Yes – Ingo Swann did evolve Controlled Remote Viewing after 1985.

Full disclosure: Before publishing this article I did have a series of Emails with Tom McNear, the primary author of the article referenced in this one. I outlined what I was going to say – We did agree of some things but on the main point of their central theory we did not agree. I have the utmost respect for Tom McNear, his experience and his knowledge. I appreciate the topics and elements we have discussed. My comments and disagreements with certain points are at this point based of differing perspectives.

I would also like to thank Jon Knowles and Debra Lynne Katz for several years of advice, help, sharing and communications over the Ingo Swann archives and more.

Controlled Remote Viewing (CRV) was a prototype training method created by Ingo Swann and Hal Puthof for their clients from 1979-1985. During these years CRV evolved and was built stage by stage¹. As one stage was being formed into a training stage a following stage was in R&D. The training was cut short with only one fully trained person in CRV (Tom McNear) and Tom left the program in 1985. CRV was not fully realised or finished at this point and it was not documented.

Some of the People trained in full and in part by Swann believe that this prototype training method was the final and complete version of CRV. I have found, shared and now present data that shows that CRV was in early development, not finished and that further to this, Ingo Swann developed further RV technologies after his CRV training was axed.

After Ingo’s removal from the training, the military version of CRV (modelled after the SRI/Ingo Swann CRV) eventually condensed the CRV training into a period less than six months. In 1994 Ingo Swann taught his friend Bob Durant and the author Jim Schnabel CRV over three intensive weeks.

In 1998 Ingo started to teach a close friend of his Tom Beregn in CRV. Tom was only the second trainee in all six CRV stages in the long form of CRV (I call this the long form because Ingo’s CRV training was a one-to-one, intensive up to two year process). Tom was trained in CRV from 1998 – 2013. This version of CRV was different showing further CRV/RV evolution. This article is a response to the previously published – Did Ingo Swann Add More Stages to Controlled Remote Viewing?² And also to several heated debates through social media on this very topic going back decades.

 

Background to the author:

My name is Daz smith – I only have a small history with Ingo Swann. People will be quick to point out that I did not train with Ingo Swann – I was not trained by him, I did communicate with Ingo from 2008 onwards, when he reached out to me through intermediaries, thanking me, after he saw that I defended him, CRV and the SRI history against some who were changing RV history. It all went further after he did my astrology chart to check me out first. Ingo also invited me to stay for a week with him in New York in 2011. I didn’t stay the week but did have a short visit. (I did ask a ton of questions).

I have spent decades collecting and researching all aspects of CRV/RV including the entire Star Gate archives of over 110,000 pages of information and more recently the UWG Ingo Swann archives. I have also personally used the CRV method for my own remote viewing for twenty four years – many of my projects and examples can be found online. I also compiled three books on remote viewing; CRV – Controlled remote Viewing, Remote Viewing Dialogues, and Remote Viewing 911.³  I also single headedly published a remote viewing magazine (eight martinis)⁴ since 2009, and am currently compiling its eighteenth issue.

The article that prompted me to write this has four authors – all Ingo Swann students of varying levels. I have to upmost respect for their training and for their participation in the Star Gate program and knowledge of this. What I’m not convinced of is that the training that some of the did in part forty years ago means they really know what Ingo did after he was not hired to finish the training program. I dont believe they have all read, researched and databased the Ingo Swann archives and Star Gate archives to any level that I myself, Jon Knowles and Debra Lyn Katz have. yes I agree there experience and training those decades ago to hold sway in early CRV training and Ingo at that time – but in the decades since, Ingos work during those (non-military) decades and the released documentation – I am not convinced they all know the detail and breadth of the documentation. So I agree being an early Ingo Swann student holds some value – but in the decades since and the documentation of this – Im not so convinced.

 

Background to this article.

For many years the CRV community has heard rumours and stories that CRV may have gone through further R&D and even added additional stages after the CRV training by Ingo was stopped mid training in 1985. One of CRV and RV’s most prominent trainers and a member of the Star Gate unit has described many times being invited by Ingo Swann to New York for an intensive training in these new stages. These rumours and others have led to many heated debates on this topic over the decades, first in email groups, and later in social media posts – finally in the Daz RV chat discussion – January 29, 2021.

For a period of the last two years; Debra Lyne Katz, Jon Knowles and myself have been examining organising and discussing the content of the University of West Georgia Ingo Swann archives. Much of this new material originates there. Both Debra and Jon spent time at the archives helping archive the papers.

Myself, I have been researching CRV history & development since the mid nineties. I found and published the 1985 Tom McNear training notes⁵ on his CRV training in 2007 after finding it in the CIA Star Gate archives.

In 2013 Tom Bergen- Ingo’s webmaster & friend – contacted me to help the family of Ingo Swann release and disseminate an important message to the Remote Viewing community, the message was:

Important — Legal Disclaimer:

Since Ingo Swann’s passing, the family has become aware of a number of individuals, organizations, and companies using his name and likeness for the purpose of promoting and selling a vast array of products and services including Remote Viewing training courses and related products. Ingo neither endorsed nor provided materials for others to use in any course or training scenario. There are no such official affiliations and these acts are unauthorized and without permission of either Ingo Swann or his family. Also, any unauthorized use of Ingo’s art or paintings is a violation of U.S. copyright law.⁶

During this process Tom also explained how he was the second ONLY person to be fully trained by Ingo Swann in all stages of CRV⁷. Tom indicated to me the evolution of CRV by discussing that his CRV training by Ingo was different in structure than the existing 1980’s  CRV we were all exposed to. These details supplied by Tom Bergen were instrumental in guiding me to research this topic further and finally to the University of West Georgia Ingo Swann archives⁸. In 2013 I also discussed the CRV changes in Ingo’s ‘other’ only six stage students with Tom McNear is a series of emails⁹ – during my initial research.

During early 2020, in various Facebook posts, personal messages I shared some of our research and findings that supported a theory that Ingo did further develop RV/CRV and that he did make changes – this was hotly disputed. On 7 April, 2021 I shared some of my cumulative research with Tom McNear by email¹⁰. This involved the sources: Rima letter, Ed Dames letter, RV IMPORTANT folder and a few of my Tom Bergen communications.

 

Recent developments.

On June 3, 2021 an article was realised on the Paul Smith website – Did Ingo Swann Add More Stages to Controlled Remote Viewing?

This well written article by Ingo’s 1980’s students and Tom Bergen repeats and details many of the sources previously shared by myself to them in email communications. From this point on we will look at some of the article comments, its theory and we will add to this where we can.

 

The recent article states:

Our analysis will propose a theory, strongly supported by the historical record, as to the origin of this list of stages.  In 1990, Swann also wrote of four “areas” in which he felt he had made breakthroughs. This paper will attempt to show how these “areas” fit into the alleged 12 CRV “stages” of which he wrote.

I will show that their theory is incorrect – but I do agree that the documents do indicated Ingo was making great ‘breakthroughs, in the areas cited and in other documents – Ingo was very much alive and kicking in the late 80’s-late nineties and on and these ‘breakthroughs’ allowed Ingo to create the additional CRV stages.

The crux of this argument comes down to two questions for me:

1. Did Ingo further develop CRV and RV after 1985?
2. Did Ingo add extra stages to CRV?

I will answer these questions with a positive.

 

RV IMPORTANT

After his passing, the papers and files from Ingo Swann were donated to the University of West Georgia. Ingo was meticulous in his filing and very organised and structured. To highlight this and the probable importance of the document inside the folder marked RV IMPORTANT – enclosed below are a few details from Debra Lynne Katz. Debra spent approx. 2.5yrs working for the University of West Georgia helping to organise, scan and record the donated Ingo Swann archives.

What struck repeatedly during the during my 2 1/2 years of working within the archives was that Ingo was extremely meticulous in his organization and record keeping for his files which he maintained for decades. I had never seen anything like this level of care and attention to detail before or since.

For example, in his chronological correspondence files there were dozens of folders consisting of thousands of item including letters, memos, notes, birthday cards, photos, receipts, bills, flyers, brochures, newspaper clippings, and publishing contracts. In the SRI files he kept every single contract in chronological order that he had with the government, which often was updated or renewed every 3 to 6 months. He kept all his experimental notes including raw data sheets, progress reports, calculations, commentary, informal yet structured  write ups of which  he seemed to take the liberty to document himself.

Each folder was labelled in the same way and every item was in perfect order in terms of date and alphabetical order. I worked in these files for months indexing them and rarely found an item out of order. The director of archives had a strict rule that the files be kept in the order in which the donor provided so I knew this was Ingo’s structure.

I was struck by the fact that he even kept small stubs from theatrical shows and tiny notes that contained a single sentence expressing gratitude to someone (or irritation to someone else). He also kept his responses next to letters he received and vs versa, sometimes several responses going back and forth, most in proper chronological order.

 He was an avid typist and often typed even informal notes. He would draft and redraft memos, of which there are hundreds between himself And those he worked with. He would scratch out lines and making handwritten notes and then retyping these and keep the carbon copies. He seemed almost obsessed bout documenting what what happening whether it was within his experimental work, his student’s progress, activities, session work.

He was constantly doing write ups of his own daily progress with experiments or that of his students, noting trends, challenges and achievements. I was surprised that he had so many notes from his students in the files was their session work. These were also meticulously organized, and seemed like handwritten originals. The student notes precisely outlined what their understanding of the CRV process was from that days lesson which seemed to encompass direct practice of a particular stage. The CRV students would report what they learned, often around a certain concept such as ideograms or the signal line. They would then describe whether they felt like they did well or were struggling with something or if they had a breakthrough whether in understanding of achievement. He would then make comments and they might have to write more notes or make more corrections.

There were so many of these student CRV notes I couldn’t possibly read or take pictures of them all at the time I was there, although I do hope to return and do so at a later date because I feel like these more than anything else demonstrate what Ingo taught to each individual student, since he approved all the notes after they wrote them and then collected them. He even transcribed one lecture to them such as the one in which he told them if they weren’t going to take breaks as taught they should just leave the training program right then and not come back. You can see while much of the teaching was uniform, not all of it was. He indicated and reminded others in multiple memos and reports that the stages were being developed as he went along and Ingo, always working one on one with each student, seemed to make adjustments for the students needs. CRV was never competed even though documents show the progress of some stages and students and need for continued work with others. Ingo seemed to be constantly having to remind those he worked with that CRV was in development.

Many memos demonstrate the struggles he had in maintaining control of CRV as something to be taught and worked with as part of a protected unit – as his students progress was becoming apparent to those outside the lab and to their “clients” who were the various outside agencies, memos indicated  that it was not a completed system and it was not a training program that an employee could just be sent to for a few weeks before returning to a unit. He was constantly threatening to quit at the end of a contract if his wishes for how CRV should be taught and implemented (much of which was then carried out the ft Meade unit) and in all of these memos back and forth, that again are carefully organized, he made it clear CRV was a work in progress and should not, could not be rushed.

My interpretation of what I read was that he was as much learning from the students as they were learning from him, although no one should have any doubts as to the extensive amount of work and insights he already had accumulated from not just his own work but from his many associates he worked with in the lab for so many years. He was often running and participating in trials and making notes of the progress of his companions and associates too long before he ever received a training contract. In many ways he was developing and experimenting and researching the foundations of CRV for over a decade before he formerly began conceiving or formulating the actual stages and writing out the structure itself.

 As we know CRV is not only what the viewer is doing, but how the whole project and process is set up, including targeting. Using lat/long coordinates without another person acting as a telepathic sender was  clearly Ingo’s idea and everyone of us are I initially thought him and even doing an experiment in this area. You wouldn’t know this from any research articles but it is clearly documented again in chronological order with everybody’s memos going back and forth followed by the experimental data and then reports and further memos. Well of course in the examination of any data, such as the information contained in Ingo archives, Those examining it ultimately have to draw their own conclusions which may or may not be the same that Ingo or others would have come up with – the benefit we have is the authors own words and reminents and signs  of their actions.

He seems to treat everything in the files with reverence as  there was rarely even anything folded, bent, or  torn (just some things yellowed from tobacco). This is mind-blowing to me even now give the sheer amount of items in the entire collection. We know his home environment was often packed with papers and books and boxes everywhere and yet thousands of papers are in perfect condition. To me it reflects his overall commitment bordering on obsession really in documenting history and progress.  This is why I trust if Ingo indicated something was important in his files, which I only recall seeing on a few occasions at most, then he really meant this”¹¹

Now, the other researchers didn’t feel it relevant to mention these details min their article – but I will. Within these archives is a folder named: RV IMPORTANT. It’s the only folder with this designation. If Ingo set aside a folder with this title – it’s something to really be mindful of in our opinions. Contained in this folder is the document titled: ‘The Identified Stages’. This document details twelve stages of CRV. The stages are split into two sections;

• The Physicals 6 Stages)
• The Mentals. (6 Stages)

This folder also contained eleven other pages of hand written notes by Ingo from the period 1994-96. As per the recent article – there is good evidence in that this document is authored by Ingo. First it’s typed-up like Ingo liked to do, secondly it has red Ingo handwriting on it (AOO R01). This handwriting was initially recognised by myself, Debra Lynne Katz and Jon Knowles (both helped out at the archives) and now by his students as being Ingo’s. This folder alone is an important part.

Where I feel the recent (student) article and its theory gets things wrong are by their second and third points about this document:

2.Most significantly, the number “38” appears in the upper right corner of the document.

3.The close correspondence between the 12 stages listed in the document and the 11 stages in McNear’s 1985 manual.

 

Their article then goes on to state:

Second, and most significantly, is the number “38” typed in the upper right corner of the document.  What could the “38” mean? If it is a page number, why would a single-page document begin with “38?”  Shown below is the table of contents for McNear’s 1985 CRV Manual juxtaposed with Swann’s 12 stage document showing page number 38. As shown, the manual ends on page 37 with the glossary beginning on page 38. When Swann read McNear’s manual after receiving it from Daz Smith in the 2007 time frame he read the 11 “Future Stages” as proposed by McNear in Chapter 10 (pages 35-36). Swann may have used the 11 stages presented in the manual as a jumping-off point, turning them into 12 stages which better captured his own estimation as to how CRV might be evolved, or Swann may have retrieved his Stages Document from as early as 1983, and inserted it in the 1985 CRV Manual.

…
Regardless, the key to this theory is the “38” on the document (see below). Swann, regardless of the year he developed the document, may have chosen to include his document in the 1985 CRV Manual if only for his own purposes. Page 38, just before the glossary, would likely have been the most logical place to include it.

 

Where I feel this theory falls down?

First the number 38 Typed on this document. I don’t know the reason for this (at this time). Nor I feel,  do his students – they are speculating. What I do know is that the theory of it fitting and being added to the earlier Tom McNear Hypothesised stages relies on Ingo ever seeing the 1985 Tom McNear training notes –  He did not. The theory hinges on a miscommunication and that they state:

Swann read McNear’s manual after receiving it from Daz Smith in the 2007 time frame

I did not ever send Ingo the Tom McNear 1985 training notes. Ingo had no way of ever knowing that Tom’s 1985 notes had 38 pages? In a letter dated 2 December 2008¹² from myself to Ingo, I for the first time, introduced Ingo to the existence of the 1985 Tom McNear training notes and the further hypothetical stages. Now, because we were communicating in a convoluted format because Ingo did not do email, computers or the internet. The communication process went like; (me: letter to email, to friend of Ingo’s – then faxed to Ingo. From Ingo: typed letter – to fax – to friend – then emailed back  to me.) Hence – Sending the entire thirty eight page Tom McNear document plus my letter, I felt,  would have been too much for Ingo to receive as a fax – therefore I typed up the five hypothetical stages only,  in my letter. Ingo never had nor never saw the 1985 Tom McNear training notes, nor did he know how many pages it contained. He simply would not have known to write a number 38 on his ‘identified Stages’ document. To get it to fit somewhere in Tom McNear document.  There is also no copy of Tom McNears 1985 Training notes in the Ingo Swann files, there are two previous CRV training manuals – only.

(As per the notes at the top of the Page – I have discussed my thoughts on this with Tom McNear. He disagrees and feels that there may have been opportunities where Ingo did see the notes.)

 

 

Point 2 – the close correspondence.

