The Nature of Remote Viewing!

What part, if any, does Telepathy play within Remote Viewing?

– Daz Smith 2017.

 

This article is the result of a recent talk at the IRVA 2017 online conference between myself (Daz Smith), John Cook and Pam Coronado, on the topic of the role of telepathy in Remote viewing.

The crux of this discussion was; Can the beliefs or intentions of a tasker, monitor, and viewers significantly influence the result of an operational RV session, even under blind conditions? In essence – What part does telepathy play in RV?

Researching far and wide for this talk, I have now collected a handful of examples which seem to indicate that the connection and communication between Remote viewing taskers and viewers may be more complex and intimate than previously thought. These collected examples generally include targets that do not physically exist, and some ONLY exist in the mind of the tasker. Yet, talented remote viewers can accurately describe these targets in great detail and with no discernible difference in feel or data quality from actual normal or physical targets.

 

Background to this.

For many years we have seen, read and heard about how the Star Gate unit getting one back on Tasker Ed Dames by return tasking him with Santa Clause, and the confusion Ed has in repeatedly describing a life in a flying vehicle, zipping about all over the place and in great detail. This always intrigued me as obviously Santa is not a physical target as such and is a story/myth/social construct.

Then many years later there was a very interesting and well constructed project from out of Hawaii Remote Viewers Group (HRVG) that added to my growing fascination in this somewhat ignored component of Remote viewing.

 

The HRVG Tanner Dam Experiment.

In 2008, HRVG ran a blind remote viewing project involving several remote viewing schools & methods including; ERV (1person), CRV (2 people), SRV(1 person) and HRVG (5 people) ten people in total in the one experiment, a unique event in Remote viewing circles. The experiment was great success and generally all the remote viewers described and sketched the target. The only problem is THE TARGET DID NOT ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY EXIST.

Dick Allgire created a place in his mind called TANNER DAM. He spent many hours, days and months visualising and creating this location in his mind. He thought about its location, the environment, the local population, their activities and much More.

Dick also created sketches of the dam and hired an artist to create a rendering based on his thoughts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fig 1. Artist rendering of Tanner Dam

All the participating remote viewers in this experiment described; a natural location, land/water interface, rocks and many other details. Details that felt as real to the viewers as any other remote viewing session. None of the viewers reported any difference in feeling or in data quality from this non-existent target.

 

A few examples of this data is presented below:

For the next decade this great project stayed in the back of my mind, during this time I have participated in thousands of remote viewing projects, ops and practice sessions – but its something I can’t shake and something I feel is very important. With this in mind and for the IRVA presentation I finally decided to collate examples of this enigma and to try an experiment of my own.

 

The other collected examples:

During and after the initial IRVA talk on this subject for the 2017 online conference, other project managers have come forwards with other examples of remote viewers being able to accurately report on targets that did not physically exist.

 

Hydropolis Target from Pam Coronado.

Pam Coronado gave this target to a beginning/intermediate level remote viewing class in which students could use CRV or free style RV methods. At the time, she was struggling with confusion and neurological difficulties after being bitten by a black widow spider. She believed the target to be a real place and it came up on travel websites.
Only when She tried to locate the address for dowsing feedback did she realize it was never built and was merely a concept design. Upon discovering her mistake, she expected sessions to be mostly misses. Much to her surprise students did seem to connect with the conceptual target.

The Hydropolis Underwater Hotel and Resort was a proposed underwater hotel in Dubai. Hydropolis was to be the first multi-room underwater hotel in the world. It was planned in the Persian Gulf of Dubai. The hotel’s original plan was to be located 20 meters (66 ft) underwater off the coast of Jumeriah beach. The hotel’s plan is to cover an area of 260 hectares (640 acres), which is equivalent in area to Hyde Park in London. The construction cost for Hydropolis was approximately €600 million Euro, which will make Hydropolis one of the most expensive hotels ever created.

Pam Coronado Student session examples.

Below are some of the descriptions from the remote viewers on the Hydropolis target;

JV – Body of water, fish, several biologicals. AOL: sports stadium
TW – Splashing, fish, circular manmade shape next to water. Pathway next to water, images looked cartooney or not real .
PS – Water, ocean, see sketch of interior.
MA – Standing on a simple smooth stone in the middle of large body of water. Another huge area, round shape with even edges, light in color. Sandpiper, crushed shells and a tea cup.
WG – Animal or life form, water, something jutting up. Land/ water interface.

