Within the often distorted online world of remote Viewing we often encounter opinions & memories based on decades old experiences or personal agenda’s that just are not fact. Some of these involve a topic that I personally have been involved with in social media and have written about previously – Ingo Swann’s RV & CRV history and development. I quite often see and get social media comments making claims like: ‘you have to be a student of Ingo Swann’s CRV training to know the history of CRV’ – of which I am not. Or that ‘the students of Ingo inherently know more about Ingo’s life, research and his CRV product than anyone else’, including myself and others who have spent years researching these aspects and full remote viewing history – almost full time. Some of the most vocal people involved in these debates have not even personally researched all the available remote viewing files and research over these last few decades.
Now, I want to state, I have the utmost respect for the Ingo Swann students and even some purists of his methodology, and yes, some do have a unique knowledge and set of experiences – but this does not automatically mean they know best or more than anyone else on these topics. We are ALL trying to understand and learn from the complicated life of Ingo Swann; he was and remains an amazingly complicated man. CRV also remains in part an unknown quantity, I agree with several of Joe McMoneagle’s past comments on Ingo and CRV; “none of you have a clue “why” Ingo did anything within his training system. Those records he kept for himself. There was a method to his system, and that method he never completely shared with anyone, which is why I’ve consistently stated that I’ve felt it was a shame they terminated his program without letting him complete it in it’s entirety.”0 I have to agree with Joe on this – CRV & its development is a topic that we are ALL still learning about day-by-day.
In the previously published article by myself [here]1 I debate an even more previous article from four of Ingo’s students on the alleged ‘additional’ CRV stages [here]2. The article hinges on a theory that Ingo developed some later CRV stage ideas from the Tom McNear 1985 training notes, a theory I feel does not hold water for several reasons written in my previous article. This article and document source also add weight to my argument.
In July 2021, whilst researching several articles and book projects on Ingo Swann and CRV, I came across a previously overlooked file we had had for several years. It’s a folder from Ingo Swann donated to the University of West Georgia archives.
The document is in a folder or folders titled: “S-83 CRV 3-Year Report Draft (Folder 2 of 2), 1983”. It’s written by Ingo Swann and includes hand-drawn illustrations of ideas presented in the text.
This document gives amazing insights into early RV and CRV development and is a very important new document for all the Ingo Swann/CRV researchers.
Some notes on this document:
A very long learning curve is indicated:
“Results: During the course of the first fifty coordinates only chance expectations were encountered. During the last fifty coordinates, the results became increasingly extra chance, until out of the final two sets of ten each the ratio of correct descriptions of the distant locations was 8 to ten, and nine to ten.
We were thus confronted with these phenomena:
(1) Coordinates, as a method of abstract targeting yielded psi- perceptual access to distant locations.
(2) During the course of the experiment, a learning curve of some sort had manifested itself.”
This is the first time we have seen an indication in psi of such a long series going from chance to 80 or 90%. How many RV researchers today would have done this many trials (100) to see if there was an effect? How many do so now?
(In To Kiss Earth Goodbye (p 136), Swann refers to “some 7000 exterior perceptual trials” in an eight-month period which also showed a learning curve, but apparently not at this level.)
The document gives one reason why Ingo was so partial to dictionaries – to be sure to use clear terms while using abstractions in accessing the “intermediate area” between the target and the cue. And so he wants to avoid neologisms.
Confirms that Ingo and Puthoff came up with name Coordinate Remote Viewing: “The implications of CRV (Coordinate Remote Viewing, as we chose to term the function)…”
It indicates that even in 1983 Ingo was talking about developing more stages in CRV (seven,eight and nine) and that the stages came and you had to recognize which the next one was and discard preconceptions:
“A general schema of the six discovered stages, and the hypothetical stages seven, eight, and nine may be found below as part” (the scan we have breaks off at this point)
The document says they decided to use geographical coordinates. Omits that he elsewhere says he was sitting by a pool and heard a voice say, “try coordinates”.
First time we have seen the early CRV trainees (so many of them) referred to by letters up to L and their progress.
- A – I Swann
- B – Hella Hammid
- C – Gary Langford
- D – Blue
- E – Hal Puthoff
- F – Greis?
- G – Jacques Vallee
- H – Marsha Adams
- I – Turicheck
- J – Rob Cowart
- K – Tom McNear
- L – Debbie ???
Source –4
Ingo lays out the rationale for stages in a way we haven’t seen before.
He provides a more coherent explanation than occurs in any of his voluminous writings (“The Real Story”, “Reality Boxes”, etc.) about the connections between research on perceptions, abstractions/definitions, stages and the evolving CRV process (emphasis on evolving!).
Relevant is this quote from Star Gate Archives, Volume 1, p 521:
“Swann, I (1983). Co-ordinate Remote Viewing (CRV) technology (1981-1983), Three-Year Project Draft. Project 4028. New York, N.Y. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. SECRET. [The final report of this project is not available in the CIA-released files.]”5
Note that the ID number 4028 does appear in the scanned version we are referring to.
Conclusions
This document is a great resource into some of the thinking and experimentation behind Ingo’s CRV and how they (Swann and Puthoff) created it. It adds some depth to a topic that we still do not have full knowledge of.
It also shows that as I have always stated (and been ridiculed for) Ingo’s CRV was not finished/ finalised but was a prototype work in progress. Even as people were being trained in early stages of CRV, other later stages were not finished, and some were still in the hypothetical stage, these well past the stage 6 being trained today, all the way up to a possible stage nine (circa 1983).
This document clearly does indicates that the ‘Ingo Students’ theory that Ingo developed his ‘identified stages’ document4 after seeing/reading the 1985 tom McNear training notes – does not work. (We are seeing nine stages referred to here – two years before the Tom McNear notes were written).
It also shows that Ingo NEVER envisioned CRV to be only six stages and that very early on in 1983 part way through CRV prototype training; he was already envisioning stages seven, eight and nine. Imo, this also adds weight to the (later) identified stages document from Ingo’s archive listing twelve stages of CRV, as it indicated in 1983 that he was at nine potential stages already, not so far away from the twelve listed approx. nine years later in the mid nineties.
Please note – This is a draft – we may not have the entire document – so we are on the case on this. There may be even more to learn here.
What this does show is that there is so much more to learn on the origins of both RV and CRV. What I also hope it indicates to a few very vocal people is that NO ONE knows everything in regards to the life and work of Ingo Swann. I hope it also suggests that maybe working together on this knowledge would be far more beneficial than confrontational social media posts we have seen. No one has the complete story of RV/CRV development and the intricacies of the life and work of Ingo Swann. Not his past students and certainly not the researchers. But working together instead of social confrontations and accusations is the best way to ALL fully understand this great man, but also the amazing work that he, Hal Puthoff and the SRI teams did to bring us the base technology of what we all use to this day.
I’m sure there are far more things to discover and to build upon the great work so far.
Please anyone interested in the Life and Work Of Ingo Swann – please visit the University of West Georgia archives, his website6 and his writings through his books now available in print, ebook and audiobook.
Sources:
