Remote viewing involves a process, or set of protocols, by which one person (a tasker) assigns another person (a viewer) a target, with the aim of having that person utilize their psi ability to access information about a “target”. This target can be any topic spanning from the description of a location, event, object, person, photograph, etc., and can span any point of time within the past, present, and future. When remote viewing was in its early stages of development, researchers believed that the process could only work through a telepathic connection between a sender and receiver, which then required at least one person to have foreknowledge of the target.
Ingo Swann, one of the major contributors to remote viewing, when acting in his dual roles of both research subject and research consultant while under contract at Stanford Research Institute in the psycho-energetics program, changed all that when he came up with an experiment in which viewers could describe latitude and longitude coordinates (referred to as project Scannate). This would allow a viewer to just be given the numbers, which could be chosen even by a computer, thus supposedly taking out the need for telepathic connectivity. Eventually researchers realized they didn’t even need longitude/latitude coordinates, but could just take any random number, and through intention pair it with a instructions for the viewer (called a secret or undisclosed tasking) that would be written down on paper or put into an envelope. If all went according to plan, the viewer’s subconscious would then respond to this undisclosed tasking by providing the requested information. In this sense, the tasker (or manager, or client, sometimes one and the same, sometimes two or three different roles) set an intention and then the viewers subconscious and psi faculties accessed the requested information.
Often the tasking directive may be little more than “describe a photograph” or “describe a location”, and yet someone, somewhere, needed to decide this is what they wanted a viewer to do. Whether they verbally communicate this request, or just send a target number and place the request in an envelope it still exists.
While it’s been known for decades that a synergistic relationship between the tasker (client, project manager, or third party assistant) and the person being tasked (remote viewer) exists, one that involves the need or intent of the tasker to the viewer through some unknown process, little attention has been placed on the possibility of extraneous or unintentional communications that may be occurring between the participants.
So the question of this article is to ask, what else comes through in this request? Is it only a set of instructions, or is there more which may then have an impact on the nature of the information that the viewer accesses? In other words, is the viewer only going to get information about a location, object, event or person, or is that viewer going to get information that the tasker may be thinking about, expecting, or desiring to see? Who else involved in the project – on a thought, emotional or telepathic level might impact the viewers experience and the kind of information they receive, retrieve or report?
It is my contention that there in fact may be a ‘connection’ between ALL the people involved in any of these experiments. And this is where it can get complicated.
This is because we cannot at this stage remove or discount the possibility of contaminates in the Remote Viewing process. These are called Telepathic Overlays.
Ingo Swann, in 19961 wrote:
In the contexts of remote viewing, telepathic overlay would introduce into the responses of a remote viewer a kind of dirty-data contamination originating in the mind of someone else.
The pathway for the contamination probably would not be a conscious one, but a subconscious one.
So the telepathic introduction of the dirty data would take place without much realization on the parts of anyone associated with the viewing.
He also went on to say:
A third complicating factor regards the following. After intuition, telepathy is the second most commonly experienced of the superpowers of the human bio-mind. But like intuition, a careful study of historical and living testimony about telepathy reveals that there are very many types of it, and not all of which can be incorporated into the standard definition of conscious mind to conscious mind.
There is thus a spectrum of telepathy, and which spectrum can best be described as varieties of information exchanging at either the conscious or pre-conscious levels.
And also:
In the thought-transference model, those two concepts were SYMPATHETIC STATES and RAPPORT. It was accepted that if two or more people became involved in sympathetic states or rapport, then transference of thoughts and EMOTIONS could be exchanged — even though the mechanisms involved were not easily identifiable.
The concepts of the existence of sympathetic states and rapport can be traced back into antiquity (under other terms, of course.) But the concepts were named as such during the High Renaissance and from that time they ultimately followed through into the study and research of Mesmerism.
In general, the Mesmerism model was almost completely involved with researching the causes and effects of sympathetic and rapport states — and which, it was discovered, could be induced by various methods.
