Seeing Is Believing

“Trouble with you is the trouble with me, you got two good eyes but you still don’t see.” – The Grateful Dead

One of the big disappointments for many Remote Viewing students is the realization that what they’re being taught (by most schools) is not really remote viewing; rather remote perception.

When we first read about it in books, and heard interviews with Ingo Swann, Joe McMoneagle, Mel Riley and others they talked about seeing the target. Being there, looking around in a 3-D virtual reality.

That’s what we wanted to do. Then as we learned SRV, and practiced with our TRV tapes, we learned there was really no visual imagery involved. You don’t see a tree, you probe a mark on your paper with our pen and the idea of a tree pops into your head. What a letdown. There is a huge difference between having the idea of a tree enter your mind, and actually seeing it. Certainly it is remarkable that humans can learn to work various protocols and have correct ideas about a target pop into their head. But that’s not experiential. Its not viewing.

And make no mistake, the hotshots like McMoneagle, Swann, Riley and others were having an experiential event. They were seeing. If you’ve read Remote Viewers by Jim Schnable you might recall an incident where a remote viewer entered a super secret facility and actually read the code name on a top secret file. He didn’t just sit at a table and probe his paper to get that. He was there.

So how come the major schools of remote viewing are not teaching students how to see the target? Its a good question. No one has answered it to my satisfaction.

People watching on the sidelines have had the same questions. Here is a post from Edward Slayton on The Larger Universe Bulletin Board (courtesy Prudence Calabrese):

“The amazingly accurate data that must have been obtained from these viewers (or should I say Psychic Warriors) is supposedly not possible with conventional techniques. (Courtney, Pru, Ed, and others (ALL unaffiliated of course))”

Edward Slayton

In our Hawaii classes we are learning to go there and grab the visuals. Elsewhere on this web site you will see sketches drawn by our viewers which you can compare to a photo of the target site. Is there any doubt these viewers have seen the target?

I can speak from experience. I’m still just a student with a long way to go, but I’ve had my moments. I sat in the cockpit of an SR-71 spy plane and saw the gauges, dials and control panels. It was baffling to me, since I’d never seen the inside of an SR-71 before. The layout is unlike any other aircraft. So when I was suddenly confronted with a crystal clear image of that cockpit I didn’t know what to make of it. I sketched as best I could what I had seen. When our instructor handed me the target envelope and I took the photo out…..well, it was a mind blowing experience. Its one thing to probe a column on a piece of paper and come up with a concept of “cockpit” and “altimeter.” It is quite another to look at these things in clear and stunning detail.

I worked one target and felt I was having a terribly bad session. Probing my ideograms and working my matrix produced little data. No structures. No humans. It seemed a barren landscape. Later in the session when it came to look at the target I was confronted with an eerie yet beautiful vista of cracks. A latticework that almost resembled a spider’s web. I couldn’t put it in context. (Our class had been working on down to earth verifiable site targets- places on earth that have rocks and trees and manmade structures and people and machines. This target was from another source.) It made no sense in terms of probing for perceptual data. Looking was a different thing altogether.

I kept going back to it and looking, looking down on a complex latticework. Cracks? A web? I looked and looked. The image was very strong and I was able to hold it. I sketched it, several times. Then I ended the session and got the feedback. The target was Jupiter’s moon Europa. Out of curiosity I called up some NASA images on the internet and was astounded to see a photo of the surface of Europa. Again. I had been there. My sketches matched the space probe images exactly. When I saw the photos I thought to myself, “I’ve been there.”

I worked a beaconing target and found myself in a department store with people speaking German. I saw a man in an overcoat strolling through the store looking at men’s clothing. I sketched what I had seen. Its amazing the detail you can get from being there for even 10 seconds. The target was a man at a department store in Germany shopping for men’s clothes. I contacted the beacon (guy at the store) and gave him details there were not included in the paragraph of feedback provided on the net.

When one of members of the Hawaii Guild draws Amelia Earhart’s face and the sketch looks like it could have been traced from the target photo, that is not remote perception. It is remote viewing.

When when one of our viewers draws the curves and a slope and support beams of a roller coaster- a sketch that could have come from the blueprint for that structure- that is not remote perception. It is remote viewing.

When five of us drew a sketch of the man doing a beacon target, and those sketches look like they could have been made by police artists rendering 5 wanted posters of the same man, that is not remote perception. We saw the guy.

So how do we in the Hawaii Remote Viewer’s Guild see the target? Its not an easy thing to learn. I studied remote viewing for about 7 months before I even got a glimpse of a shadowy, blurry image.

In the early stages our protocols are very similar to what is taught in CRV, TRV, SRV, and other programs. We write down the target number and execute a spontaneous ideogram. This is exactly what I learned at the Farsight Institute, and it is what I learned in PSI Tech TRV Module One.

Then we probe the ideogram. We touch the pen to the line on the paper (as a way to query our sub) and instantly know if it is hard or semi-hard, semi-soft or soft, or perhaps wet or slippery. We advance to probing for colors, sounds, smells and tastes, temperatures, and textures, just like they do in a TRV session or and SRV session.

Let me go off on a tangent here for a moment about protocols. That line on the paper is not really hard or soft. Your ideogram (the quick scribble remote viewers make) doesn’t contain colors, or temperatures, or textures. The protocols are a placebo for things we can’t do straight out in our brain. You need the protocols to get you on the way. It is your attention and focus that gives you information about the target, not the protocols. The protocols are merely an administrative procedure to get your mind prepared to communicate with your subconscious.

Dale Graff, the man in charge of the Stargate Program, has stated categorically there is no one method of acquiring the data.

So you work whatever protocols you’re using (I have acquired data using SRV, TRV and now with the original military ASA RV protocols) and you make contact with the target.

You get the low level data and compile it into a site sketch. We do it, SRVers do, and TRVer’s do it. Those who claim there is a difference are arguing semantics, not remote viewing. Its like the difference between a yam and a sweet potato. We can argue all day about that. “A sweet potato is a root vegetable with a dark outer skin and orangish starchy pulp inside!”

“No, you’re wrong! A yam is an orangish starchy vegetable with a dark outer skin!”

Yam, sweet potato. Sweet potato, yam.

Meanwhile some of us are mashing them up and eating them.

So the protocols are the protocols are the protocols. To a point. In the early stages. We at the Hawaii Remote Viewer’s Guild do execute spontaneous ideograms. We probe the ideograms and work a matrix to assemble data on sounds, smells, textures, etc.

But then we do something the others don’t. We go look at the target. We see it. At this point (April 1998) we are only up to S-4, but S-4 has given many of us a visual look at the target. We’ve seen.

And seeing is believing.