Origins of the Ft. Meade RV Program
The Interview, continued
Have you seen any work in the civilian world - in the various schools of RV - that reaches the level of work done in the military, when it was used as an intelligence tool? At the risk of tooting our own horn, I think Project Erminmink done at Hawaii Remote Viewers’ Guild might be the closest example of intelligence grade material done by civilian remote viewers. [www.hrvg.org, under the PROJECTS link "Erminmink."]
The report on PROJECT ERMINMINK was well written and nicely presented. As you can see from my comments above I have little interest in its intelligence value.
Are you aware of any other remote viewing programs, other than Star Gate, within the military?
Do you think the real history of RV will ever be told?
What is real history?
Is this a skill that just about anyone can learn? We've heard it said that it is a natural skill inherent in humans. But do you have to be a "natural" to get really good?
What does it take to train a normal person off the street to an operational level?
As you can see, I am no longer interested in addressing this question. I would suggest wondering, “What does it take for a person to realize their consciousness extends beyond the confines of their physical body?”
RV in the civilian world has been joined at the hip with aliens, UFOs, and the like. How do you feel about that?
Occasionally, during challenge-target training, I used targets that had to do with extraterrestrials or unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Since, by protocol, the remote viewers never knew when I would use one of these targets, they were blind as to what they were remote viewing. None of these controversial challenge targets was ever directed or approved by higher military authority. I was the Operations and Training Officer and the sole authority on the use of these as training targets. The information resulting from these training sessions was never officially reported and, presumably, has been destroyed in the years since the project was closed.
The controversy surrounding the use of remote viewing for exploring these topics is worth mentioning. From some scientist’s perspective, such targets are a detriment to acceptance of remote viewing. Their view seems to be that comparing a viewer’s description with an observable object or location will eventually lead to an understanding of the phenomena and its acceptance as a valid human perceptual ability. With UFO targets there is hardly ever anything to compare with a remote viewer’s description. Additionally, any association with the UFO phenomena may be seen by some as pejorative and, therefore, best avoided.
Alternatively, more adventuresome folks who feel that since remote-viewing surveillance is unbound by the constraints of time and space (as we understand them) believe it is the ideal technique for exploring the extraterrestrial and UFO realm. However, several of these people have become overzealous and have forgotten that the information stream objectified by a remote viewer can be erroneous or valid or a mixture of both. Remote viewers themselves are of little help in determining which. Therefore, without some sort of protocol to determine if the remote viewer acquired the target and, if so, how well he or she described information of interest about the target, such remote viewing sessions may amount to nothing but folly.
My feeling is that the use of remote-viewing surveillance as a corroborative information source concerning UFO reports is appropriate. If a thousand people in Phoenix, Arizona report seeing a UFO on a certain date (as has happened) it seems logical to find out if local radar detected anything or if there is any photographic evidence of such a sighting (which there was). It also seems logical to me that remote-viewing surveillance of that particular space-time coordinate, carefully tasked with appropriate “blinding” protocols, would provide further information of interest. Enough said.
In your presentation at the RV conference you told a story of a viewer watching an agent reading a newspaper in a city somewhere. The monitor told the viewer to read the newspaper. This brings up the question of VISUALS in remote viewing. So many schools discount visual data. Is it possible for a viewer to actually see the target?
The answer to the second question is that remote viewing is not seeing. Even in the case of seeing with our physical eyes, the images in our minds are merely mental projections of “reality” and not the Cartesian, true reality we think it is. In remote viewing you obviously can't physically look at the target. At best, you might be able to describe what the target might look like if you could see it (imagination, so to speak). Now, as to your first question about “reading” a newspaper:
Beyond sealed envelopes and coordinates, another type of target of interest to SRI involved letters and words. If a remote viewer could describe objects and activities, could s/he “read” information blocked by time, distance, or shielding? In this type of session words were randomly selected though a complex, multilevel system.
In an office in another building, the letters making up these words were inscribed on cards and prominently displayed. The viewers knew they were attempting to read a word displayed in designated place. They were cued to try to connect with the designated area and describe the prominently displayed words.
This provided some intriguing information about remote viewing. When words were accurately reported, it was easy to assume that the viewer had connected with individual letters and put them together to form the words. (I won't even get into a possible telepathic explanation here.) To test this concept, the SRI researchers mixed up the letters of the word when they put it up for display. For example if the randomly selected word was C A T T L E the scientist put the letters T E L C T A written on cards on display in the room. But the remote viewers still reported the correct word, CATTLE, not the jumbled letters.
So can a remote viewer see words or read? Maybe. But I find it easier to say that a remote viewer can “describe” information about written material.
Do you have any ideas about the mechanics or physics of how and why remote viewing is possible?
What do you see for the future of remote viewing?
Wait a minute. I'll close my eyes, relax a bit, and let you know. :- )
F. Holmes “Skip” Atwater
Copyright © 2001, H.R.V.G.
All rights reserved.
·Discussions on RV
·The CRV Conference