Remote Viewing introduction

As promised in my earlier blog, here's an introduction to the technique of remote viewing; the ability to perceive remote places or events by conjuring up information about them in one’s mind.

As I mentioned in the last blog, if the Influence Idea is correct, then the physical universe around us is a collaborative construction by minds, an idea that many famous quantum physicists almost a century ago also concluded was true. This idea is also supported by a large number of experiments that have been carried out using rigorous scientific techniques since then, a body of research that is reported on, for example, by Dean Radin in his recent book 'Supernormal', a book I recently reviewed.

There are many fascinating consequences to this idea. One key consequence is that since our minds originate from outside the space-time fabric of the physical universe, we potentially can perceive any moment in time and space. Clearly, this is would not be an easy thing to do, even if it was possible. Normally, we perceive events or places only with the eyes and ears of the bodies we inhabit, at least during our waking hours, but it would seem to be theoretically possible.

Fortunately, according to a whole pile of evidence, there are a lot of people who didn't just think about it being a possibility, but actively pursued it as a skill.

Remote viewing as a career

psi-spies-jim-marrs
My knowledge of the existence of remote viewing story began (as far as I can remember) in around 2008 with the fascinating book ‘PSI Spies: The True Story of America's Psychic Warfare Program’ by Jim Marrs. In his book, Marrs writes engagingly about the development in the U.S. of a military funded programme of remote viewing. In the 1970's Russell Targ (a laser specialist) and Harold Puthoff (a quantum physicist) were asked by the military to investigate the possibility of remote viewing. The US military had heard that the Russians were successfully developing skills in this area and they didn't want to fall behind. Puthoff and Targ were open to the possibility that such an ability was possible and tested the phenomena in a scientific way. They brought in Ingo Swann, a New Yorker, as a test subject. With Swann's help, they rapidly realised that it was possible for someone to pick up information about a remote location. Swann and the others refined their techniques and developed a procedure that worked best for a remote viewer when gathering information about a target scene.

The programme was a success. For the next twenty years, at least one team of remote viewers worked for the US military and gathered an enormous amount of detailed information about a wide variety of targets.
margins-of-reality
The US Military weren't the only people discovering that remote viewing was a practical ability that many people were capable of performing. In the 1970's, Professor Robert Jahn of Princeton University investigated a very strange phenomenon; that someone could affect the output of an electronic random number generator simply by mental intent. The phenomenon was first shown to the professor by one of his graduate students. Jahn, rather than dismissing this report, was intrigued. He performed the tests himself; the results were the same. The effect was small but reproducible. The subject concerned could be physically distant from the RNG machine but, over a period of time, could still change the RNG's. Jahn set up a research group to pursue this research with Brenda J. Dunne. The group was named Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research or P.E.A.R.. Over many years, the group carried out a huge number of experiments and showed, beyond all statistical and methodological doubt, that the effect was real.

Alongside this work on influencing an RNG machine, Jahn’s group also explored a person’s ability to be aware of information about a remote location. Jahn found that all the subjects who took part in the tests were able to retrieve information from those remote locations. It was clear from those tests that remote viewing wasn't only possible, it was something that many people could do.

After I read these books and other related material, I felt I had to try it myself. Here's how I got on.

My personal experiences

remote-view-test-targets
After reading both these books, I couldn’t let go of the idea of remote viewing. Jim Marrs’ book might have been a bit of exploitative, conspiracy theorist genre froth but its claims tallied with the work of a Princeton Professor working in an entirely different area. I decided to have a go myself. I searched on the internet for examples of remote viewing. Fortunately, there are resources out there if a person wants to test this ability out. For example, I found the greater reality website which has eight remote viewing targets for someone to try. As you can see from the accompanying image, each site as an ID code. It can seem impossible that you can pick up information about a remote location, image, event or object with nothing more than a four-letter code, but I can vouch that it really is all you need.

I tried all eight of the targets. Unfortunately, I no longer have the notes I made but I do have strong memories of the process. The notes I made tallied with the actual targets to a degree far greater than chance. I was not able to describe the targets in accurate detail, but as a first stab at remote viewing, I made more than enough progress to be encouraged to keep working on this ability.

After that, I did no remote viewing for years. I don’t know why; it’s not as though I had no spare time to do the work. I think it’s important to note that remote viewing is a calm, introspective and patient exercise that produces only the most ephemeral and tenuous of feedback. In our modern world of computer games, smartphones, social networking and other distractions, it can be very difficult to push all that aside, go into a quiet room and sit there in silence, drawing out information from your mind about a target as though you were carefully drawing a fragile thread out of a well.

Fortunately, as I'm currently writing full-time, I can arrange time where I can be quiet and un-distracted and in the last six months, I've been able to do some more remote viewing. I've make records of how I got on when remote viewing using an internet-based remote viewing service. I'll describe three below. This way, you can see how I went about a remote viewing, what problems I encountered and my level of success.

1. Remote Viewing Session [9875-6598] - 4th November 2014:

Here's my remote viewing notes for the session. As it was my first session in a long while, I didn't try and investigate the target extensively, I just hoped I'd be able to write a page's worth and be vaguely correct!

s-9875-6598-rv-600px

Step 1: Write down the reference code and date of session.

