View Full Version : Frontloading Rears Its Ugly Head Yet Again

Dick Allgire
2008-Dec-14 Sun, 19:17
There is currently a discussion about frontloading going on via email. Seven years ago I wrote about this subject for my newsletter, On Target. Just so I don't have to rehash an old subject, I'll paste the text of the article here.

But first- if you were trying to prove remote viewing to someone and you produced data supposedly obtained via remote viewing- would you feel more proud, more legitimate, more open to scientific scrutity if you could say "The viewer had absolutely no knowledge of the target. The viewer was completely blind and was given only a target ID." Or would you feel legitimate if you said, "We told the viewer a little bit about the target, the nature of this target, that it was a missing person case, and the viewer knew this target was being tasked for a police detective in Texas." Which to you seems more legitimate?

It's kind of like saying "I can bench press 280 pounds. Well, actually my spotter helped, but only a little."

Glenn Wheaton has held the viewers at HRVG -without question or debate- to such a high standard, it always amazes me to realize the rest of the RV community doesn't also adhere to such a standard. And I'm always amazed by the number of arguments they muster to justify telling the viewer what the target is!

Anyway, here's the 7, almost 8 year old article on Frontloading.


No subject is more contentious in the remote viewing community than the issue of frontloading. Opinions are diametrically opposed; there are some who work almost exclusively frontloaded and see nothing wrong with it, others who maintain working frontloaded can not even be considered remote viewing, and still others who feel partial frontloading is appropriate.

For those not familiar with the term frontloading, it quite simply means a remote viewer is told all or part of what constitutes the target prior to attempting to obtain data about that target using remote viewing.

In discussing frontloading we first need to define remote viewing. Joe McMoneagle in his book "Remote Viewing Secrets" defines it like this:

"The ability to produce information that is correct about a place, event, person, or object located somewhere in time/space, which is completely blind to the remote viewer."

That definition alone would tend to rule out any form of frontloading. Strict scientific protocols were adopted in the early day of research into remote viewing in order to keep the viewer totally blind to the target.

Coordinate Remote Viewing evolved as a way to use random number cues to associate the target, so that the viewer could work the session with no prior knowledge of the target and be essentially blind.

Since remote viewing has moved into the civilian sector many of the strict scientific protocols have been dropped. Many different activities, including self-guided mediation, are called remote viewing. Some are less exacting than others are. Some people claim they are remote viewing when they take a headline from a newspaper, lie back and ponder a target they may already be familiar with on many different levels.

There are several reasons for continuing to adhere to the scientific protocol. First and most obviously, it is a way to prove that the data was generated by the viewer exhibiting “non local awareness.” If the viewer knows the target ahead of time, how can memory and imagination not be involved?

Being blind to the target is also useful for the viewer, because it removes several types of bias that would vie for bandwidth in the viewer’s awareness. The known aspects of the target are by their very nature stronger than the signal line and can easily overwhelm true target data. In his article Discussions on Remote Viewing (Volume 2, On Target- the RV News) Jimmy Williams writes, “when front loaded, a whole different aspect of mind is interpreting and integrating data. Remote viewing relies on pure associative data in the beginning stages.” Frontloading short-circuits that flow of data.

In CRV methodology there is a concept known as Analytical Overlay, or AOL. From the CRV manual:

“AOLs are dealt with by declaring/objectifying them as soon as they are recognized, and writing "AOL Break" on the right side of the paper, then writing a brief description of the AOL immediately under that. This serves to acknowledge to the viewer's system that the AOL has been recognized and duly recorded and that it is not what is desired, thereby purging the system of unwanted noise and allowing the signal line in its purity to be acquired and decoded properly.”

The term “unwanted noise” certainly applies to frontloading. If subtle data from the subconscious can trigger a flurry of AOLs, then consider the avalanche of analytical overlays that are created by frontloading. It could be more than many viewers should be expected to manage.

