Remote viewing: what is it, and what can you do with it?
- Mantis Awakening
- Nov 10, 2024
- 6 min read
We have an increasing number of people associated with the Disclosure movement giving validation to remote viewing, and lots of discussion of it here on the subreddit; but there’s a lot of misunderstanding about what it is and how it works. I’m discussing Controlled Remote Viewing methodology as used by the CIA, but other methodologies are similar and have many of the same limitations.
I thought it would be a good idea to re-post a primer a wrote on it quite a while ago. I’m updating it to address some common misconceptions I see today.
Remote viewing is a fancy term for controlled clairvoyance, that is the ability to see things with your mind—although technically it isn’t typically seeing as much as it is knowing.
Let’s bust some myths:
There is zero evidence that remote viewing is real.
This is easily proven false. There is a ton of evidence for it. The CIA utilized remote viewing for over 20 years, and a lot of their evidence has been declassified. Thousands of pages just from the CIA’s program alone, not to mention studies done by outside universities. There are RV subreddits where people practice it every day. I’ve done it, my friends have done it, and statistically the odds are that you can do it too. Anyone who tells you there’s no evidence is wrong.
If remote viewing was real then psychics would be winning the lottery.
That’s not how it works. That’s like saying that Babe Ruth wasn’t a good baseball player because he didn’t score home runs every time he was at bat. But I’ll cover this more below.
The government studied RV and concluded it didn’t work.
Actually, the government studied it and concluded that it did work but they (supposedly) didn’t believe it was reliable enough to be used for intelligence gathering (which ignores the fact that they did so for over twenty years, but that’s a whole other topic).
Congress demanded that the CIA explain why taxpayer money was being spent on magic tricks, so they put together a blue-ribbon panel consisting of two highly respected scientists, a leading statistician (a believer in psi) and a psychologist (an avowed skeptic). The believer came away claiming that the evidence unequivocally proved that it was real. The skeptic agreed that they couldn’t explain the evidence prosaically and there was no evidence of fraud, but he refused to accept that it was proof of psi. 40 years later and they still don’t have a prosaic explanation.
James Randi proved psychics are all liars because no one ever claimed his million dollars.
James Randi’s million dollar challenge was a publicity stunt, not a scientific proving ground. Thousands of people applied but he would constantly change the rules until applicants inevitably gave up (and when they didn’t, his group simply stopped responding and then lied and claimed they backed out). Randi admitted to lying whenever it suited his needs.
Wikipedia says that all of this stuff is pseudoscience, and that the people are scam artists.
Wikipedia has been unfortunately taken over by debunkers who have publicly proclaimed they will use the platform to attack “pseudoscience” despite it clearly being against the rules. The founder of wikipedia gave them his blessing. It is an incredibly biased source on anything paranormal.
Remote viewing is easy, almost anyone can do it.
Yes, but only if they understand the procedures. The CIA’s remote viewing program quickly learned that two of the biggest problems were telepathic transference and analytical overlay(“AOLs”).
The first one has to do with the fact that a skilled remote viewer would often read the mind of the tasker who gave them the target, as opposed to viewing the actual target. If the tasker had preconceived notions about the target, that’s often what they’d get.
Analytical overlays are more to do with the viewers own preconceived notions about what they’re seeing.
That’s why the only reliable way to remote view a target is for it to be double blinded: both the tasker and the viewer can’t have any idea what the target is. The standard procedure is to assign a random number to the target, such as 6274-5288. That is given to the tasker, and the tasker then gives it to the remote viewer. Then the results are interpreted by a third party.
So while it’s true anyone can do it, they can’t reliably do it by themselves, and the other people involved need to know how to assign a good target.
Even though Remote Viewing might be real, it only gives people access to incredibly vague information that is totally irrelevant and useless for almost anything. This is one of the most common misunderstandings, and one everyone needs to remember:
According to one of the CIA’s lead viewers, Ingo Swann, their program achieved a 65% accuracy rate. That means that all of the statements that they made about a target, on average 65% of them were correct. But even that is misleading, because sometimes they would get everything correct—but other times they would get absolutely everything wrong. According to their lead viewer, Joe McMoneagle, “anyone who says they can tell the difference between imagination and a valid reading doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” The only way they could be sure was if the target could be validated. This is one reason why remote viewing is largely useless for non-verifiable targets (such as looking for alien bases on Jupiter).
But when they do get it right, the information can be extremely accurate.
This is the same group of people who claimed to have remote viewed Mars millions of years ago.
Yes, and that is a controversial topic even amongst RV practitioners. It likely has to do with what Ingo Swann called “Telepathic Transference” (see above).
Based on a number of experiments that have been done by RVers such as Daz Smith, it behaves as if doing a remote viewing of an imaginary thing makes it in some way tangible, and it can then be picked up and expanded on by subsequent remote viewings: https://www.remoteviewed.com/what-part-if-any-does-telepathy-play-within-remote-viewing/
So when people are remote viewing the moon, Mars, or any other target that can’t be verified then there should be skepticism about what is being received. It doesn’t mean it’s entirely wrong, but it’s impossible to sort out what is and what isn’t. What’s more important is that it reveals that consciousness behaves in some very unusual ways. Are our thoughts creating concepts in some way?
How come remote viewers aren’t utilizing their supposed abilities to win at the stock market or with crypto?
They are.
How does it work?
The process is deceptively simple. One has to be able to quiet their mind to some degree to cut back on “noise,“ and then it’s simply a matter of focusing on a target and writing down what is perceived. For experienced and accomplished remote viewers this can be very detailed and accurate, but for beginners tends to be pretty vague.
This is another important point: One of the other things that was learned when the CIA protocols were being devised was that the information received would sometimes be symbolic. For example, many remote viewers would see a symbol of an upside down V if the target had anything to do with religion. This symbol could potentially represent a church steeple or praying hands, or something we do not understand — they simply noted there was a correlation.
I am including a sample of my best remote viewing session. All I knew was that the target was a geographic location somewhere on earth. I did three sessions exploring “aspects“ of the target: https://imgur.com/a/aRFv8mN/
While I was doing it I didn’t think it was making any sense because the concepts seemed so disparate, but once I put it all together it turned out that they matched well with the target, which ended up being the Eiffel tower. I have never been to France and knew basically nothing about the target. It turns out there is a swampy lagoon area with a waterfall at the base of the tower; some thing which I had in my notes but which I had no knowledge of. You’ll see that my sketch looks like a cross between the Eiffel tower and the space needle, because at that point I was fairly certain it was one or the other but didn’t know which. Also note that some of the details I got were spot on, including the shape of a nearby bridge.
The photos at the end were photos that I looked up afterwards — the person who tasked me with the target simply picked it by name, and had also never been there and did not know any details, so I was not getting those from them telepathically.
I encourage everyone to try this themselves. I’ve tried it with a number of other people and they’ve almost all been able to do it to some degree. There’s an excellent training series on YouTube: https://m.youtube.com/user/NoFreeIdFound
As you can see, remote viewing is an amazing skill, but it’s not all-powerful, and there’s some major shortcomings in what you can do with it.
I hope this is helpful. Try it for yourself!
Comments