I usually start my session by writing down the reference number for the target at the top-left of a piece of plain, A4, unlined paper. This reference number is also known as the coordinate (note: please don’t regard me as a definitive guide to these remote viewing terms, I often get them wrong!). After writing down the number, I often run my finger slowly over it at the start of a session, as if it’s a piece of braille that I’m reading. I have no idea whether this is necessary or not, but it feels like a good idea.

Step 2: First sensations

At this point in the process, I usually cover my eyes with my hand and try and block out external stimuli; traffic noises, bright lights, music playing etc. It’s really easy to be distracted in a remote viewing session. For example, the U.S. military remote viewers tried to reduce their distraction by working in a room with grey walls and utilitarian furniture.

At this first stage in the process, I try to let information come into my mind about the target. It’s a bit like retrieving a distant memory. It’s also like trying to picture a scene who’s constituents are extremely foggy and tenuous, like a photograph that’s been fogged out and you have to re-assemble it chemically. You can even think of it as putting together inside your head someone else’s memory.

The first information I receive about a target is often the defining aspect of the scene, as well as a feeling of atmosphere or a strong emotion; the meaning and vibe of the scene. For example, in this first remote viewing example, I picked up something moving fast from right to left, along with a billowing cloud and an air of anxiety, fear, panic and hurried movement.

Step 3: Scene components

Immediately after receiving the vibe of the scene, I began to pick up the first, vague, foggy visual components of the scene. It can be very useful to draw a sketch at this point. Not only does sketch drawing help record mental information that isn't easily translated into words, but it also can trigger and encourage further information about the target to be drawn up into your mind. As you can see from the scanned page above, I drew a diagram for this test.

NOTE: Don’t guess!

This is a good point in the process to say something very important to anyone starting out with remote-viewing, ’Don’t guess!’. This is the absolutely biggest problem that I’ve faced so far when remote viewing. I always get the temptation to guess what the target is during a session. I often want to do well at remote viewing and rapidly work out in detail the identity of the target; mostly out of ego. This possibility of rapid success is very alluring but if I do start guessing, everything goes to pot. This is known in RV circles as Analytical Overlay or AOL. In other words, if you use your brain to work out what’s there, it will give you much clearer stuff, but it's all a lie. Your fleshy brain has no idea about what the target actually is. The true information about the target isn’t coming from your brain, it’s coming from the ethereal realm.

Over time, I've got better at spotting when AOL has crept in and how not to let it creep in. Firstly, don't name things during the remote viewing process or say something is like a named thing. In other words, don’t pick up information about an object in the target scene and then conclude ‘that’s a train’ or ‘that’s a car’ or ‘that’s a West London Bangladeshi grocer with a penchant for Bangra music’. Instead, talk about what the objects or living things in the target scene possess; their shapes, the material they’re made from, their size, their presence, whether they’re hollow or solid. If those objects seem to be a person, then note down what you perceive about their mood, their state of mind, their behaviour and so on. Names identify things; which is very useful for normal life but that process is very much a brain activity and it seems to positively hamper the accuracy of a remote viewing session.

Step 4: Develop the scene

This first remote viewing session is quite a brief one, so I can't use it to describe more in-depth remote viewing stages. Let's move straight on to finding out the accuracy of the session.


Step 5: Download the target pdf

The moment of truth! After filling up my page with notes and a diagram, I download the target pdf file from the remote viewed website and saw the target. As you can see from the illustration opposite it was the shooting of Ronald Reagan in 1981.

reagan-shot-pics
It’s fascinating to study how my notes relate to the actual target event. Not surprisingly, you can’t see a bullet flying across the screen in the photos but the remote viewing notes are dominated by a ‘small thing, high motion, right to left, billowing cloud, threat of danger, thin rod', which makes sense since that was the most meaningful part of that event. Remote viewing in my experience is invariably dominated by meaning and emotional content and the visual content is far more elusive and difficult to retrieve.

I hope that with more experience, I'll be able to work out in future sessions that ‘small thing, high motion, right to left, billowing cloud, threat of danger, thin rod' refers to a bullet. Note that I wouldn't say 'I'm picking up a flying bullet!' during the session, as that only increases the chances of analytical overlay; I'd do it after the session ended, when I'm reviewing my notes.

To be honest, Ronald Reagan didn't come off very well in this remote viewing. He is the ‘central figure, dark, motion, old, blank’. As I type this, I’m looking at the pictures above and remembering what I picked up in the remote viewing session (by the way, I’ve found that what I’ve picked up in remote viewing sessions becomes a strong memory for a while and it is straightforward to review that memory for weeks or months). Reagan comes across as really blank in my remote viewing, almost like he’s asleep or in a daze. By comparison, the other figure I picked up in the scene, the one who was anxious and shouting (pale figure to the right) seemed normal, just animated and worked-up. I know Reagan always comes across as a bit languid in media reports but I had no idea he was that blank; the man is hardly there.