Now, I do agree with the recent article in that Ingo’s six ‘Mental’ CRV stages do seem similar to the hypothetical ones in the 1985 Tom McNear paper. What I disagree with, are these points:

Swann may have used the 11 stages presented in the manual as a jumping-off point, turning them into 12 stages which better captured his own estimation as to how CRV might be evolved, or Swann may have retrieved his Stages Document from as early as 1983, and inserted it in the 1985 CRV Manual.

These are my reasons why:

1. The folders contents – all the other documents are circa 1994-96. That would be at least eleven years before I found the Tom McNear training notes and twelve years before I shared a few typed paragraphs from that document with Ingo.
2. Add to this the first six stages of CRV detailed ‘The physicals’. We know from Tom Bergen that these ‘different’ CRV stages were being taught by Ingo Swann from the years – 1998-2013. That means these ‘different’ CRV stages would have existed in some format in 1998.
3. Ingo’s return comments to me about these hypothetical stages – Dec, 2008 (below):

As to your question about TMc and the higher numbered stages, I telephoned him to get the poop on that, After CRV was taken in house (sans my humble self), his higher officers asked him tom prepare something about ‘where do we go form here’ as of the then Stage six. So he prepared a theoretical paper for this purpose, the one you have, and which he recognised as such. This theoretical effort was never included in the training manual they originally prepared (of which i have two original copies). No research was done by this group on this, and no training was ever undertaken along those lines. If the theoretical paper did become attached to the original manual it would have been by someone else at some later date. You can probably guess at what I might think of this highly intellectualize snarl of ‘sexy’ terms – which is all that it is.  Anyhow – have a good and prosperous 2009.¹³

These comments do not sound like Ingo was going to use the Tom McNear hypothetical stages as a jump-off point.

 

From my research of the Ingo Swann archives there are three RV manuals within Ingo’s files:

1. The 1986 CRV manual ( by Paul H Smith and team)
2. The 1986 CRV manuals with a PSITech front cover
3. The John Vivanco TDS manual

The two CRV manuals – Ingo mentioned above in his letter to me. There are no 1985 Tom McNear Training notes in Ingo’s archives (so far), because I didn’t share a full copy with him.

 

The recent article also goes on to state:

we believe Swann was going to insert his page 38 into the CRV Manual immediately before the glossary (existing page 38) and, at some point, he was going to share this information—other than those elements, of course, which he identified as withheld.

So, to summarise and answer this comment:

1. The RV IMPORTANT folder and papers possibly pre-date any knowledge of the 1985 Tom McNear notes.
2. Ingo was already training Tom Bergen in the ‘different’ CRV documented in the  ‘Identified stages’ the paper in 1998.
3. The page number theory – does not work. Ingo didn’t ever see the 1985 Tom McNear Notes or know its number of pages.
4. Ingo didn’t seem to indicate that he thought much about the hypothesised stages. This doesn’t feel like he was going to use them.

For these reasons I cannot support this theory.

Again – I do find it interesting that both mentor and student did come up with independently similar extra stages of CRV development. Maybe that is a testament to the CRV training itself and Ingo’s statements that Tom McNear was an excellent student.

 

So, where did these other stages come from?

The recent article does reference some of the communications from the Ingo Swann archives that do shed light on this:

The article gets the source of the first piece of information wrong – its  a letter to ed Dames ( not Ed May).

31 January, 1990 letter to of Ed Dames:

I have made breakthroughs in at least four areas, any of which, with patience, could contribute to dynamic enlargements of the scope of RV. (my emphasis)

1. Future-seeing:
   Even with excellent RV capabilities, penetrating the future with regard to establishing kinds of events and their potential timings has always been difficult. As a result of my year-long future-seeing project (archive copy included herein), I can now meet a “grid” in which future-event potentials are locatable with regard to their approximate nature and approximate future dates of their occurrence. This grid allows for intellectual analysis of potentials, and then enables RV capabilities to foresee there more exact nature. Example: see the prediction about Margaret Thatcher in the April newsletter, which came to pass almost exactly and within the given time window. These grids are somewhat complicated to construct, but when constructed will enable almost any remote viewer greater access into future potentials.