Fig 5 & 6 (above) – session sketches from the Hydropolis Target.

 

As the data shows the remote viewers did not seem to have any hindrance in the fact that the target was not real or physical.

 

The DNA idea.

In October 2015, Stewart Edwards wanted to find if it was possible, under blind conditions for a remote viewer (Edward Riordan) to not only perceive and describe an idea/invention that existed in his own mind, but also to see if there was a way to protect his idea, his “intellectual property”. If a person can “remote view” the creative ideas another person are they in fact stealing that person’s vision?

Stewart describes:

“As part of an online course on biochemistry with the University of Kyoto, Japan, “The Chemistry of Life” KyotoUx-001x, in 2014, I (Stewart Edwards) submitted a brief project, which was ranked in the top 100 (out of 20,000). This project was a biochemistry adaption to our DNA to help improve crime detection accuracy.
In essence: “Excluding identical twins 1 in 3 million individuals have identical DNA. This means that in the UK I share my DNA with 20 other people. Globally 2,386 people share your DNA. You could be imprisoned because of this if you were at the wrong place at the wrong time. By inserting a DNA marker, like a digital fingerprint used by photographers, that is unique to you, you could largely eliminate the possibility of false conviction. Your children could have a suffix added to this as in the name Howard-Carter II. Also default for high security building access, banking even contracts.”
Initially I researched and then formulated this project in my mind, before writing it up on computer, printing and emailing it.
I set this target up in three stages.
(1) the basic targeting was simply “DNA”.
(2) advanced targeting was the commercial application explained above.
(3) I set up a “distracter” to divert viewers from accessing this target, details of how I did this are my personal intellectual property.
In the context of targets formulated in people’s mind, I can confirm that (1) initially this target was formed in my mind, but at the time of tasking was on paper, had been transmitted by email, had been evaluated and selected by The University of Kyotos staff as a Top 100 submission. The target was an idea as opposed to a physical location or object.
In my opinion Edward did a fantastic job in penetrating into this target.”

Edward Riordan describes:

“I as the remote viewer was completely blind to all tasking and communicated only via text messenger over the internet. All of my work was done on dry erase board and all was captured on video, 4 videos in total.
The “target” being DNA was perceived and described during these sessions, as was the “marker” element. The “marker” element being the purely idea driven invention aspect was perceived and explored, and I could not tell during the experience that I was perceiving something that only existed in the mind of Stewart.
During the deep exploration and hit of the DNA target itself, I began to experience a separate element that appeared to be triggered by the actual attainment of the desired element, that being DNA. The separate element was musical in nature and appeared to have no relevance to what I had been experiencing prior to it. I found this seemingly “outside” element to be interesting for approximately 2 minutes before making the decision to discard this element as a “distraction”.
I later learned that this musical element was in fact the “distraction” that Stewart has coded into his tasking in his attempt to safeguard his own intellectual property.
So we return to the original questions, can a remote viewer perceive and describe something that only exists in the mind of another person and even more importantly, is there a way to protect ones own ideas and or visions from being accessed without their consent or knowledge? I will not be the one to give an absolute answer to this dilemma, but it appears there truly are no secrets any more…”

The videos for this project are available through these links:
https://youtu.be/K8Dj-_I2Ti8
https://youtu.be/Ta_63KooyFw
https://youtu.be/16jMSWIYSwo

 

The Daz Smith – May 2017 experiment

In light of my interest in this enigma and the looming IRVA discussion on this topic – On 26 May, 2017 on my remote viewing Facebook group that had at the time over 3,600 members, I asked if people would contribute RV sessions for a small experiment. I had ten people respond and send me their remote viewing data.

Now, like the Tanner Dam experiment from 2008, the Hydroplois, and the DNA project, my target too did NOT physically exist. In fact probably even less so than these experiments because I didn’t even get an artist painting or concept drawing made (which could be remote viewed as it was a physical component and as we all know that sometimes viewers can view the feedback) I also did not record anything in relation to the target in any physical form.