Remote Viewing Session [7319-9746] - 7th November 2014:

I won’t describe the process in detail for this one. As you can see from the notes, I picked up a pretty clear scene after writing down the reference code number. Unfortunately, I think I picked a lousy time to carry out my second remote viewing session, as a fireworks display was kicking off in the beer garden of a nearby pub; it was very distracting! Eventually, I gave up trying to concentrate on my target and went to bed.

s-7319-9746-rv-600px

The next morning, I tried again to focus on the target. This time, I could still pick up the first scene but I also picked up another, very different scene. As the notes described, this second scene was tranquil, calm, natural, a flat expanse of either meadow or grass. There was a big sky above and a feeling of remoteness, not so much harsh loneliness but more separated from the hustle and bustle. In the distance stood something large, which seemed to be a hill. At this point, I didn’t know what to do. Which scene was correct? I had no idea. I stopped the remote viewing work and downloaded the pdf, to try and solve this confusion. Here’s the picture of the actual target:

mont-st-michel

As you can clearly see, it’s Mont St Michel in France. The actual target matched the second scene I picked up in my remote viewing efforts, but was completely different to the first scene I picked up. If I had worked on my second scene, I might have done quite well but I really had no idea which scene was correct and so I guessed with my big, fat, opinionated brain that the first scene that I picked up was probably correct because it was more dramatic. This is a good example of the 'expectation of what a remote viewing target will be' ruining the accuracy of your work.

If you do pick up two distinct scenes, it's probably worth writing them both down in as much detail as you can. You never know, one of them may be your actual target and the other may turn out to be something possibly even more interesting.

Remote Viewing Session [8824-6148] - 12th November 2014:

In this remote viewing session, I picked up a single, distinct scene after writing down the coordinate number. The target started out quite dark and grey in my mind but a single object soon ‘phased’ into view, a heavy, dark object with angled sides. I didn’t find the target appealing; it exuded a powerful and somewhat dominating air, as if it was a modern, almost sci-fi medieval keep. I don’t know if other remote viewers always get an emotional response to what they see but I seem to get an emotional feeling about a scene nearly every time. Here's the notes for this session:

s-8824-6148-rv-600px
After filling the page with notes, I downloaded the pdf and viewed my target:

brasilia-cathedral


It’s the cathedral in Brasilia, Brazil.

It was interesting that I didn’t pick up the whiteness of the cathedral, only the dark glass. It’s also interesting that there’s no sign of any motion in the foreground, although the road does sweep around in a curve. I’ve no idea whether I was picking up this sweep or perhaps that I was viewing it when it was busy. Maybe I’ll be able to spot the difference in future.

That completes the remote viewing examples. I hope they've been useful. As you can see from the examples above, remote viewing seems to be both possible and a capable way of retrieving real and correct information about a target location. The orthodox view of remote viewing is that it is delusional nonsense but, as we can see from what I've been doing, as well as the large amounts of evidence from the U.S. military and other sources, it clearly isn't nonsense. I've only spent about twenty hours remote viewing in my entire life and yet the drawing above matches many of the features of the target I was focussing on. It does seem to be a demonstration that the 'minds make reality' idea isn't just an abstract idea, it is an entirely different but scientifically accurate way of looking at reality.

Before winding up this blog entry, I thought I'd put forward an interesting idea.

When I complete a remote viewing session, I've created a meaningful representation in my mind of the target place/event. It's very interesting that this representation, in its form and behaviour, is very similar to a memory, at least for me. While thinking about this, I had a strange thought; what if the act of remembering is a form of remote viewing?

In a sense, the act of remembering is very similar to the act of remote viewing; you are seeking information about an event remote to you in space and/or time. The key difference between remembering and remote viewing is that in the case of remembering, you've personally experienced that event. This, understandably, should give you an advantage when it comes to the quality and reliability of the information you retrieve. Also, the act of remembering is something we've all been doing for most of our lives and something we all accept is real and normal, which should also give it a great advantage over the strange act of remote viewing. This big difference in practice, familiarity and belief could explain why remembering is regarded as normal and remote viewing as impossible. But if we strip away those layers of familiarity, belief and acceptability, it could be that the act of remembering is the subset of remote viewing that focusses on personally physically experienced, past events. If this is true, then it means that virtually all of us can remote view. The only obstacles to us becoming excellent remote viewers are practice, technique and motivation.

I can imagine that a lot of people will think that all this is bonkers. That's okay, it is perfectly understandable to think that way, but why not try it anyway? If you find it works, it may profoundly change your understanding of reality, the mind and human abilities.

important postscript: Since writing this article, I have read a few books on the involvement of the secret services in remote viewing and other traditionally esoteric activities. I feel duty bound to point at that there is anecdotal evidence and testimonies from various individuals that certain clandestine groups do not want members of the public to become adept in remote viewing and will go to rather nasty lengths to prevent anyone becoming adept at this ability. If you don't think RV is possible, you don't have to worry. If you do think RV is possible, you try it and you develop some ability in it, I would strongly recommend that you tread very carefully when sharing your success with organisations whose members you don't know personally, however benign and friendly they may appear. The statements I have read might be paranoid ramblings, but I feel I must pass on their warnings regardless.