Remote Viewing

The Firedocs F.A.Q.

The Firedocs (aka PJ's Email) F.A.Q.

I once sat down and calculated, based on my email records, how much email on the RV topic I had read and responded to from November of 1995 until about July of 1997. It was around 50,000. (!) And more since.

One problem is that many people writing me are 'educated' about the subject by having heard about it on the radio, often from someone whose presentation of remote viewing is, to say the least, "creative." So they send me a couple of questions, and I can't answer them, as those questions are based on about 99 assumptions that are incorrect. I need to explain an entire groundwork of RV to them, and then they probably wouldn't need to ask the question.

In some cases, it's simply that I've answered that question so many times, I have no energy for doing so again.

As a result, once my personal time to give to this topic began to diminish, I just began ignoring those emails. There was nothing I had time to do for them. I've probably offended a lot of people by not responding, and I'm real sorry about that. But the sheer quantity of communication that goes through my computer every day could amount to two full time jobs--and I already have a full time job outside the home, a full time job for my own business (from my home), a two year old, a husband, and a life that already doesn't have enough hours in the day.

My solution is The Firedocs FAQ. RV-related Questions I get asked, I'll answer here. If you have a question that isn't here, send it to me.

I want to be a remote viewer. What kind of training do I need?

Remote viewing is defined by the remote viewing protocol, a set of situational rules that must be in place while somebody is doing psychic work, in order to call it RV. If you want to do what is legitimately called remote viewing, you will need to learn something about those rules and their context and reasoning. There is a good deal of information on the Firedocs web site as well as on the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory web site. You can also find information on the main points of protocol via Joseph McMoneagle's book MIND TREK: Exploring Consciousness, Time, and Space Through Remote Viewing.

If what you really want to learn is how to be psychic--and this is what is common slang for "remote viewing" and what is sold in the media--then you would want to seek out some form of psi methods training.

The psi method most commonly associated with remote viewing (as it was developed to be used within the RV protocol) is the one Ingo Swann developed in the early 1980's, referred to as Coordinate or Controlled remote viewing. There are individuals who teach this methodology, and there are individuals who teach derivatives of the methodology. If you are interested in finding a legitimate instructor for this, you can send me email. When doing so please let me know your background (if any) in psi work and your general geographical location.

Because 'remote viewing' is defined as psychic work within a protocol, there are many different methods that can be used to acquire psi data and be called remote viewing. For an overview of a few different types of RV methods/approaches, see the Firedocs Remote Viewing Overview page.

I have out of body experiences sometimes. Is that remote viewing?

Well, if you acquired data about a remote location during that experience it is certainly psychic. The remote viewing protocol actually requires that the situation be planned, not accidental or spontaneous. But the psychic part of remote viewing can certainly show up at any time or place without warning.

As personal (not official) notes, I find out of body experiences and remote viewing to be dramatically different, to the point of being opposites.

When I am out of body, my perception is extremely visual, and--although it may not always be perfectly accurate in detail once I've 'come back to my body' and communicated it--it is very similar to simply being physically at the location I am perceiving. When out of body I also have a tendency, depending on the experience, to pick up numerous aspects of reality that are not perceivable in a regular state of mind. This is a diplomatic way of saying, I may see ghosts or entities when out of body, and/or reality may seem very, very strange.

When I am remote viewing, my perception is very seldom visual. (And my visuals are usually incorrect data anyway.) The experience is mostly "sensed" in a sort of "internally kinesthetic" manner. I get only small pieces of information to begin with, I often doubt whether or not I am truly 'tuned in' to the target (even when the data later reveals I clearly was), and only upon extremely deep target contact do I ever feel like I am actually "there." And, even when I have that feeling, it is not like an OBE; I do not feel that I have left my body in any way; rather, it feels as if there are two realities "overlaying" each other--my physical surroundings, and the target site, and I can perceive one or the other depending on which I focus toward. RV data is seldom, for me, as "literal" and straightforward as OBE data.

Where I can learn the remote viewing protocols?

By the way that question is phrased, I think what you are looking to learn is the psi methodologies originated by Ingo Swann. I know a number of qualified instructors in those methods, and if you tell me your psi background (if any) and geographical location, I'll refer you to whoever I think would be most appropriate for you.

I've been remote viewing all my life. How can people say you have to know something special for it?