Glenn Wheaton, president and chief instructor at the Hawaii Remote Viewers’ Guild says, “remote viewing works because we keep the alert mind minimized. When you frontload a viewer it is no longer remote viewing. It becomes a challenge between logic, reason, imagination, bias, education, and attitude.” Glenn continues, “remote viewing is done blind to give the viewer a buffer between the alert active mind and the subconscious. It makes an area of thought activity where data can bubble up into the primary awareness by-passing the analytic processes.”

Joe McMoneagle has probably the most unblemished reputation in remote viewing. He was viewer #001 at the Fort Meade unit. He is the one viewer who has consistently performed the skill on demand in front of skeptics and before live television cameras. McMoneagle has always kept “above the fray” so to speak, refusing to comment on various methodologies or personalities by name. But he does speak quite frankly on the subject of frontloading.

“Remote Viewing and frontloading do not go together at all, at any time,” he states bluntly.

Joe is equally candid when it comes to so called remote viewers being tasked frontloaded to obtain unknown information about a known target. An example would be telling a group of “viewers” the target is an accident or catastrophic event, giving them specifics, and asking them to produce data about the cause of the event.

“This isn’t remote viewing,” states McMoneagle. “This isn’t even good psychic functioning. All the information derived that way will be tainted and imaginary, and of no value whatsoever.” He also adds it is impossible to distinguish valid information from what the “viewer” already knows. “This has to be assumed,” says Joe, “as information cannot then be segregated from the whole without accusation of bias through foreknowledge, in other words, cheating.”

Joe McMoneagle also has strong words for those who essentially task themselves by working targets they cued, involving aspects of their own life. “You cannot task yourself,’ McMoneagle says. “As soon as you do, you push yourself along a trajectory that is favorable or desirable to you, or one which you might have a preference for.”

There are some members of the RV community who do accept some forms of partial frontloading. Lyn Buchanan, remote viewing instructor and head of Problems Solutions Innovations, believes it is a way to focus the viewer on the important aspects of the target. “Only if it is done correctly,” he says. “Frontloading should never tell the viewer anything about the target. It should only tell the viewer about the task, and where to put his or her attention.

Buchanan suggests this scenario as an example. Say the target site is a resort with sailboats, people on the beach, a big hotel, and palm trees. But the viewer’s task is perhaps a volleyball game. Buchanan says if you give the target to the viewer with no frontloading he may go to the site and describe everything, usually in order of his own personal interests.

Buchanan says, “what if the tasker or monitor had been able to say, at the beginning of the session, ‘Your target is the activity part of the site.’ The viewer would still have to view, would still have to describe, and would have known nothing at all about the targeted site, because no information was imparted. But the viewer would focus on the correct part of the site and would finish the task in a fraction of the time.”

Joe McMoneagle agrees that this type of partial frontloading can be helpful, in certain situations. “There are possibly some remote times when someone would operate outside the ‘being totally blind’ environment,” says McMoneagle. He cites as an example a kidnapping victim. “You could show someone a photograph of an individual and say ‘this person was recently kidnapped. Tell us where they are.’ It would perhaps save a great deal of time.”

Joe McMoneagle suggests “if you simply show then a photograph of the kidnap victim and say something like ‘tell us what we need to know.’ it would be better. Then if they describe a kidnapping instead of a murder, it at least tells you they are in the ballpark and somewhat accurate with whatever information might follow. In other words, you use information you already know but which the viewer doesn't know, to judge the accuracy of what neither of you knows about the target.”

But for the most part McMoneagle takes a hard line approach to frontloading. He prefers a “double blind” situation, meaning the monitor is also blind to the target. “There is some view that frontloading others within the room with a remote viewer is okay,” explains McMoneagle, “since they can guide the viewer to the prerequisite information quicker and save time.”

“The problem with this,” McMoneagle says, “is that by doing such guiding you are steering the remote viewer to produce the information you expect to find and not what might actually be real.”

Can frontloading streamline the process and improve the quality of the data? According to one source, military remote viewers tested frontloading. Those in charge felt it would save time and allow the viewers to focus on the important aspects of the target. Apparently it was not successful, even with highly trained very competent viewers. Viewers reportedly got more substantial data when working blind. Another problem is the human factor. Remote viewers have enough trouble keeping their egos in check working blind. When you allow them to work frontloaded, and remove the rigid structure, it is easy for them to fall prey to their own egos. One source tells us it was an occupational hazard for good military remote viewers to become prima donnas. When they were allowed to work frontloaded they ran the risk of crossing the line to megalomania.

Since the research into frontloading was either done in a classified environment, or perhaps done in a non-classified setting but not published, little is known about controlled studies in this area. According to Joe McMoneagle, very specific testing of the limits to frontloading was done at both SRI as well as SAIC in the 1980’s and 1990’s. “What was found,” McMoneagle tell us, “was an expectation for the valid response to targeting was what actually drove the success in remote viewing, far more so than an inappropriate fronloading.” What Joe means (and this is the view of others experienced in tasking operational remote viewers) is that viewers perform best when they feel that there is some need for the data, that what they are doing is important. That produces better data than tasking the viewer frontloaded.

Since the data has not made it into the remote viewing community at large it will be up to civilian remote viewing organizations to test their own theories and provide data.

One experiment was recently conducted at the Hawaii Remote Viewers’ Guild. The Hawaii guild has the largest collection of experienced viewers assembled in one location. They lead the field in publication of blind, non-frontloaded RV work.

Viewers in the guild work exclusively blind. Most viewers in the group had never even attempted a frontloaded session prior to the experiment, which was conducted with the group’s advanced and operational viewers on February 12, 2001.

The viewers were given the target ID: JBVO-PKSP. Normally they would set out to work the target with no more information than that. In this experiment the viewers were given full target disclosure. In fact they were told the actual target cue.


The viewers were told their job was to provide sketches and data relating to the asteroid and the spacecraft. They were instructed to work the target as they would any other, following their standard structure and methodology, even though they knew the target.

At the conclusion of the session the viewers wrote about the sensations they encountered while working frontloaded. This was not a scientific, controlled experiment, rather a means of obtaining anecdotal impressions from some experienced viewers. Their impressions were uniformly negative.

One viewer said, “This felt too easy. I don’t have any confidence in the data.” Another viewer reported the data felt “counterfeit.”

In the words of yet another viewer, “frontloaded targets are too filled with preconceptions to obtain any solid data. I have no confidence in any of the work. I was constantly rejecting visuals and impressions because they failed to fit the announced target. I’m sure that all my work is contaminated and I would not submit it if choice were allowed. Frontloading is totally dishonest, no way to prove that remote viewing works.”

Just about all the viewers who worked the frontloaded target said it felt strange and uncomfortable, that they were distracted and felt “disjointed.”

What the viewers who took part in this exercise seemed to learn in their foray into frontloading, is that successful remote viewing is directly related to noise management. Working frontloaded with total target disclosure simply adds more noise to the viewer’s awareness than any human, any remote viewer should be expected to filter. It puts them in a position where they have to deal with more noise from different sources than they would normally confront in a blind target.

There is one important and sometimes overlooked reason for requiring remote viewing to be done blind. It is the only way remote viewing will ever have a chance of being accepted by the scientific community and then by the public at large. Working blind was the standard set in the early days of research, and civilian remote viewing organizations would do well to maintain that. It is a way to keep the field pure, it helps eliminate fraud, and it holds viewers to a higher standard. And it would give remote viewers a base from which to judge the efficacy of their work, and maybe even eliminate one of the contentious areas in a field that has too much controversy already.

Joe McMoneagle sums it up this way. “There are no good times for front loading under any circumstances. You either remote view appropriately or you don't.”

Glenn B. Wheaton
2008-Dec-15 Mon, 00:59
Aloha Dick,

Nice article and very current with the ongoing discussions in email. I hope others read and heed the need to keep the lines between being a psychic and a Remote Viewer separate. It keeps us a bit more grounded when we look at the task at hand. If you think about it the Remote Viewing experience should be more for the benefit of the viewer and not a client. It may sound a bit narcissistic but I like how I feel about what I am after feedback on a good session. I feel that I have grown beyond the mold that most of the world lives within. I feel I am growing, reaching, seeking. To science it is an illogical possibility that Remote Viewing is viable, but we continue to make the case for it as a human potential by measuring performance within some fairly strict rules. In the future when science has discovered the pathways and mechanism used by Remote Viewers the RV history will be rewritten. From the net they will glean all of this old RV traffic and be able to reconstruct the words and thoughts of the people who pushed the correct ideas and performance that led to the intellectual evolution of consciousness beyond the one.

