firedocs archives

Public Viewer Email Group
Archive 058

This is an archive file of the public Viewer [VWR] email list. This list is sponsored by the private Viewer Forum, hosted by Paradigm Systems and Design, and owned and operated by PJ Gaenir. It is dedicated to discussion of the practical aspects, theories and experience of formal psychic methodologies such as Controlled Remote Viewing, and independent efforts by the public interested in working under the formal RV protocol (the set of rules which define "remote viewing" as the term was coined in a science lab). You can find details, rules, and a form for joining the email group here. The list is moderated during operation and archiving. I remove last names and detail locations of contributors (within the archives) for privacy, and signatures for space conservation. I have added notes marking the posts from former U.S. intelligence remote viewers. Archiving of posts is done manually and may not include all posts.

This is the fifty-eighth archive.

November 1997

>Joe, are you talking about *all kinds* of frontloading, including >the neutral variety (e.g., "The target is a person," "the target is >an object"),

Dependent upon what you are trying to do, this may be the worst kind of front loading. There really is no such thing as "neutral variety," this is expressly true in research viewing. Just for information sake; there are half a dozen viewers who do remote viewing for CSL who use CRV who are never front loaded, even with "this is a person" or "this is a place" etc. They seem to do very well.

I think most of the problem is born out of an expectation that everyone will do as well as everyone else -- especially in the early years or years wherein someone is trying to understand what is going on inside their head. In fact, new remote viewers do very badly on an average and do very badly for quite some time. Of course there is quite a bit of varience in many, as some do really well initially, then do very badly for awhile, and then do very well again. Point being, no one knows for sure what someone is going to do. My observations seem to indicate that regardless how someone might do, it will take them two to three years of very intensive efforting to do very well with blind targets--which is okay. If they aren't using blind targets, they will usually take a lot longer.

>...or are you talking about the sort of frontloading where the >viewer is shown a picture of part of the site and then targeted with >something specific that is not evident in the picture. Seems to me >that there's a difference.

There is. One has to do with some very delicate manipulations during an applications type of collection, and one has to do with reducing time spent getting to the pertinent point within the target. Neither is done prior to the Remote Viewer demonstrating (totally blind) that they are at the target in the first place. :-)

Although, I've watched as numerous "methods" have been developed and designed by the unitiated to take the difficulty out of the effort.

>P.S. Only a non-CRVer would suggest a no frontloading policy. Do >you realize how long it takes to CRV a complex target? ;-)

Yes I do. It means being psychic in the first place. And just for everyone's edification--I'm trained very well as a CRV'er--one of the first trained at SRI-I. While I believe that it is perfectly reasonable to learn CRV in the initial approach to RV'ing, I personally prefer not to use it now. Mostly because it's too restrictive in the long run. It prevents one from becoming intimately knowledgeable with how they might be analysing information--which I believe everyone is going to do anyway.

>Moderator's Note: That's true, but the alternative doesn't have to be > frontloading the Viewer, it could instead be "directed tasking" >based on what's already been gathered as data by the Viewer. (As I >think was part of Joe's post, if I recall.)

That's correct.

>For newbies: Frontloading is when you give the psychic information >about the target, vs. telling them nothing but 'go find the target.' > Directed tasking is where you take something a psychic has described > such as "a wood structure" and say, "describe that structure." Of >course, it would take somebody who knew the target or situation to >determine what, in a Viewer's session, should be focused upon in >future sessions, to narrow down the answer they're looking for.

Not necessarily. When the same monitor and viewer work together over a long period of time, especially blind to the targets. The monitor and viewer begin to understand each other very well, and there is a sense when the viewer may or may not be saying something that might be connected with the target. If the monitor knows what the target is ahead of time, that is never allowed to develop, never mind the fact that then the remote viewer is probably only being trained to read the monitor and not be psychic in the first place.

>What's kind of funny is that I'm starting to notice a trend. An >inordinate number of topics, questions, confusions and problems in RV >all seem to boil down to a proper understanding and utilization of >tasking in the first place. I'm truly beginning to think that >there's a huge amount of data one should have to learn before ever >getting near the methods, tasking details as part of that. -- PJ




[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]

>So, while RV ability can be somewhat displayed within any general >population, exceptional RV (highly replicable) is probably down >around 1 or 2 percent of that same population.


