This R.V. tool could save billions and even lives

Chris,

Are you saying that TRV is done frontloaded? Is this what you learned at Psitech?

Glenn

Glenn, here is a quote from the TRV site:

by Joni Dourif –

…there is a time and place for front-loaded targets. A front loaded target is when the remote viewer is also the tasker, so he or she knows the subject matter of the target. It is considered a necessity to eventually learn to perform TRV sessions front-loaded.

A good analogy would be to use "riding a bicycle" metaphor; front-loaded Remote Viewing would be equivalent to taking the training wheels off the bike and riding in city traffic. Pretty scary idea, I know, but in order to get to our destination faster we must remove the training attire and learn to dodge the traffic to traverse the freeway.

There are of course those in the Remote Viewing community who claim that remote viewing front-loaded is inaccurate and impossible. These folks are of the same ilk however as the nay-sayers who declared that, "Ok, flying is possible but we could never fly across an ocean!" years after the Wright brothers proved manned flight was more than just a dream.

A properly trained and experienced remote viewer can perform successful front loaded sessions with ease and accuracy. When you practice this skill with regularity and maintain the proper structure you learn the difference between imagination and real data. And when imagination does leak through you have a place to put it. Skilled TRV’ers perform successful front loaded sessions regularly and routinely slip themselves occasional "blind" targets to calibrate their skill and reinforce confidence.

There are always incidents when it is a necessity to remote view front-loaded. Examples of this would be during storm seasons, wars, sudden people or pet disappearances, medical emergencies, lost valuables, sudden illnesses cures or causes, Optimum Trajectories and even finding a safe haven sanctuary. It would be a serious limitation and disservice if this technology could not be utilized in these emergency situations. An experienced Remote Viewer knows that there is a "blind aspect" to all of the aforementioned class of targets. The general target subject may be a "known" but the specifics and the TRV session outcome is not known. So, the above targets would more accurately be called "partial blinds."

Glenn, here is the link to the full page:

www.trvnews.com/tmn/101001/blindvsfrontloaded.html

This question of front loading is of course a very interesting one. Joni makes some points that are worth thinking about. If viewers can be trained to do this it would be a very important step.

C.

Chris,

Are you saying that TRV is done frontloaded? Is this what you learned at Psitech?

Glenn

Glenn,

The TRV site contains several cases that are worth considering with respect to the issue of front loading:

The case of the Electrician finding the faulty Amp card (which I posted on the board) is front loaded and had a very successful outcome. In fact, in your work Glenn, have you tried the same method?

Intermittent problems are the bane of work with many, many systems. To narrow the search for something that is working now, but likely wont work soon is very, very hard.

In fact, most car owners know that diagnosis of the problem is not always easy for even a very good expert. Mistakes in this are costly and waste time. They could also kill or cripple. Fixing the right thing when all is working is so hard.

This case on the TRV site shows that R.V. has applications for work with machines and systems to trouble shoot.

This is big. Very Big. Joe M. talks about it in his book with respect to airplanes.

I am very curious, have you tried to trouble shoot front loaded in your work?

Chris,

Are you saying that TRV is done frontloaded? Is this what you learned at Psitech?

Glenn

The case of the Lost Bunny Rabbit, the lost kitty, and the lost medicine bottle are all front loaded and all had successful outcomes.

The topic of how to seperate good Psi data from bad is so critical.

Serious thinkers like Joe M. have suggested in writing a "Psi lie detector".

On the cover of National Geographic in a recent issue is the photo of a monk from Tibet with sensors on his scalp.

It must be so that areas of the brain are more active when true Psi impressions occur.

Such areas could be detected and correlated with session work in real time.

Further, such areas could be stimulated to try and enhance Psi.

Only a fool would think that this is not being tried by very serious folks right now.

In fact, Joe M. goes out on a limb, and says that such a "lie detector" will be in use in number of years.

Wire me up Mr. Spock! Energize!…..I see… a ship and its CALL LETTERS are XXXXXXX!

C.

Chris,

Are you saying that TRV is done frontloaded? Is this what you learned at Psitech?

Glenn

Chris,

Frontloading is neither within the protocol for Remote Viewing or a viable application in Remote Viewing. It presents a dilemma of mind that few can really reconcile. For further information on frontloading do a text search through the archives here. In addition there may be a conflict with you posting information from Psitech to this forum without permission from either forum. These things can well be discussed but to verbatim reprint them here is a conflict and an infringement.