At Hrvg we have no real need to change protocol in regards to frontloading, but don't be surprised that others flirt with it as they wrestle within their own organizations. Some ideas take a long time to solidify and it takes time for a standard to emerge. I tend to think that those that accept frontloading are trying to beat the clock or cut to the chase when they may in fact not be ready to do so. I also think it highlights the fact that there is an unsung hero in the RV process, that being a monitor who can work a viewer at target to maximize viewer performance. A good monitor is a definite collection multiplier.

I think Richard Ireland solved the mystery of what most people seek which is some type of abstract magical or psychic knowing, and for his time he was a bright shinning star. Those around him could not compare him to anyone else and he lived a very full life being what they could not be. When we asked him to train us it was a unique request. We in effect asked him to replicate himself. He did it because despite the personal gain and ego he enjoyed he understood the need for it, and as you know we continue that task to this very day.


daz smith
2008-Dec-15 Mon, 09:44
I respect your opinions as much as anyone's but as they say you cant judge a man till you walk in his shoes. Front loading is an invaluable tool when working on SOME operational targets. For example missing persons cases.

Also as I said by email HRVG did more than participate in the climate change project and this was front loaded as we all signed up knowing it was a climate change project and this is front loading.

I tend to think that those that accept frontloading are trying to beat the clock or cut to the chase when they may in fact not be ready to do so. I also think it highlights the fact that there is an unsung hero in the RV process, that being a monitor who can work a viewer at target to maximize viewer performance. A good monitor is a definite collection multiplier.
Correct on both counts. As I now pay people to particpate as viewers on projects as like all professional this is time based then I want them on target getting data ASAP to keep the cost down and to also only focus on relevant data for the particular client. Yes beating the clock - but this doent invalidate the data - we still keep it very clean and would only use minimal front loading:
the target is a life
the target is a structure
the target is an event

Bearing in mind that the groups I work with are based all over the globe so monitored sessions just are not feasible. But if you guys can monitor all the session work then yes go with this as an aid.

But as I said when it comes to doing real projects for real clients - you'll find that there valid instances where front loading can be used. But not all the time as sparingly as possible.

Also the joe quote

“Remote Viewing and frontloading do not go together at all, at any time,” he states bluntly.
Is very strange as I have at least one front loaded rv session from Joe 10 mins after the Oaklahola bomb struck when he 'self' did a session and passed it to the FBI through Ed May. So even he in operational use - used front loading.

All the best...

Daz Smith

Glenn B. Wheaton
2008-Dec-22 Mon, 01:51
Thought is real and the rest is an illusion. I think what is more important than any external help such as frontloading is the ability to manage your own thought. If you can isolate how the viewer must think to view then there is no need for frontloading. It will keep your thoughts in the viewer's world and not in the life library as you begin to associate what someone has told you. I view frontloading with a certain amount of disdain because it takes more of your thoughts away from the traveling mind.

The climate project was indeed polluted as a result of its label but it was not a Guild project and we discussed it before we decided to participate. I believe the CRV folks had an online video chat before the project on that same issue. It is difficult to say what a person can or can't do with what they know, but I do know what a person who knows nothing can produce. Daz I see the dilemma you face with focusing on missing persons and keeping a blind condition. I think Lyn with his Assigned Witness Program wrestles with the same problem. Lyn has adopted a training attitude in regards to frontloading but I am still of a mind to keep my folks developing as viewers and not psychics. There are other ways to tackle repetitive subject matter targets without resorting to frontloading.

A very big issue not discussed much is that frontloading could be used as a tool of deception and misrepresentation. By providing back to a client a session with data associated with the frontloading and not a genuine examination by Remote Viewing, it would seem unethical. I would value more the pristine data by the viewer who was not frontloaded.