And later:
As hypnotism is understood, though, it is a state which needs to be induced in someone by another person, the hypnotist — and after which the hypnotee is under the control of the hypnotist.
And:
This type of thing is occasionally referred to as telepathic bonding at levels beneath the consciousness of the hypnotist. But if we introduce the concept of telepathic overlay, then it could be said that some kind of information overlay from the hypnotist is being transferred to the hypnotee via telepathic routes that are not known to or even suspected by the hypnotist.
As a gross example of this, the hypnotee then gives the answers the hypnotist wants, or which answers fit into the unexpressed expectations and convictions of the hypnotist which have somehow become overlaid into the hypnotee.
Ingo then goes on to describe the problem in relation to RV:
Telepathic overlay was identified by myself and Dr. H.E. Puthoff in about 1975, and together we worked to determine its causes, its relationship to remote viewing, and how to avoid or eradicate it.
We were quite concerned that the viewer was picking up information from the minds of those associated with the viewings rather than from the distant site itself.
This was also a problem which worried the sponsors very much, and for reasons which should be obvious. If telepathic overlay was the case, then we didn’t have remote viewing at all. We had some format of telepathy.
At first we felt that the sources or causes must be quite complicated. But in the end we discovered that a single situation was the source of most telepathic overlay. When that situation was cured, telepathic overlay tended to vanish.
That single situation revolved around Who had power over Whom not only during the RV work but as regards the relationships of all involved.
Ingo’s answer for this:
In other words, if telepathic overlay flowed from the stronger to the weaker (the impressionable, or the suggestible,) then the only feasible way to try to eliminate telepathic overlay was to create controlled remote viewers who could maintain themselves and their performance as the central power core of any viewing — and this regardless of whomever else might be involved around the edges of the viewing process.
(cut)
In any event, something along these lines WAS achieved regarding controlled remote viewing – and telepathic overlay vanished as a contaminating noise source, as did any form of suggestivity or influencing from others. The VIEWER controls the viewing, and ceases interacting with anyone else during it. Monitors make no attempt to interact with the viewer. Telepathic overlay vanishes.
Now, here is where I disagree with what Ingo wrote because I do not see this as just a simple (dominant/submissive ) relationship. Now, in the environment Ingo and SRI at the time worked – whereby the majority of the remote viewing was done in a room with the tasker and or monitor sat across from the viewer – then yes, I can see how the dominant/submissive scenario would come into play. I do not believe nor have I seen evidence that outside of a close one-to-one monitored RV relationship that this RAPPORT exists and is dominant in the RV process in the real world application of remote Viewing.
What I’m saying is – yes, this may be part of the answer in the close monitor & lab scenario of remote viewing – but Remote Viewing is a larger picture than this today – one that seems to involve a complex natural mechanism called Brain Syncing as the answer – but more on that later
Remote viewing Scenarios:
In the diagram below I have indicated some (probably not all) the scenarios that MAY be happening within the Remote Viewing process.
Number 1. Is a direct and clean, tasker to viewer to data scenario. (The ideal scenario).
The second indicates that the viewers may through possible telepathy mirror the data from the tasker. The third scenario indicates that it May be possible for a dominant viewer in a team environment to contaminate the data. The fourth scenario indicates that ‘other’ involved people: project manager, analysts, observers, consumers of the data, MAY contaminate it. The fifth scenario indicates that some target with high social impact/global reach MAY contaminate data: i.e.: (911 attacks, U.S elections). The fifth scenario is that is could be possible that all or a combination of any of these, MAY be contaminating the flow of data.
Of course – you will see and understand that if anything other than scenario 1 is happening then we MAY have an issue with remote viewing’s accuracy. Something not many people within remote viewing really want to openly discuss to date.
It is my opinion that there is a growing list of examples whereby it’s possible that one or more of these scenarios is at play in the general remote viewing experience.