I don't believe you can draw this inference from the design of the study described. You are assuming that the selection procedure was 100% accurate. This is almost never the case for any selection process with humans. From my reading in the available RV literature, very few accurate screening criteria seem to have been identified, so I would guess that the selection was less than perfect. The study does not allow us to estimate selection accuracy because no measures have been made on the RV skills of those *not* selected. This is a common error in many employee selection systems.

What has been demonstrated is that 6 talented, inexperienced people survived the screening procedure. Since those who did not survive the screening were not tested, we do not know how they would have performed. If the screening were totally ineffective, then we would see the same proportion of talented people in the general population as in the selected sample. Then our estimate would be that 66.7% (4 of 6) of the general population are exceptional in RV! (Of course you would never make an inference based on such a small sample. BUT, your sample can only include those who have been tested. It cannot include those who have not.)

Perhaps there is more to this study than has been presented, so please take these comments as tentative.

Best regards,

Michael O'

>I don't believe you can draw this inference from the design of the >study described. (major snip)

I appreciate your comments. However, there were many attempts over the years (at least twenty years that I'm aware of) to identify specific correlates by which people could be selected for remote viewing. Most of which were tested and failed--But you are right. In the cases where the subjects were appropriately tested, subjects were selected for further testing based on how well they did on an intitial test remote viewing while in a group. Probably not a good way to go, but the only way that seemed to work. I don't believe I ever said anything about assuming accuracy in the selection criteria used, however.

One of the major preoccupations with everyone who was administratively associated with either the research or the collection side of the effort was to devise a method which would improve the selection capability--that is enable selection of people who would do much better than chance expectation. For obvious reasons, anyone who might have devised such a selection method (that was even reasonably accurate) would have made an enormous amount of money with it. No such success occurred.

Over the course of the program, those who were randomly selected by researchers from random groups, based on a preliminary RV, were then further tested. So, comment can be made as to this result. While nearly everyone showed some degree of competence (psychic functioning ability); which reinforces the belief that everyone is at least psychic; not more than approximately 1-2 percent of those tested ever really performed in what could be considered a world-class fashion, or with a high degree of reliability/replicability. Most were found to operate just above chance. Which did not bode well on expectations one might have for success in training (as seems to have been exemplified over twenty-five years of RV effort within both the lab arena and military project).

Since no one ever really tested the "original selection criteria" or methodology of selection (formally), no one can really say that it didn't work either. It actually was never intended to be a study--it was only intended to identify a handful of individuals who might turn out to do better than most in RV. Which it seemed to do at the time. It would be nice to replicate it as a formal study now, and then test everyone involved (selected and non-selected).

I suspect that the percentage of good viewers from any random group will be under 10 percent. It most certainly won't be above 30 percent. Of course I'm only basing this opinion on twenty years of observation and testing of viewers.

Your comments were good ones. I'm just not sure as an individual, I could cover all of the elements of what was done to try and identify good remote viewers from bad. What is important is that they did eventually select from random groups by how good or bad someone did on a preliminary rough cut RV; and then subsequent testing of those individuals selected showed low percentages of reliability.



[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]

>further tested. So, comment can be made as to this result. While >nearly everyone showed some degree of competence (psychic functioning >ability); which reinforces the belief that everyone is at least >psychic; not more than approximately 1-2 percent of those tested ever >really performed in what could be considered a world-class fashion, >or with a high degree of reliability/replicability. (snip)

Joe (and others),

Could this be related more to belief structures and desire than to latent ability? If you liken this to athletic ability, I would assume that over 99% of the population is born with the inherent possibility of running 100m in under 10 seconds at some point in their life. Most people don't train for it, believe they could do it, or want to do it, and therefore don't, and a very small percentage actually acheive this.

And, although RVing is a fair bit easier than running over 30 mph, there are many years of imprinting by science and religion, saying this is impossible, or wrong, or bad. This certainly doesn't assist in attitude. I would say that people who want to do it, believe they can do it, and are willing and able to practice it, will have a high degree of success.

Maybe your findings suggest that 1 or 2 % of the population is of this mindset.

Is there any eveidence that genetics plays any part of this? Can a good RVer's son/daughter/grandson etc also RV well? It would seem that mindset and genetics would be 2 factors that would contribute to this observation of 1-2%. Are there others? If we can rule out genetics, then that may leave just mindset, or whatever else is on the list.

Mike CT

Hello, to all... Having just finished my basic CRV course with Paul Smith the following two statements are of interest to me.

Joseph McMoneagate wrote: "> during training, since the monitor knows what the target is and is giving immediate feedback he may be "teaching" someone how to read body language or subtle body cues, but not be teaching remote viewing."

