote view. In such situations, the word "protocols" refers to the ways in which laboratory scientists use randomization and double-blind procedures to assign the target to the psychic from a given long list of possible targets.
When detailed and structured remote viewing procedures are followed to gather target related data (as compared with choosing a target as discussed above), then the word "protocols" refers to the remote viewing procedures themselves. This entire volume is a description of such protocols. To be sure, sophisticated procedures are also utilized to assign targets to remote viewers who use structured data collection protocols. But when working with trained remote viewers who use structured remote viewing protocols, the methods for choosing targets are not called "protocols." Rather, it is said that the remote viewer is simply collecting data under such and such conditions. In the case of Scientific Remote Viewing SM, we simply state which data type is associated with a session, as described previously. Thus, to clarify further discussions, in this volume, the word "protocols" will refer to the actual procedures used to collect remote viewing data, not the way in which a target is chosen before tasking it to a viewer.
Now the question of accuracy has to address a distinction between natural and trained remote viewers. Natural remote viewers are generally referred to as "psychics," or when the context is clear, simply "naturals." By definition, natural psychics use no formal means of data acquisition. They simply "feel" the target, and their accuracy is dependent on how well they can do this. Because natural psychics may not understand the mechanism by which their talents are achieved (as is sometimes the case with many natural abilities), their dependency on the "feel" of the data can potentially cause accuracy problems with their conscious minds. It is possible for anyone's conscious mind to disguise information to make it feel right, when in fact it is not correct data at all. Furthermore, since it is typically difficult to accurately evaluate the "flavor" of psychic data while it is being collected, most natural psychics have notoriously uneven success histories. Some natural psychics have very good success histories. But these are the rare exceptions rather than the rule. In general, it is not useful to compare the work of natural psychics with that of trained remote viewers who use structured protocols for data collection. The "apples and oranges" problem is simply too great, and I do not attempt to resolve this issue in this volume.
If we limit our attention to the use of structured remote viewing protocols, then the accuracy issue would seem to boil down to which set of protocols produce the best collection of data. Again, the situation is not so simple. SRV is a highly structured set of detailed remote viewing procedures, and in theory these procedures should be comparable with other procedures with regard to accuracy. But SRV is designed to be optimally exploited when used by individuals who are participating in a broad and explicitly structured course in the growth of consciousness. For example, while I discuss this in greater depth later in this volume, we have found that SRV tends to be exceptionally effective as a data gathering tool when executed by individuals who practice Transcendental Meditation (TM), or much more preferably, the advanced TM-Sidhi Program.{1} Thus, when comparing SRV to other structured programs for remote viewing, ideally one should use data obtained by fully professionalized remote viewers who are Sidhas (that is, meditators who practice the TM-Sidhi Program).
But this raises another thorny issue: professionalization. Remote viewing is not the same for a novice as it is for a professional. Trained remote viewing is like anything else, the results improve with proper guidance and practice. It is impossible to compare usefully the remote viewing performance of a novice with that of a professional if the goal of the comparison is simply to evaluate the relative performance of different remote viewing protocols. It is like putting two drivers into a race car competition, one experienced and one not. The winner of such a race will most likely be determined not by the quality of the car they drive but by the expertise of the individual drivers. Moreover, it is difficult to compare one driver to another even if they are both professional to some level of standard. The problem is that there is no agreement on what that professional standard should be, and there will always be individual specific variations in the level of professionalization.
When making scientifically controlled comparisons of different methods of data collection, it is necessary to hold all other variables constant. With a large body of highly trained remote viewers, this can in theory be accomplished using statistical analysis. But this assumes the existence of a sufficiently large group of trained remote viewers so as to obtain a sufficiently large (and thus statistically useful) sample size. Such comparisons are not easily accomplished using only a few remote viewers.
The accuracy issue now simplifies considerably. To evaluate remote viewing protocols, it is necessary to hold all other variables constant. At the current time, I do not know of any use of remote viewing protocols other than that which is done at The Farsight Institute in which a specific and broad program in growth in consciousness is combined with a clearly defined remote viewing professionalization process. Because of this, it does not makes sense at the current time to compare the practice of SRV with other remote viewing protocols. Again the "apples and oranges" problem re-occurs since the protocols themselves are not the only things that change when the comparisons are made. For example, if a trained practitioner in SRV performs better at remote viewing than a trained practitioner using another protocol, it would not be clear if the performance variation is due to the differences in the protocols or the broader background in the development of consciousness between the two viewers. Nonetheless, with this said, we can still talk about accuracy from within the context of professionals who practice SRV under optimal conditions.
As of the end of June 1997, The Farsight Institute has trained more than 100 people in the basics of Scientific Remote Viewing. Many of these people have also opted to learn TM, and a number of others were either Sidhas already, or soon became Sidhas after receiving their training in remote viewing. With this teaching experience as background, we have identified a clear pattern.