At the IRVA 2017 Online conference and also an article of the same name in 8 Martinis remote viewing magazine – between myself (Daz Smith), John Cook and Pam Coronado on the topic of: The role of telepathy in Remote viewing2. The core 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 the presentation and later article, we discuss collected examples of remote viewing projects like HRVG’s Tanner Dam (2008) and others whereby the remote viewers accurately reported targets that did not physically exist and in some cases ONLY existed in the minds of the project taskers.
I also went on to replicate this with my own (quick and dirty) example in 2017 – (details below).
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 has 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, as with the Tanner Dam experiment from 2008, the Hydropolis, and the DNA project, my target did NOT physically exist. In fact, probably even to a lesser degree than the other similar experiments because I didn’t even get an artist painting or concept drawing made. That would have created a physical component which could be Remote Viewed. And we know that sometimes a Viewer can view their feedback. I also did not record anything in relation to the target in any physical form. I wanted to formulate an experiment where the target had no actual physical record, including having no physical feedback for the Remote Viewer to access.
My experimental target – which only existed in my mind, and a brief description of which I typed into ’notepad’ on the P.C. (existing only as digital ones and zeros), was:
Target: 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 results:
To a greater and lesser degree, almost ALL of the ten participants described: energy, UFO/vehicle or similarly triangle/pyramid shaped object. They very accurately described up and down movement, a whooshing noise and even more descriptions that accurately matched a target that only existed in my imagination, and as zeros and ones in digital data.
Other possible examples of this have been published and seen over the years. One I wrote about on my website was Remote viewing – Is it Broken3 (April 8, 2020). In this article I present three separate projects involving competent remote viewers all looking independently at the July 17, 1996 TWA800 Explosion event. Trans World Airlines Flight 800 (TWA 800) was a Boeing 747-100 that exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean near East Moriches, New York, on July 17, 1996, at about 8:31 p.m. EDT, 12 minutes after takeoff from John F. Kennedy International Airport on a scheduled international passenger flight to Rome, with a stopover in Paris. All 230 people on board died in the crash.
This event was looked at by three different groups of viewers with three different taskers – and they all reported different scenarios with their final data.
David Morehouse remote viewing team concluded:
//TWA 800 was accidentally shot down by a high powered Microwave SDI weapon* developed by Phillips labs at Brookhaven NY.//
Ed Dames Remote viewing team (with RV work done by Paul H Smith for Dames) concluded:
Ed Dames: //Where we said that the air driven pump in system three, that is the right inboard engine, that pump shattered and the shrapnel punctured the fuel tank – that it was indeed a mechanical error.//
Farsight and Courtney Browns Team concluded:
//…the viewer perceived that the motivation of the organization was “control, power, disruption.” The viewer clearly perceived that this was a terrorist organization…
At this point, at the suggestion of the monitor, the viewer cued specifically on the idea of mechanism, and stated that he perceived something box-like, some form of technology.//
Clearly the TWA800 event is VERY unlikely to be a combination of all or two of these scenarios so what is going on here?
Clearly Ingo Swann’s assertions above – CRV training has not removed the spectre of Telepathic Overlay as all the remote viewers were either CRV trained or a flavour of CRV, trained remote viewers. One or more of these project scenarios MUST include something more than the real event.
It’s my strong belief as a Remote Viewing participant and project manager of Remote Viewing projects that something lager in play within Remote Viewing which has led me to research the topic Telepathy and overlay which has now moved onto one of Brain Syncing as an answer
Is Telepathic Overlay possibly Brain Syncing?
Over the past year I have gathered several articles that detail research into brain Syncing. The more I gather and read on this topic – the more it feels like being potentially some of the underlying characteristics within remote viewing.
In the article: Brains Might Sync as People Interact — and That Could Upend Consciousness Research6 – it says:
People synchronize in various ways when we interact with one another. We subconsciously match our footsteps when we walk. During conversations, we mirror each other’s postures and gestures.