Russell Targ wrote: "Ingo's training, on the other hand, in which he knew the target, created great problems for everyone. And many of us thought it was a very bad idea at the time (and unnecessary).

Having spent months (only 24 targets) working with the "Nike just do it method" and having no monitor and no training, I became quite accustomed to no feedback. So when training with Paul I found it difficult at first to slow my flow so to speak and work with the feedback concept. It was a little irritating; but somewhere between Stage 2 and 3 on the third day a shift of perception occurred: I began to be accutely aware of my own body language, voice patterns, and hand/eye movements, rather than being concerned with the monitors presence. For myself this was a major breakthrough, and I believe it would not have occurred had the feedback loop not been in effect. The monitor can serve as a mirror during training...this is the benefit. Although I certainly agree with you both, that to continue giving feedback too far into the training could be stultefying, I do believe it was helpful to me in the first few days. It's difficult for me right now to articulate exactly what that shift did, except to say that I then could perceive AOLs as they took form, and nail them to the side of the page. The sensation was as if I, for the first time, realized how much data always did come through but was ignored. I know that some of this is just the difference in availing myself of training. But I think there are some things a monitor can spot and because he is already involved in the dialogue of data-feedback he can more unobtrusively speak and bring to awareness what is happening. A gentle nudge toward self-awareness of a particular omission/comission can bring a big move forward.



What distinguishes some ability, fair, good, excellent and world-class remote viewers? Was any kind of capabilities scale such as 1 to 12 developed? Presumably you were looking for quality and reliability.


> Is there any eveidence that genetics plays any part of this? Can a > good RVer's son/daughter/grandson etc also RV well? It would seem

Traditionally, it runs in families. Depending on the talent, it acts like either a recessive trait or one that skips generation.


>It was as if my subconscious were taking the instruction literally >(i.e., look at the centre of this scene). How often do viewers find >this happens?

I was always impressed by the stories I heard about Joe's work when I first got to the project. One of those stories was about the time when Joe did a session and when the target envelope was opened, it was found that he had gotten everything wrong. His comment was, "I'm sorry, but you have the wrong target." On further checking, it was learned that he had been given the wrong coordinates at the beginning of the session. When they pulled the target for the coordinates he had been given, they found that his session was a rousing success. The same happened to me, and I think to almost every other viewer at some time or another. The subconscious mind had done exactly what it had been told.

The subconscious mind has a great sense of humor. When it can play a trick on you by acting like Zero (in the Beetle Baily cartoon), it will jump at the chance to do so. That is especially true in practice targets. It likes to play, and it does it in all kinds of ways, with puns, sudden songs running through your mind while you're trying to view (pay attention to the words of those songs - they're telling you something), and a whole passel of other gimmicks, tricks and jokes.

I once had a target which was an oddly shaped rock formation. I had no idea what the target was, and at one point in the session, I tasked myself (didn't have a monitor) to "move to the start of this thing". I found myself at the time of creation. The subconscious mind had taken the opportunity to play a prank on me by doing exactly what it was told.


[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]

MaryD wrote: >In many aspects of psychic work, it would seem that, >the greater the need, the greater the result. >Is this true of RV?

That's one way of putting it. Another way is that, while we always like to think of the subconscious mind as a child, the fact is that it is very adult in many ways. When the results of the session are of really great importance, the subconscious mind is quite capable of getting down to the nitty-gritty and getting serious about things.

One of the great aspects of CRV is that when you are really put to the test and are on the spot to perform, and it is for something besides a stupid dog & pony show - when the need is real, you will do the best session you have done in ages. It is almost guaranteed that you will have a success. Students are always really fearful of the time when they graduate from practice pictures in envelopes to Assigned Witness Program targets, where a child's life or well being may depend on their answers. In actual practice, I have found that the very importance of the tasking will cause them to do a great job.

Let me give a warning in all of this, though. The same applies to martial arts students. And like martial arts students, there is one other requirement for the viewer: the need isn't as much what causes the good performance as is the ability to meet the need. Dire need won't, for example, cause a white belt student to beat a 9th-level black belt master. The viewer or the martial artist who isn't properly trained, well practiced, and "in shape" will face the dire need and be found wanting.

How do you get to Carnegie Hall?


[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]

Hi everyone;

I will be away from home from 16 to 22 Nov. I love coming home and finding all those posts waiting.