You've been using the term "remote viewing" all your life? If you were born in the mid-70's or later, this might be the case. The term wasn't coined until then. I think what you are telling me is that you have been psychic all your life. I agree, there is certainly no formal education required for utilizing a natural talent! "Remote Viewing" in the literal sense is a term that doesn't just mean being psychic, though. It means being psychic within an approved scientific protocol. That's a set of situational rules that have to be in place while doing the psychic work, in order to legitimately call it 'remote viewing.' You can learn more about those rules by visiting my Firedocs web site.

I heard one guy say remote viewing can't be trained. But there's all these other guys selling training for it. What gives?

This is a pretty hot debate behind the scenes in the remote viewing community. There are certain aspects of parapsychology that, better understood, have been able to obtain improvement in the measured performance of psychics--feedback issues being one example.

The informal response that scientists in this field give me is that some methods are better for acquiring some types of data than others; some methods are more comfortable for one type of personality than another; no method seems to be demonstrably better than everything else; and no method can instill raw psychic "talent" into an individual beyond what they first walked in the door with.

However, the only way to truly test for what an individual has is in a scientific situation, which almost nobody is able to participate in. So, from that point of view, really the only way to see how much psi talent you have is to practice remote viewing within a good protocol long enough to see your overall performance rate.

One scientist tells me he has data on some of the best remote viewers in the world, spanning 20+ years, and their overall "hit rate" today, despite sometimes decades of practice and learning new techniques and so forth, is no different than it was when they first came into the science lab years ago.

That doesn't mean that they aren't better remote viewers. They may be better at 1001 aspects of remote viewing than they were when they began. But those aspects may all pertain to the amount of detail they can get on a target when they successfully acquire the target, how fast they can do so, how well they understand, or how well they do at many difficult-to-measure datas such as concepts and psi communication.

It means their measured "hit rate" in the lab hasn't changed. This indicates that raw talent is probably a basic underlying thing that doesn't change, and that what methods training is mostly providing is a psychological support and a framework for disciplined practice.

Like practicing piano, whether you are musically talented or not, regular practice WILL make you more comfortable with it and probably better at it. But, your musical talent per se is probably not going to change just because you practice or had lessons. If you are tone deaf, you are never going to be like Bach. I guess what matters is whether you want to explore the talent you've got, whatever it might be, or whether you don't want to bother trying unless you are sure you'll be the next Bach.

Whether talent is determined by genetics, experience, or something else, is anybody's guess.... scientists are still working on that one!

On the other hand, there is the 'methods' approach to remote viewing. This is had by people whose introduction to psychic work was via being taught a psychic method (in this field, usually CRV). In their own experience, they had no knowledge of having psi talent until they were taught these methods. The methods, practiced, helped them find and understand their own talent. Most acknowledge that the talent was probably already there waiting to be discovered.

Psi methods instructors tend to see their students--the ones who really practice--improve over time. They feel this is evidence that methods training tends to improve one's psi performance. Whether it is affecting raw talent or learned skill is not nearly as important to them as the fact that one DOES improve.

Of course, this may have less to do with a given method than with dedicated practice. It's hard to tell.

In my personal opinion, both the 'methods folks' and the 'science folks' are right about this. The methods folks are not doing any kind of proper controlled testing of new students, so to some degree the 'improvement' testimony is subjective; they may be measuring a very different aspect of performance than the science lab. One could improve the quantity and quality of data an individual obtains, and yet, they may still have the same "hit rate" under lab conditions (see the various notes on 'accuracy' around the Firedocs web site to understand why).

I believe that the only answer to good remote viewing is practice. More of it than anybody wants to think about. Not just 20 minutes of a quick session and looking at a photo feedback, mind you. But long sessions, and multiple sessions on a target, and different types of methods, and really paying attention to how your mind is working, and keeping detailed records of everything, and.....

You could do this without methods training. It would help to learn some of the RV protocol elements--it would save you reinventing wheels, or making unnecessary mistakes, or creating problems in the process that show up in your result yet may have little to do with your viewing skill.

In the end, most parapsychology scientists do not feel that psi talent can be "trained." This would not necessarily disagree with the 'methods' point of view I described above.