I wanted to create a target with no actual physical record including the feedback for the remote viewer to access.
My experimental target – which only existed in my mind and a brief description I typed into ‘notepad’ on the P.C. (existing only as digital ones and zeros) – was;

2605-8811

“I am going to create a fictional target in my mind and this text pad only.
In the playing ‘field’ near to my house a circular grassed/green area with a cross shaped path in the middle, plus a waste bin. A UFO will land in the centre here, descending slowly from the sky.
A pyramid shaped UFO of 30 ft in height – glowing blue from the top. this will descend during a quiet day. It will leave a burnt/black patch underneath it.

Out of this will come a 8ft tall very thin, long armed being, who will communicate with me.

This being will be holding hands with a small, young girl wearing a blue dress, and with long blonde hair – her name is goldilocks (from goldilocks and three bears fame). She will smile at me but say nothing.
After 10 minutes, they will get back on board and the object will lift up. It will rise straight-up then will disappear in a flash of white light. No noise will be made other than the whoosh of air.”

My intent for this target is for the viewers to ONLY describe these fictional events that exist only in my mind and nothing more.

The Data I expected to see in the viewers data was:

• circle with cross
• grass/green
• pyramid shape
• UFO/vehicle
• colour blue
• very tall skinny man
• blonde girl wearing blue/goldilocks.
• burnt/black grass/grass
• moving upwards/downwards
• whoosh noise

 

The results:

Pretty much ALL the ten participants describe to a greater and lesser degree: energy, UFO/vehicle or similarly triangle/pyramid shaped object. They very accurately describe up and down movement, whooshing noise and much more that accurately matched a target that only existed in my imagination and as zeros and ones in digital data.

A few of the remote viewers sketches are shown below:

There are other interesting parts within the data that fit my imagined target;

1. the shape of the real location I set this fiction within – a square field in the middle of a Oval shape of houses, with a cross shaped path – this shows up in the data

2. one or more life forms

3. One of the viewers, very early on in Stage1 picked up an AOL of ‘teddy bear’ – maybe a nod towards my fictional Goldilocks character in my description of the fictional event that I consciously added as part joke but also just to see if that obscure data could also be picked-up. (image below)

In this project, like the previous examples, the remote viewers seemed to have no problem recording data that fits the target. Especially clear was the key component of the fictional target – the pyramid shaped UFO/Object. When asked, none of the viewers noticed any difference in quality, feel or feeling of this target from any other type of target they have previously done.

All the remote viewers data looks and feels like they are trying to describe a real and physical object and event – there is no data to indicate that they knew it was a concept or thought.

 

What does this mean, what are the implications?

Well, that’s the 64 million dollar question really. But from the growing list of projects, experiments and from other personal experiences I have collected, it appears that a remote viewer can accurately and just as easily access a target, even if this target and information does not physically exist. More so, the target need only exist in the mind of a person and it can still be accessed like any other target and accurately so.

Thoughts, theories, ideas, visions, probably even memories are all just as valid and accessible as real physical objects for Remote viewing. Problematically, there seems to be no difference in data feel or quality during the transfer process.

For me, this calls into question the role of EVERY person involved in the RV project. From the Tasker, to the project manager, to the viewer, analysts and probably even the future people who read, disseminate, comment and review the project data. They could all be entangled, all have a part to play, could all be sources of information.

We know that thoughts, ideas, concepts and more can easily be accessed by remote viewers – what we don’t yet know is by what mechanism and how much of what we call remote viewing is telepathic. Is Remote viewing a mechanism whereby all information no matter if its physical or non physical is recorded or connected in some way? This theory is the physics of Non Locality and Entanglement – whereby particles exists in more than one place at more than one time, and communication is instantaneous across limitless distances. All information is everywhere.
OR
Is the role of direct mind-to-mind communication a larger component of the remote viewing process than originally given credit for. Could it be that a remote viewer is just tapping into the thoughts, ideas, wants of the tasker and humans and supplying information, maybe even also reaching out to future analysts, reviewers and other minds for information to fill-in the blanks? (Remember time does not seem to hinder nor be in play within remote viewing).

Clearly in the examples shown in this article, this could be a possibility because the only place the target existed for my experiment was in my mind.To be honest, we just don’t know – yet.

