Aloha DDG,
It seems that you have applied yourself fairly well in being open-minded in considering some of the available information about Remote Viewing In General as well as doing some online homework on the topic. I will endeavor to fill in some data for you.
One is being asked to consider the existence or viability of an “Effect” that occurs when a sensory collection methodology is exercised within a scientific protocol. We will call this effect the “RV Effect”. RV for Remote Viewing. The task would be to, within the protocol, show evidence of the effect, or no evidence of the effect.
The protocol is the overall collection scheme as well as data handling to satisfy the need for scientific clarity. Examples of protocol would include such things as double blind tasking for the viewers as well as blind conditions for the Analyst and on those occasions when a monitor is needed. 99.9% of HRVG work is double blind.
Remote Viewing was developed as an intelligence collection platform by the US Army and is considered to be cognitive research (Paranormal). It deals primarily with the acquisition of non-local data. This would be data that is shielded in some way from the viewer. Either by space, time, distance, or some other obstacle to direct access.
It is never 100% and most viewers’ function somewhere between 15 to 35% accuracy. Some viewers are indeed better at collecting data via RV than others. These are often referred to as naturals. It is not unusual to see 75% or better on some occasions from such viewers. All viewers have cycles of contact. This means there is a steady rise and fall in demonstrated ability or a period of time.
The RV community is quite large and is mainly organized around the ex-military viewers. Some of these are LT Colonel William Ray, Chief Warrant Officer 4 Joseph McMoneagle, Major Paul Smith, Major Edward Dames, Major David Moorehouse, Capt Skip Atwater, Capt Gabrielle Pettingell, SFC Lyn Buchanan, and myself SFC Glenn Wheaton.
There are other Military viewers but they have not decided to, or decline to teach. There are several civilians who are teaching and some of these include Dr. Courtney Brown of Emery Univ (Farsight), Dr. Wayne Carr, Prudence Calabrese, Jonina Dourif, and several others I will omit for the sake of brevity.
There are in-fact different methods of RV, but all RV should, and most is, conducted within the scientific protocol.
HRVG is an approved Non-profit organization. We are not a business and do not intend to be a business. We are primarily a research and publication entity. We train viewers and standardize protocol issues such as Analysis, Monitoring, and the Collection platform in general.
I will explain a bit about our methodology so you are getting the data from the top. While Valtra put some good information out above on it, I think I can add to it a bit.
To start with we have a fixed format for the viewer to provide data. This is referred to within the HRVG as the protocols/methodology. The viewer is trained to collect data within this protocol.
We use a series of Stages to collect and record the data. These stages are titled S-1 through S-8. I will review a few of them so you get an idea of what the viewer in HRVG actually does. In S-1 the viewer is primarily being trained to identify a specific place where the subconscious can display visual data. This space is called blackboard. The S-1 Visids is the initial collection of visual data from this viewer created blackboard. The human does not normally look or scan for visuals in this method and is tailored to train the subconscious to generate visuals from the right side of the brain and be collected when the viewer looks at blackboard.
This is considered to be a very low-level gestaltic image of the double-blind target. Normally 3 iterations of the visid exercise are conducted with all the data recorded in the required format. Still in S-1 the viewer generates a series of spontaneous ideograms (sponids) and then probes these sponids with the stylus or pen for other low-level gestaltic data. Once this is complete it is on to a collection matrix called Playfair where the viewer begins to collect low-level imagery and begins to associate other sensory data (sounds, smells, tastes, temperatures, textures) to the visual data. The source of this data comes from continued probing of the sponids.
It is at this point the viewer is given training in Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) and is taught to work a second data collection matrix (S-2 Nimo Playfair). The odd little Spiderman face is actually an NLP Probing icon or a Neuro Interrogation Mask Overly I.E. NIMO. The NLP technique is a basic reverse trigger to the subconscious to supply a specific type of data such as visuals, sounds, or kinesthetic.
Once the second collection matrix is complete we take a wee bit of time to dump any words or sounds from our awareness. This data is recorded in S-2 Phonics. It is primarily a place to dump junk and garbage from our minds before we continue. Then it’s on to S-3 or the site sketch. The intent here is to take the low-level gestaltic information previously collected and give it some sort of order in a single page. The viewer will attempt to associate the different gestalts within the S-3 site sketch.
Once this is complete it is on to S-4 Cascade and the viewer will take the major gestalts and summarize them in a legend of sorts. Land, water, air, structures, etc. The task in S-4 is to take the gestalts and look at them each individually. The viewer will have a Blackboard rush page where he/she will look at this gestalt on blackboard and render a graphic representation. In addition they will fill out a cascade galley on the gestalt and record their impressions about the gestalt using the NIMO probing icon.
Once S-4 is complete the viewer will do 2 exercises to push their primary awareness down to cause a theta brainwave state to be dominant. The first exercise is called edging. Edging is an exercise where the viewer does a breathing exercise to off-gas carbon dioxide. This is intended to induce a mild shallow water blackout forcing the theta spike a bit higher. If the Edging exercise fails to create the desired altered state the viewer continues a second exercise called priming, which is a wearisome mental exercise, which literally forces sleep.
It is at this threshold between sleep and awake that the monitor is brought as S-5 begins to record the information collected by the viewer as well as keep them in that little place between sleep and awake. The monitor is not allowed to lead the viewer in anyway and cannot ask questions about any data that was not previously collected in the earlier stages of viewing. This altered state lasts perhaps 15 min to 45 min depending on the viewer’s ability to maintain the altered state.
After the S-5 is completed the viewer will diarize their experience in an S-6 summary. S-7 is a complex exercise of location determining and not all targets include this stage.
The S-8 is a document that is completed after all the data has been collected and analyzed. Analysis is primarily a three-tiered affair with 3 documents being generated. The first is a data extraction matrix, which isolates into a matrix the data collected in the session. The second is a set of analytical working notes on the session work. The third is a scenario generated by the analyst based on the working notes.
I think that summarizes the methodology used at HRVG.
It takes about six months to get a viewer through the training. The intent of the methodology is to isolate the primary left-brain awareness doing administrative tasks while the data is collected from the right brain. Every effort is geared to simplified collection of data within a methodology and within a protocol acceptable to the scientific community.
This post is long enough so I will defer to the next one for additional information.
Aloha Glenn Wheaton