Where the argument comes in is actually in terms of marketing. Psychic methods are billed as remote viewing (they are not--they are psi methods--"remote viewing" is defined by the protocol), and the claims made in the media by people selling these methods range from "not fully supportable" to "wildly false and only designed to get your money." Methods are often advertised as if they are a magic clover, and if you only have enough money, in a matter of a week you can be, and I quote, "nearly omniscient!" This is false advertising, to put it mildly.

So, you can teach a psychic method designed to be used within the remote viewing protocol. One probably should not call it "remote viewing" unless one is also teaching the protocol which defines the term. One can teach somebody a method for communicating psi data. One cannot teach someone to BE psi.

What makes a good target for remote viewing?

This is the kind of question that is well addressed in Joseph McMoneagle's book MIND TREK: Exploring Consciousness, Time and Space Through Remote Viewing. In general, for beginners, a target should be something that allows you to learn something about how you process data. (If you are learning CRV, the target selection criteria may be slightly different than that.)

To begin, targets should be something that are, at the moment you view them, very close to what they are like in the feedback. They should be set apart from other things; in other words, a store in strip mall would not be a good target; a lone house on a hill would be better. Targets with higher entropy may have better session results: a plastic knick-knack is not as good a target as, say, the great pyramid in Giza. Targets that are more time-based, such as past events and biologicals/organics which may no longer be living, may be best to wait on until you have some experience with basics. However, CURRENT biologicals, organics etc. (e.g., a specific animal known to the tasker) would be fairly good targets.

No matter what kind of target you choose, the protocol issues related to targeting, tasking and feedback may be critical to your performance and your understanding, so make a point to learn something about those before you dive in.

My friend says he has an almost 100% accuracy rate. Other people say that's impossible or he's lying. But he seems sincere. I don't know what to believe.

The question that comes to my mind isn't whether he is lying, but rather, what form of measure is he using?

Shortly after remote viewing hit the media spotlight, some new schools of new psychic methods which they called 'remote viewing' sprang up (apparently because their methods were a derivative of the CRV methods), and their methods of accuracy measure were considerably different than the science measure, and considerably different than the old intell-CRV measures.

When I hear someone talking about 100% (or even close to it) accuracy regularly, it's usually an indication that their education was via one of the 'new methods.' By this, if the remote viewer provides data that seems to indicate they have, at least, tuned into the correct target, that is considered a "hit." So, if they do five targets, and have data in all five that matches the targets, they would consider that five "hits"--5 for 5, 100% accurate! There is no evidence of the quantity of accurate data, the quality of the data, the consistency of performance, or even whether or not anybody, anywhere, could have recognized the proper target based on their session data. This measure is fine if the goal is simply to make viewers feel good about themselves. But if you want to compare their performance to anybody else in the psi world, let alone have a number of use, they'd need to learn some standard formats of accuracy measure.

In the CRV (methods) means of measure I was initially taught, every single data component obtained (this can be from 20-200 items for a new viewer session) is compared to the feedback, and accuracy is measured in that way. This applies better to individual categories of data than an overall score. Of course, this also requires objective feedback for measurement. You cannot psychically tune into aliens and objectively consider that you hit the target--unless your target was simply "whatever the tasker was thinking about" (which could as easily be an idea as a 'real' thing). So this alone brings some differences into CRV vs. some of the 'new' psi methods. And the science lab, of course, is a whole different kind of measure. Most people claiming a 50% accuracy rate in the science lab are lightyears better at RV than 'methods students' claiming 100%.

Could you find my best friend who disappeared last year?

I don't personally do RV for hire. This particular task is more a dowsing question than a remote viewing question. Although dowsing is often done by remote viewers, it is a separate skill from RV, and the average viewer may or may not be very good at it. RV has plenty to offer in this area in other respects, of course. It could be applied to the concepts related to your friend's disappearance, such as whether it was deliberate on your friend's part (e.g., running away, in a federal protection program, etc.) or seems accidental (e.g., foul play). It could be applied toward describing the environment the "target" (which would be your friend) is in now. However, this is a whole project--this is not something one person would probably do. You might consider contacting the AWP (Assigned Witness Program). They will only work with legitimate authorities, which can be a problem as most authorities don't want to work with psychics. More info about the AWP is on the CRV Home Page.

Science Horizon Web Media

All logos and original content Copyright © 1996-2001 to Palyne "PJ" Gaenir. All rights reserved.