If anyone would like to try an outbound session on me while I am away, I would be happy to provide feedback when i return. An outbound is a training exercise where you attempt to locate where a person is and what he is doing at the present, past or future time. Any information you want to obtain from me is OK by me. I would even be open to a deep mind probe, for those of you who do that sort of thing.

I am traveling quite a bit in the near future, so we can do this several more times if anyone is interested,

All my best Slainte

May the Force be with you,


[Archive Note: Liam, former U.S. Intell RV]

Moderator's Note: Liam, I doubt you'll remember every detail of every second you're gone. ;-) Did you want to assign a few specific times you can keep track of while you're out there? Sounds like fun! -- PJ

[Archivist Note: You can find the outbounder targets on the practice targets page of the Firedocs web site.]

> > Leonard Buchanan wrote: > > You should see some of the stuff presented to me! In fact, you > > should see some of the stuff >>>my own mind<<< presents to me! It > > is because our minds do this to us that we have an analyst's course. > > What you have described happens to us all. That is the very nature > > of AOL's.


So, should we be analyzing (afterward ;-) what our subconscious is trying to tell us? For example, if the target has the color red and our SubC gives us a rose and later we can relate that it was saying that red = rose, can we build up a type of vocab with our SubC or does it just go at random and throw up whatever is handy at the moment like the next time the target has red, it might give us apple. Have the experienced viewers had any luck developing a kind of "sign language" with their subconscious or am I just doing some wishful thinking?



Moderator's Note: Hiya Vickie. Seems like it'd be hard NOT to do that after-session analysis when you're breaking it all down for accuracy doesn't it? You're right that the subconscious seems to work in symbols a lot. Then again, rather than developing a symbol for red, I wish I could just train my subconscious to give me a flash of, or sense of, RED, without the apple symbol being necessary. PJ

re: noises during OBE or bi location.

There is a descent new book called Adventures Out of Body by William Buhlman, recently on the Art Bell show, that discusses the auditory effects that preceed OBE. It is one of the more up to date books and "how to" on the subject. I think he has some good advise on clarifying the imaging, remembering the experience and having conscious control. Also he summarizes much of the physics which might explain the phenomenon. This is very good in my opinion since none of the RV books have really incorporated much in the way of scientific explanation of the phenomenon.

Moderator's Note: No reason to. RV is *NOT* OBE. If you guys would rather discuss OBE however, I can refer you to email lists which do. -- PJ

>One of the other public trainers ... was once telling me >about his session where his target was God.

At the point in that "public trainer's" book where he uses "the coordinates of God" as an RV target, I realized that a major misapprehension was skewing the program. One even more fundamentally off track than the front loading. Rude clod that I am, I couldn't help laughing.

To paraphrase Phil Klass' rebuttal to David Jacobs:

"If God had coordinates, the social consequences would be intolerable!"

Tom C

<< At the point in that "public trainer's" book where he uses "the coordinates of God" as an RV target >>

Excuse me!!! What backroom RV school believes God would let himself/herself be "targeted" by something as mere as a mortal... even if the mortal believes they are some kind of new age RV guru... I smell a "former Army Major" somewhere in this... he should stick to Greys... yes Palyne... this is a flame but offline I told you a story once about religious artifacts and the dangers involved... This type of RV training is dangerous and needs to be squashed by someone who knows real RV when he sees it... I guess I fit the bill since I worked with the best of them and the worst of them... Regards... Gene...

[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]

>Excuse me!!! What backroom RV school believes God would let >himself/herself be "targeted" by something as mere as a mortal...

Somehow I don't think He's quite so far out of touch. Actually, the thing that struck me as so incredibly bizarre in this was the evident assumption that "God" has locality... I doubt anyone's going to suffer eternal damnation for making such an error, but it could certainly divert a person from any sort of effective work in RV.

Gene, a personal e-mail is on the way, ref. this book.

Tom C

>>Excuse me!!! What backroom RV school believes God would let >>himself/herself be "targeted" by something as mere as a mortal...

Hi Gene and all;

If anyone really wants to RV God the coordinates are, according to my mother, God rest her soul, County Cork, Ireland. I also have it on good authority that He keeps a summer cottage near Galway Bay.

Actually, I am not too concerned to have the coordinates to view God. It is enough for me to know He/She has the coordinates to view me.

Best wishes


May the force be with you


[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]


It wasn't an Army man I was referring to, but one of his students, who has since gone on to "greater(?)" things. However, I highly suspect that God's coordinates would be a set of infinite numbers. By the time the viewer got the numbers written down, he would be at the site, anyway, so why do the session?