Because we still do not know the mechanics of PSI. It could be either of these theories, a combination of both or even something else, something completely new – but clearly, and at this stage we cannot discount ANYTHING, after all Remote viewing is based on scientific protocols, it was born out of a scientific need. So until proven otherwise we have to look at all the possibilities and include all the possibilities.

My recent project, the past projects and now my growing collection of this type of ‘non physical’ situation has made me even more curious and re-sparked my interest in this field, but it has also made me become more wary about the information I supply as a remote viewer, and really where did the information come from?
Did I get the information from the target?, from other people, or am I just pulling information or having the information pushed to me direct from the taskers mind? In my opinion we just do not yet know the answer to this.

It has also bolstered my trust in the protocols and in the absolute need for quality ‘confirmatory feedback’ evidence when using Remote viewing to solve problems and answer questions.

As the Father of Remote Viewing said:

“Remote Viewing is composed of a five part protocol, and when any one of the five parts are omitted (such as confirmatory feedback), then what has taken place is something other than remote viewing…..

If these important definitional boundaries are not understood and maintained, the ultimate result will be ambiguous definitional quagmire of benefit to no one, and the demolition of what the remote viewing protocol achieved in terms of respect and repute”

Ingo Swann – Fate article – On remote viewing UFOS and extraterrestrials September 1993.

What these collected examples have shown me as a practising remote viewer, is that until we as remote viewers know more about the role of ‘possible’ telepathy within Remote viewing and also the underlying mechanism of the remote viewing process, then we should all be very cautious and aware when Remote viewing is used in ANY project without ‘sufficient confirmatory feedback‘ as per Ingo Swann’s 1993 comments.

We need to be diligent and ethical in making any claims and in any use of this information, as it appears that Remote viewing really does NOT have ANY boundaries including the possible minds and thoughts of anyone involved in the projects. The data we supply as remote viewers, may just be a theory or idea that the tasker wants us to confirm, and we may be parrot reporting this back to them, thinking it real data. In my opinion, this at least has to be taken into account until we know otherwise.

Thoughts, ideas, concepts, theories and much more can ALL be accessed with no discernible difference from any other information. Which does somewhat confuse our situation, but it is also one which in itself opens up a whole new universe of potential for this art form and where we can take and develop it. This excites me greatly.

We as remote viewers, project managers and even as paying clients all have to be open and honest that at this stage we have not discounted that reported remote viewing information may be coming direct from the tasker (or maybe others) in some form of telepathic communication. We all already know that somehow the remote viewer unconsciously knows what the taskers (intent and target choice is) so a form of connection or communication is already part of the RV process, there is nothing at this stage to say where this communication starts and stops.

 

In conclusion:

What part does Telepathy play within RV?
Well, that’s the question isn’t it – I don’t feel we can yet fully answer this – but it’s very possible that it’s a huge part and until we know otherwise, that this has to always be considered in every project we ALL do. Especially so on projects that don’t have sufficient confirmatory feedback sources.

The role of telepathy in my opinion still needs much more consideration and research to discern how much of a role, when and how. Hopefully we can all take this journey together.
There really does seem to be no boundaries what-so-ever in what can be accessed and reported using remote viewing. This does also include the ‘non physical’ – things like: thoughts, ideas, concepts and many things that hide in our minds. Things that a great many people on this planet would rather not be accessible, but clearly are.

In the 1992 film ‘Sneakers’ with Robert Redford and Sidney Poitier they used the anagram of ‘setec astronomy’ which turned out to mean ‘too many secrets’, for a device that could hack into any computer system on earth. Finally in the words of Edward Riordan ‘ it appears there truly are no secrets any more…”
So please be careful out there.

 

The IRVA presentation slides can be downloaded as a.pdf file here

 

Thanks to:
Glenn Wheaton (HRVG), Dick Allgire, John Cook, Pam Coronado, Stewart Edwards, Edward Riordan, for your help in both the IRVA presentation this further article and in the work you do. Also a big thanks to ALL the remote viewers from all the projects mentioned and more who contribute and publicly share projects and experiments so that we can all more fully understand our practice.

• Glen Wheaton (HRVG) – https://www.hrvg.org
• Dick Allgire – https://www.facebook.com/dallgire
• IRVA – http://www.irva.org
• Pam Coronado – https://pamcoronado.com
• Edward Riordan – http://erviewer.com