It now appears certain that it is possible to train any normal person of average or better intelligence how to remote view with considerable accuracy. Life experiences and educational backgrounds often assist in the process for reasons that are not entirely obvious at first, but that make sense in retrospect. In week-long introductory classes taught at The Farsight Institute, it is normal for all or nearly all individuals to have more than one profound remote viewing experience, and it generally seems that nearly everyone's sessions after the third day contain some obviously target related material.
Part of the training process is assisting participants in identifying and interpreting subspace accessed data with increasing precision. All aspects of all targets have a particular "feel." The novice viewers need to learn what all of these aspects feel like on an intuitive level. Practice helps, and it is important for trainees to be exposed to a wide variety of targets having different characteristics so as to broaden each person's experiences.
It is our view that when people practice TM, they become aware of the other side of their existence, the side that resides in the realm of the nonphysical (i.e., subspace). It has been the general experience of the staff at The Farsight Institute that trainees who practice TM or the TM- Sidhi Program already have a good intuitive sense of the source of remote data. They already tend to know what the subspace realm intuitively feels like. Their initial training automatically tends to move quickly from learning the mechanics of SRV to the advanced discrimination between complex target characteristics. In general, meditators seem to be able to discern new things and have more penetrating and profound remote viewing experiences more quickly than those who do not meditate. Of course there are always exceptions to this generalization, and it is certainly true that some remote viewing trainees are very good even if they have never meditated.
Again, while there are exceptions to all rules, our experiences teaching SRV seem to suggest strongly that those who follow our complete recommended program tend to have exceptional remote viewing experiences relatively quickly, leading rapidly to reach very dependable accuracy. In this case, "exceptional remote viewing experiences" references the quality and quantity of accurate data for a large collection of diverse targets. Indeed, among this group of remote viewers, it is often unusual for them to completely miss a target. If a target is missed by such a viewer, it is almost inevitably a problem in the breakdown of the application of the Farsight Protocols, and is thus explainable. If one omits from any consideration sessions with which there were technical errors in the application of the protocols, then the overall accuracy of structurally correct sessions is very high among such viewers.
How high is "very high" in statistical terms? To be honest, we are still collecting data to be able to ascertain this with precision. But the initial impression is that accuracy rates can be stunningly high. A good way to measure this is to observe that when The Farsight Institute tasks targets to professional remote viewers, it is common for all or nearly all structurally correct sessions to be useful for project analysis. Exceptions do occur, of course. But normally exceptions have clear underlying reasons that can be understood and remedied later in future sessions by giving advice to the viewers regarding the mistakes that were made in the application of the protocols. Again, training continually improves remote viewing, and it seems to be the general opinion among most who work at The Farsight Institute that we have not yet reached the upper limit in terms of profound target penetration and the percentage of accurate data among professional practitioners of SRV.
This raises the second of the initial issues regarding accuracy that were discussed in the beginning of this section, namely, the criteria for establishing how accurate a remote viewing session actually is. This seemingly straightforward question is immediately complicated when one observes that target accuracy often improves in the middle and final sections of any particular remote viewing session. Thus, if one is going to determine whether remote viewing data are accurate, is it better to evaluate every datum from the beginning to the end of each session, or should one decide the issue of accuracy based on whether or not the viewer manages to describe the basic aspects of the target accurately? If one chooses the latter option, it is recognized that the accurate data may be surrounded by less accurate data, and it is necessary for an analyst to attempt to separate the accurate from the inaccurate data, like separating the wheat from the chaff.
The acceptance of inaccurate data mixed with accurate data may trouble many researchers who want to insist on a clear and unambiguous standard of session accuracy. But again, the problem is not so clear cut. The issue is really one of each remote viewer being able to decode the "feel" of the target in terms of words and sketches. Experience helps this process tremendously, since once viewers know the feel of a certain target characteristics, then they are more apt to describe such characteristics accurately when they are encountered in different settings. However, remote viewers typically encounter new things with many and perhaps most sessions. Thus, it is natural that they will have some difficulty decoding certain things, especially initially. It typically takes time (in any particular session) for a viewer to figure out what is going on. Indeed, the Farsight Protocols of Scientific Remote Viewing are specifically designed to assist the viewer in eventually decoding the essential elements of each target accurately, despite initial mistakes in interpretation.
From a pragmatic point of view, it is probably most useful to discuss remote viewing accuracy in terms of whether viewers manage to decode the essential target characteristics accurately, rather than in terms of evaluating each datum in each session. The former process essentially ignores the concurrent presence of inaccurate data and offers a binary response as to whether viewers eventually hit or miss their targets. The latter process ends up weighing all data equally, often regardless of when the data are collected in the sessions (i.e., the beginning, middle, or end). There are problems with either approach to evaluating session accuracy, and this volume does not attempt to resolve this issue definitively. It is likely that partial fixes can be attempted with either approach, and that the usefulness of an approach will depend on the needs of the research questions.
FOOTNOTES
{1} There is no formal or informal connection between The Farsight Institute and the TM Movement. Mention of Transcendental Meditation in this context does not imply an endorsement of the research or activities of The Farsight Institute by the TM Movement.