To that end, studies have shown that people synchronize heart rates and breathing when watching emotional films together. The same happens when romantic partners share a bed. Some scientists think we do this to build trust and perceive people as similar to ourselves, which encourages us to behave compassionately.
Surprisingly, people synchronize their neural rhythms, too. Researchers like Tom Froese, a cognitive scientist from the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology in Japan, think that these findings could upend our current models of consciousness.
It also goes on to say:
Researchers have observed people’s neural activity while they complete cognitive tasks with techniques like EEG, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which is a machine that detects where oxygenated blood is flowing in the brain. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) also detects blood flow in the brain. With these techniques, scientists have peered into people’s minds as they complete tasks in pairs and groups.
They noticed something unexpected: Functional links appeared across people’s brains when they cooperated during certain tasks. In other words, different people’s neural oscillations aligned when they cooperated.
Its then also says:
One such study, published in PLOS One in 2016, examined the neural activity of pilots and co-pilots during a flight simulation. In this case, the environment remains the same but the level of cooperation varies throughout the task. Pilots and co-pilots exhibited high levels of inter-brain connectivity during takeoff and landing because they needed to act as a team, yet they showed lower levels during the cruise phase of the flight when the two pilots acted independently.
A potential explanation: Functional links across brains increase when people work together, but not for those who are competing or taking on identical tasks simultaneously.
In a different study from 2018, greater neural synchronization occurred between subjects when they were told to complete a puzzle together. Synchronization levels dropped when the same subjects had to complete identical puzzles individually, or when both watched other people finish one.
As for the subjective experience of individuals in such studies, higher feelings of cooperativeness were aligned with higher levels of neural synchronization. Additionally, study participants’ level of inter-brain synchrony could predict subjective feelings of engagement, affinity, empathy and social connection.
They conclude with:
Given this knowledge, along with the changes that transpire during cooperative social interactions, Froese argues that a shift in our understanding of consciousness is warranted. Namely, he supports an ‘extension of consciousness’. Froese isn’t suggesting that consciousness lacks a neural basis; however, an individual’s neural activity is embodied in their interactions with the world. Now, we realize that other people may play a role.
To add to this – In the article: How Our brains can talk to each other – March 20219
When we communicate well with each other we talk about feeling ‘in sync’ or ‘in tune’, about being ‘on the same wavelength’.
It turns out these descriptions are much more than just useful metaphors; neuroscientists have discovered that we literally are ‘synched-up’ when our face-to-face engagements are going well.
This connection is known as inter-brain synchrony and researchers have been able to measure and demonstrate this neural activity using a technique called hyperscanning.
Originally developed to assess parapsychology phenomena, hyperscanning enables researchers to record simultaneously the neural activity of multiple people who are interacting socially in the real world (that is, face-to-face). This reveals inter-brain synchrony and provides a neural measure of what it means to be ‘in tune’ – an expression that has gained increasing neuroscientific credibility because of hyperscanning.
Conversely, having this knowledge means the moment we feel ‘out of tune’ – for example, slightly out of a conversation – we should remind ourselves that our brain may not be synchronised enough with the other person or people.
The article also goes on to detail:
An interesting experiment tracked the process of teaching for one semester in a classroom. The researchers were able to find the moments when the brain synchronisation was high between students and teacher, and when it dropped. In other words, the experiment provided a neural indicator of when the teachers gained or lost the attention of their students.
Recent studies have also shown that people who have a strong emotional attachment to each other, such as lovers, have a higher level of brain synchronisation than people with less emotional attachment to each other, such as friends and strangers.
However, what we have recently found at the Empathic Computing Lab at the Auckland Bioengineering Institute is that inter-brain synchrony occurs in the Virtual Environment (VE) as well as the real world. In a study published last year, we asked participants to perform a finger-pointing exercise separated by a finger-tracking exercise during which time their neural activity was recorded by electroencephalograph (EEG) hardware – a non-invasive technique in which electrodes are placed along the scalp to record brain activity.