Glenn

I don’t know why, but this thread brings to mind the theory that most electrical devices fail because somehow the smoke got out.

:)

I also wonder which Joe M. is being referred to.

Rich

Chris,

Frontloading is not viable remote viewing. Certainly not for any student. To learn more you can read about it in an archived edition of my newsletter. (I will post this under a separate heading in this thread.)

Chris, if you want to discuss TRV and frontloading on this site, we will most certainly bring up one of the huge failures in the history of remote viewing, and that is the frontloaded fiasco that was the Elizabeth Smart case.

For those not familiar with this embarrassment Psi Tech’s work and analysis of this case involved frontloading and they were tragically wrong. They gave bad information to a family in distress, they intruded (without being invited) into a police investigation and they got it totally wrong.

We have the complete Psi Tech report on this case in our files and if you would care to continue a discussion of Psi Tech frontloading techniques we will publish this presentation -which was pulled from the Psi Tech website as soon as the girl they declared dead was found alive.

I appreciate your enthusiasm for remote viewing, which is indeed an interesting and viable endeavor. But you need some education. You should begin by reading my post in this thread titled “FRONTLOADING- IS IT REMOTE VIEWING?”

Aloha,

Dick Allgire

Chris,

You wrote:

Serious thinkers like Joe M. have suggested in writing a "Psi lie detector".

Since you quote Joe McMoneagle (do you know him?) I will republish this article I published with his help and approval. When this was first published his comment to me was "Way to go Dick!"

Here is the article published in 2001:

Frontloading

Is It
Remote Viewing?

by Dick Allgire

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 what remote viewing is. Joe McMoneagle has one of the best reputations in the remote viewing field. He was viewer #001 at the Fort Meade unit, and he is the one viewer who consistently performs the skill on demand in front of skeptics and before live television cameras. In his book "Remote Viewing Secrets," he 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 days of research into remote viewing in order to keep the viewer totally blind to the target. Coordinate Remote Viewing has evolved from the use of geographic coordinates to random number cues to associate the target, so 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 by some trainers. Many different activities, including self-guided meditation, are being called remote viewing. Some are less exacting than others. 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 obvious, it is a way to prove the data was generated by the viewer exhibiting “non local awareness.” If the viewer knows the target ahead of time it is difficult for memory and imagination to be ruled out as a possible source of the data.

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 frontloaded, 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. The CRV manual states: “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” also 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 can be expected to manage.

Joe McMoneagle has always kept “above the fray”, refusing to comment on various methodologies or personalities. 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. 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.”

Glenn Wheaton, president and instructor at the Hawaii Remote Viewers’ Guild (HRVG) agrees. Glenn states, “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.” 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.”

McMoneagle: "Remote Viewing and frontloading do not go together at all, at any time."

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,’ he 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, like Ed Dames (TRV Institute), who frequently use frontloading. In our March feature article Dames says, “I cue my own targets. I work almost entirely frontloaded. Unless I’m in the classroom with my students, then I do an instructor demo and they’ll give it to me blind. Or if I work for the camera, many times I’ll do that blind. For instance if I’m doing a television program in Los Angeles, then I’ll do blind targets.”

Lyn Buchanan, remote viewing instructor and head of Problems Solutions Innovations (PSI), occassionally accepts specific forms of "partial" frontloading. He 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. 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 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 them 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 are some who 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.

The research into frontloading was either done in a classified environment, or done in a non-classified setting but not published, so 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 tells 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 frontloading.” What Joe means (and this is the view of others experienced in tasking operational remote viewers), is that viewers perform best when they feel 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 research 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.

N.E.A.R. SPACECRAFT LANDING EVENT ON THE ASTEROID EROS, FEBRUARY 12, 2001.

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 quite possibly the only way remote viewing will ever be accepted by the scientific community, and then by the public at large. It’s a way to keep the field pure, it helps eliminate fraud, and it holds viewers to a higher standard. In addition, it gives remote viewers a base from which to judge the efficacy of their work.

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

Hummmm. I guess I’m glad I didn’t waste my money on the TRV course.

RG

Glenn, here is a quote from the TRV site:

by Joni Dourif –

…there is a time and place for front-loaded targets. A front loaded target is when the remote viewer is also the tasker, so he or she knows the subject matter of the target. It is considered a necessity to eventually learn to perform TRV sessions front-loaded.