[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]

> Nope it was not Foucaults book...the title was in fact something > like "Searching for the lost pendulum." Keep looking... /snip/ > Regards...Gene..

Here's why it relates to RV: I believe the book you're looking for is Itzhak Bentov's "Stalking the Wild Pendulum: On the Mechanics of Consciousness" (E.P. Dutton, 1977). Interesting book, fairly hard to find, tho, I think...


<< I believe the book you're looking for is Itzhak Bentov's "Stalking the Wild Pendulum: On the Mechanics of Consciousness" (E.P. Dutton, 1977). Interesting book, fairly hard to find, tho, I think... Bill >>

Give that man a thigh rolled Cuban cigar...that is the name of the book ... anyone who is bent on trying to come up with any other reason other than magic as to why RV works must read this book FIRST...Thanx Bill...everyone thought I was lying... Regards..Gene...

[Archive Note: Gene Kincaid, former U.S. Intell RV]

It seems to be available at -- as of just now:

Stalking the Wild Pendulum : On the Mechanics of Consciousness Itzhak Bentov (usually ships within 2-3 days.) Reprint Edition, Paperback; Inner Traditions, 1988 ISBN: 0892812028


Hi Lyn,

In a fun and interesting post, you wrote:
>Another implication is that the PSI experience is not a desired one >in CRV.

I think what you're saying is that PSI is not desired in CRV for data collection purposes, but can be a lot of fun for 'recreational viewers.' Is that about right? I mean, it sounds like a great experience, but not all that useful, unless someone found a way to take notes during the session. Is there no way to dictate your notes?

I may have had the experience once, though shortlived, but I'm not sure if it was bi-location or dreaming. It felt like I fell asleep during my session (I was a little tired going in!), and I actually found myself walking around on a boat for about 20 seconds, before 'waking up.' The target was a harbour, so it was likely that I was at the right place.

>The first was one where Ed Dames >was my monitor. I knew going into the session that it would be >something to do with the ETs or flying saucers, because that's all he >ever gave us.

So what was the target?? Were you on Mars?

> Oh, well.... war stories abound.

I think these 'war stories' are great. Shouldn't we be encouraging these as practical, real life experiences of veteran viewers? In Canada, on CBC there is a retired announcer who, ocassionally reads stories during AS it Happens, a news programs. He's been dubbed Firside Al (in winter) and Frontporch Al in summer. I think a Fireside Lyn and a Frontporch Paul (Gene, Liam, Joe, Greg) designation would add a little zest and life into this discussion list. (Hey, if CBC can do it during a news show....)

Musings from the North,

Mike CT

Mike CT wrote: >I think what you're saying is that PSI is not desired in CRV for >data collection purposes, but can be a lot of fun for 'recreational >viewers.' Is that about right?

Exactly. I live for the experience.

>..... I mean, it sounds like a great >experience, but not all that useful, unless someone found a way to >take notes during the session. Is there no way to dictate your notes?

The last 3 times it happened to me, I was able to drop in and out of it in repeated rapid succession, living the experience in little bits, then coming back and reporting on it after each little bit. I had been working on a way to do that for a long time, just waiting for the next time when it happened, and sure enough, what I had devised worked. It worked better each of the 3 times, and I am eagerly awaiting for it to happen again. It's great!

(snip) >>The first was one where Ed Dames >>was my monitor. I knew going into the session that it would be >>something to do with the ETs or flying saucers, because that's all >>he ever gave us.

>So what was the target?? Were you on Mars?

Oh. Did I forget to mention that? Yes. The actual physical location of the target site was the pyramids on Mars. The actual tasking was something different, but that was the location tasked.


[Archive Note: Lyn Buchanan, former U.S. Intell RV]

>Re Mind melds. >In military training, did you have to deep probe each other? >How do you know it when its being done to you?

Gene wrote to MaryD: >......Seriously...Mary...forget >the Vulcan Mind "Meld" stuff...too many other things in RV to do >which make sense and are possible... Regards..Gene..

I've been around this stuff for twenty years, Mary, and IMHO there is no such thing as a deep mind probe. Don't worry about it.



[Archive Note: Joseph McMoneagle, former U.S. Intell RV]

November 1997

A form for subscribing / unsubscribing from the Viewer Email Group can be found HERE.

VWR Email Archives Menu
Firedocs Entrance
Top of Page

All contents copyright © 1995-2002 by PJ Gaenir. All rights reserved.