We fitted strangers (in this case, couples not known to each other) with a VR headset so that they could see each other in the form of an avatar. While they interacted via VE, we recorded their brain activities. After analysing the recorded data, the evidence showed that their brains began to synchronise after the first four minutes of interaction. This is the first investigation on brain synchronisation among strangers in VE.
This is all early research and all new of 2020 and 2021 – But could Brain Syncing be one of the potential mechanisms behind the Remote Viewing process? It feels like it to me. Could we, when working as a team, be syncing brains to accomplish tasks. Could this explain how we as viewers know what the blind targets are – and do we MAYBE on occasion just report back what the tasker REALLY WANTS? And not actual information – maybe for example in projects whereby feedback does not (yet) exist? These are all great questions that in my opinion need answers.
This is definitely a topic I will be exploring and researching further.
Bilocation in remote Viewing
In Remote Viewing and CRV we have a situation that can occur called Bilocation. This is where the remote viewer buys into the experience so much they believe they are at both the desk doing the RV and at the target itself. The CRV (Controlled Remote Viewing) manual (1986)4, describe Bilocation as:
“When the remote viewer perceives he is too much absorbed in and transferred to the site and cannot therefore appropriately debrief and objectify site information.”
Lyn Buchannan5 on this stated:
“As you continue to pay attention and act on each impression, the “signal” gets stronger and the impressions more real. At some point, it is possible for your conscious mind to start paying so much attention to the signals coming from your subconscious mind that it starts to completely ignore the signals coming from your skin, your ears, nose, etc. You can sometimes enter a sort of “virtual reality” where the things coming from your subconscious appear to be totally real. That is the CRV state of “bilocation”.
Now, anyone who has tried Virtual Reality (I have) it’s amazing how fast your body gives in to the sensory information it receives and you really do feel in the ‘zone’ of the experience – for me, this took literally seconds for the real world to fall away and to be replaced by the virtual one. This internal VR creation is one of the possible theories behind the Bilocation experience in remote Viewing.
For me – it has also become clear through this new research that Bilocation too can be explained as a possible symptom of brain syncing, and use of the mirror neurons.
In this article: Empathy, mirror neurons and SYNC10, 2016, it states:
This article explains how people synchronize their thoughts through empathetic relationships and points out the elementary neuronal mechanisms orchestrating this process.
We sometimes feel as if we just resonate with something or someone, and this feeling seems far beyond mere intellectual cognition. It happens in various situations, for example while watching a movie or connecting with people or groups. What is the mechanism of this “resonance”?
Later it states:
Taking a closer look, Pearlman mentions physiology and neuroscience: The mirror neurons embedded in our brain reflect the movement and sounds seen on the screen and beef up the spectator’s empathy. More than that, a body-based, empathy-kindling path (called kinesthetic empathy) induces an inner image of movements seen onscreen. The observer essentially “internally simulates” the observed movements and, without actually moving, feels his own body configuration change in response.
It also goes on to say:
Empathy as connectedness
Empathy relates to connectedness and to a sense of just knowing what another person is feeling, and is closely related to intuition (Roy 2010). Moreover, it can be defined as recognizing other people’s emotions through intuition and a feeling of connecting to the other person (Roy idem). Pavlovich and Krahnke (2012) document that empathy enhances connectedness through the unconscious sharing of neuro-pathways that dissolve the barriers between self and other.
Kinesthetic empathy interaction (KEI)
Sometimes strange things happen to one’s imagination, especially when one watches a dance performance. Spectators of dance, even while seated, often feel they are participating in the movements they observe and experience related feelings and ideas. This is called kinesthetic empathy interaction (KEI), delineated as movement empathy, a foundational technique of dance/movement therapy, in which practitioner and client move in synchrony. The other name used for this phenomenon is attunement. Spectators can internally simulate movement sensations of speed, effort, and changing body configuration (Hagendoorn 2004; Fogtmann 2007).
These descriptions clearly describe what MAY be happening within RV as the Bilocation process. That it may be a by product of empathy, and brain syncing involving the mirror neurons.