A good analogy would be to use "riding a bicycle" metaphor; front-loaded Remote Viewing would be equivalent to taking the training wheels off the bike and riding in city traffic. Pretty scary idea, I know, but in order to get to our destination faster we must remove the training attire and learn to dodge the traffic to traverse the freeway.

There are of course those in the Remote Viewing community who claim that remote viewing front-loaded is inaccurate and impossible. These folks are of the same ilk however as the nay-sayers who declared that, "Ok, flying is possible but we could never fly across an ocean!" years after the Wright brothers proved manned flight was more than just a dream.

A properly trained and experienced remote viewer can perform successful front loaded sessions with ease and accuracy. When you practice this skill with regularity and maintain the proper structure you learn the difference between imagination and real data. And when imagination does leak through you have a place to put it. Skilled TRV’ers perform successful front loaded sessions regularly and routinely slip themselves occasional "blind" targets to calibrate their skill and reinforce confidence.

There are always incidents when it is a necessity to remote view front-loaded. Examples of this would be during storm seasons, wars, sudden people or pet disappearances, medical emergencies, lost valuables, sudden illnesses cures or causes, Optimum Trajectories and even finding a safe haven sanctuary. It would be a serious limitation and disservice if this technology could not be utilized in these emergency situations. An experienced Remote Viewer knows that there is a "blind aspect" to all of the aforementioned class of targets. The general target subject may be a "known" but the specifics and the TRV session outcome is not known. So, the above targets would more accurately be called "partial blinds."

Glenn, here is the link to the full page:

www.trvnews.com/tmn/101001/blindvsfrontloaded.html

This question of front loading is of course a very interesting one. Joni makes some points that are worth thinking about. If viewers can be trained to do this it would be a very important step.

C.

Chris,

You wrote:

Since you quote Joe McMoneagle (do you know him?) I will republish this article I published with his help and approval. When this was first published his comment to me was "Way to go Dick!"

Here is the article published in 2001:

Frontloading Is It Remote Viewing?

by Dick Allgire

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 what remote viewing is. Joe McMoneagle has one of the best reputations in the remote viewing field. He was viewer #001 at the Fort Meade unit, and he is the one viewer who consistently performs the skill on demand in front of skeptics and before live television cameras. In his book "Remote Viewing Secrets," he 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 days of research into remote viewing in order to keep the viewer totally blind to the target. Coordinate Remote Viewing has evolved from the use of geographic coordinates to random number cues to associate the target, so 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 by some trainers. Many different activities, including self-guided meditation, are being called remote viewing. Some are less exacting than others. 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 obvious, it is a way to prove the data was generated by the viewer exhibiting “non local awareness.” If the viewer knows the target ahead of time it is difficult for memory and imagination to be ruled out as a possible source of the data.

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 frontloaded, 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. The CRV manual states: “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” also 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 can be expected to manage.

Joe McMoneagle has always kept “above the fray”, refusing to comment on various methodologies or personalities. 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. 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.”

Glenn Wheaton, president and instructor at the Hawaii Remote Viewers’ Guild (HRVG) agrees. Glenn states, “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.” 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.”

McMoneagle: "Remote Viewing and frontloading do not go together at all, at any time."

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,’ he 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, like Ed Dames (TRV Institute), who frequently use frontloading. In our March feature article Dames says, “I cue my own targets. I work almost entirely frontloaded. Unless I’m in the classroom with my students, then I do an instructor demo and they’ll give it to me blind. Or if I work for the camera, many times I’ll do that blind. For instance if I’m doing a television program in Los Angeles, then I’ll do blind targets.”

Lyn Buchanan, remote viewing instructor and head of Problems Solutions Innovations (PSI), occassionally accepts specific forms of "partial" frontloading. He 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. 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 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 them 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 are some who 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.

The research into frontloading was either done in a classified environment, or done in a non-classified setting but not published, so 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 tells 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 frontloading.” What Joe means (and this is the view of others experienced in tasking operational remote viewers), is that viewers perform best when they feel 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 research 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.

N.E.A.R. SPACECRAFT LANDING EVENT ON THE ASTEROID EROS, FEBRUARY 12, 2001.

