NEWS: Analysis & Commentary
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.
Copyright © 2001, H.R.V.G.
All rights reserved.
Page 3 (RF's Session)
·Discussions on RV