The article later goes on to say:
Researchers at UCLA found that cells in the human anterior cingulate, which normally fire when you poke the patient with a needle (“pain neurons”), will also fire when the patient watches another patient being poked (Ramachandran 2006).
Other studies using different experimental methodologies and techniques have demonstrated in the human brain the existence of a mechanism directly mapping action perception and execution, defined as the Mirror Neuron System, MNS (Gallese 2003, 2009). It appeared that during mere action observation there is a strong activation of premotor and posterior parietal areas: the same regions that are activated when we move, are also activated when we observe the same motor acts executed by others. The MNS in humans is not only involved in imitation of simple movements, but also in imitation learning of complex skills, in the perception of communicative actions, and in the detection of action intentions (Gallese 2009). Similarly, it was shown that mirror neurons are involved in our capacity to share emotions and sensations with others (Gallese 2003, 2006, 2009; De Vignemont and Singer 2006).
So what does all this mean?
Well, it’s clear that we are entering a new age of understanding of the brain, how it syncs with others, empathy, intuition and more. This research can give us insights into the remote viewing process and some of the components we know and have experienced that seem to have a potential effect on the remote viewing experience and how and where the data is coming from.
I feel this new research can enlighten us as to what may be happening in the whole Remote Viewing process: Telepathic connections, Bilocation, and maybe even displacement common in ARV projects.
Maybe all these topics are just pure natural processes of brain syncing across ALL people involved in a project? For me as a long time practitioner of remote viewing – it’s great to see new and valuable research that may help us finally understand some of the underlying mechanisms of PSI and Remote Viewing and to better understand how we work within this context and how we can utilise it.
If Brain Syncing is a real process and if it works as so far identified – are there ways to stop this happening within the RV process? – Or are they actually needed for RV to occur at all? Can we encourage a single track- tasker to viewer sync? and hinder all other potential contaminates in the process?
There is so much to discuss and discover. What this new research does show us though, is that it’s a very complex new avenue of discovery that MAY be one of THE most important factors in how Remote Viewing and some of its mechanisms and potential issues, work.
Notes:
- Article: RV Vs Telepathic Overlay by Ingo Swann, Feb-1996. – https://ingoswann.com/superpowers
- IRVA 2017 Online conference, 8 martinis article: What part does Telepathy play in remote Viewing – http://www.eightmartinis.com/eight-martinis-issue-17 – a blog article of this is here: https://www.remoteviewed.com/what-part-if-any-does-telepathy-play-within-remote-viewing/
- Remote Viewing – is it broken? – https://www.remoteviewed.com/remote-viewing-is-it-broken/
- DIA CRV manual 1986 – https://www.remoteviewed.com/crv-manuals/
- Lyn Buchanan on Bilocation – http://crviewer.com/faqs/general/faq002.php
- Brains Might Sync As People Interact — and That Could Upend Consciousness Research- Juy2021. https://is.gd/LKI4br
- What binds us? Inter-brain neural synchronization and its implications for theories of human consciousness – Ana Lucía Valencia, Tom Froese Neuroscience of Consciousness, Volume 2020, Issue 1, 2020, niaa010, https://doi.org/10.1093/nc/niaa010
- How Our brains can talk to each other – March 2021 – https://is.gd/9rhiyw
- Empathy, mirror neurons and SYNC, 2016 – Ryszard Praszkier – https://is.gd/2r0YCD
Other articles:
What binds us? Inter-brain neural synchronization and its implications for theories of human consciousness – https://is.gd/HJr0VI
Synced brains: how to bond with your kids – according to neuroscience – https://is.gd/QSXgqf
Study shows how our brains sync hearing with vision – https://www.aansneurosurgeon.org/?p=15383
Our brains synchronize during a conversation – https://is.gd/9r8R83
Hyperscans” Show How Brains Sync as People Interact” – https://is.gd/0Ao5rf