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 quite possibly the only way remote viewing will ever be accepted by the scientific community, and then by the public at large. It’s a way to keep the field pure, it helps eliminate fraud, and it holds viewers to a higher standard. In addition, it gives remote viewers a base from which to judge the efficacy of their work.

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

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chris,

You wrote:

Since you quote Joe McMoneagle (do you know him?) I will republish this article I published with his help and approval. When this was first published his comment to me was "Way to go Dick!"

Here is the article published in 2001:

Frontloading Is It Remote Viewing?

by Dick Allgire

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 what remote viewing is. Joe McMoneagle has one of the best reputations in the remote viewing field. He was viewer #001 at the Fort Meade unit, and he is the one viewer who consistently performs the skill on demand in front of skeptics and before live television cameras. In his book "Remote Viewing Secrets," he 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 days of research into remote viewing in order to keep the viewer totally blind to the target. Coordinate Remote Viewing has evolved from the use of geographic coordinates to random number cues to associate the target, so 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 by some trainers. Many different activities, including self-guided meditation, are being called remote viewing. Some are less exacting than others. 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 obvious, it is a way to prove the data was generated by the viewer exhibiting “non local awareness.” If the viewer knows the target ahead of time it is difficult for memory and imagination to be ruled out as a possible source of the data.

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 frontloaded, 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. The CRV manual states: “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” also 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 can be expected to manage.

Joe McMoneagle has always kept “above the fray”, refusing to comment on various methodologies or personalities. 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. 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.”

Glenn Wheaton, president and instructor at the Hawaii Remote Viewers’ Guild (HRVG) agrees. Glenn states, “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.” 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.”

McMoneagle: "Remote Viewing and frontloading do not go together at all, at any time."

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,’ he 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, like Ed Dames (TRV Institute), who frequently use frontloading. In our March feature article Dames says, “I cue my own targets. I work almost entirely frontloaded. Unless I’m in the classroom with my students, then I do an instructor demo and they’ll give it to me blind. Or if I work for the camera, many times I’ll do that blind. For instance if I’m doing a television program in Los Angeles, then I’ll do blind targets.”

Lyn Buchanan, remote viewing instructor and head of Problems Solutions Innovations (PSI), occassionally accepts specific forms of "partial" frontloading. He 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. 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 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 them 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 are some who 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.

The research into frontloading was either done in a classified environment, or done in a non-classified setting but not published, so 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 tells 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 frontloading.” What Joe means (and this is the view of others experienced in tasking operational remote viewers), is that viewers perform best when they feel 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 research 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.

N.E.A.R. SPACECRAFT LANDING EVENT ON THE ASTEROID EROS, FEBRUARY 12, 2001.

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 quite possibly the only way remote viewing will ever be accepted by the scientific community, and then by the public at large. It’s a way to keep the field pure, it helps eliminate fraud, and it holds viewers to a higher standard. In addition, it gives remote viewers a base from which to judge the efficacy of their work.

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

I have to agree with Dick on this. The Psitech’s Elizabeth Smart debacle remains RV’s most embarrassing moment. Coming on the heels of their previous fiasco when the body of Philip Taylor Kramer was discovered in Decker Canyon less than an hours drive west of Los Angeles and not in the place or the circumstances that they had announced to the world on the Art Bell Show. It goes to say that anyone that will not publish the raw data should always be suspect and you should indeed keep your wits about you. This is not to say that you can’t be wrong. If you publish your data and analysis the world can see how you reached the conclusion, if you just make it up then you wind up with lots ‘O eggs on you face like Psitech. To herald them here as some vestige of skill is poorly served. The list is indeed long if we were to get into what Psitech has proclaimed to the world that has since been determined to be sensationalist bunk.

RV instruction requires a certain amount of diligence that few will engage in. They are not really interested in developing you as a remote viewer but are interested in your money. The instructional block at Psitech is a rip of the CRV instruction that is available for free from several locations on the net. Our recommendation is to find an instructor that is interested in your development as a viewer and not your wallet.

Glenn

Chris,

I also appreciate your enthusiasm for RV and thanks for posting up the stories about how lost things were found. (Haven’t had the chance to read them all yet, but hope to when my schedule frees up.)

Great article on frontloading Dick! Thanks! Sure do have to battle a LOT of pollution with frontloading.

Also to Rich about the smoke and the electrical appliances- chuckle chuckle GUFFAW chuckle –

Joanie