2. Full-body scanning Of internal organs and health status:

As a result of working with special equipment designed by a well-known researcher, it became possible to refine my own RV potentials to a degree in which the human body can been seen as transparent. With a knowledge of anatomical and bioenergetics systems, a health status of bio-organs and systems can be described. I have begun working with two MDs and a well-known healer, and the results so far have been extraordinary. I suspect, but have not yet confirmed, that this can be done remotely, and without the target’s knowledge.

3. Assessments of states of consciousness:
   This one is more difficult to describe, for I fear new words and concepts need to be used — such as “image-action particles” of consciousness. But a fictional example of this is personified by Counsellor Troy in Star Trek: The Second Generation.” She assesses states of consciousness, and can tell when a person is lying, helping, etc., and gives an idea of motives of targeted persons. While many people can sense much of this, the RV ability actually to “see” and dissect image-action particles of the consciousnesses involved enhances this kind of “contact.

4. Am presently developing what I will call “RV-in-betweeners. ” Here is the realm of thought-forms, which can and do exist independent of bio-organisms. I have isolated some of the principles involved, but here definitely is something so science-fiction-like that I’ll postpone describing it — save to say that I feel certain remote viewers have encountered in-betweeners, and have not understood fully what they were.

As you know, I have always been interested not only in figuring these things out, but erecting a technology for them which can be passed to others. Number 1 above would be difficult in this regard, but 2 and 3 probably could be transferred. Am not sure about 4 yet.[source]

 

In the same year we have a communication: 3 August, 1991 Letter to Rima. (my emphasis in bold)

Ed Dames has passed along to me your interest in being taught remote viewing. Unfortunately this is probably economically unfeasible, since the CRV training I evolved at SRI is very labour intensive and time extensive. Since I don’t want you to feel this is a matter of mere obstinacy on my part, I’d like to say the following.

CRV training was evolved over an eight year period. Both the development of it. and the training of certain preselected individuals was possible only because of the existence at the time of adequate facilities and a rather large and continuing amount of funding. Adequate training for a given individual may take as long as two years, but the time needed is completely dependent on given individuals and the speed with which they can accommodate the radical departures of thinking necessary to achieve proficiency. I evolved certain standards for achieving this proficiency, although second and third generations of trainees not under my direct supervision may not adhere strictly to these standards.

There are two major complexities involved. The first is that there is nothing in parapsychology or popular psychical lore which remotely resembles the CRV training methodology, goals, or proficiencies achieved. Second, success in the training requires the formation of new neural pathways or adaptation of existing ones which will accept, monitor, control, and apply the accessing of extra-sensory signals, while at the same time “learning” how to discriminate them amongst the noise which arises from several different sources.

The trainee cannot at all do this at first, and so the trainer must control that focus for the trainee, and do so on a repetitive basis, until the neural pathway becomes strong enough to act alone. There is no way the trainee can adapt what they think they already know about psi functioning, since nothing known resembles this new stuff. The training and the proficiencies which result are precision processes, and any deviation from the demanded precision will not only bring about failure, but probably disorients the new forming pathways.

The training is also cumulative, and was divided into seven “stages”, each of which addresses a different aspect of signal. Each stage builds upon the former, and when successfully acquired by the trainee, also predicts the emergence of the next stage – which duly appeared in all my trainees. The procedures which I isolated thus constitute some kind of natural and predictable developmental ESP – which, of course, is no longer a good acronym

….

The financial incentive would have to be very good to inspire a trainer to undertake training others in the commercial arena. I doubt very much that the transfer of this technology, due to its labour intensiveness, will ever really be achieved outside the formal, SRI-client auspices which once existed. There is another factor to be considered also.

For the research, development, and training to proceed certain contracts were entered into by myself, SRI and with binding implications among the clients. To sum these up, while the training technology’s was transferred to preselected trainees provided by the clients, and for in house use by those clients, the development and methodologies devised, remained, by contract exclusively proprietary to me, and are in no way owned either by SRI, the clients nor the trainees, but are owned solely by myself. The technology was never intended to be offered for training on a commercial basis outside in-house usage by clients, and stipulations in my contracts establish this, because it is very easy for the precision nature of the training to become less than precise – and end up a mess.

While the training is unfeasible for all the above reasons, I have continues research into these matters, and during the last five years have made certain progress which establishes that the labour intensive methodology of RV, as designed by myself, can be undercut by other approaches which speed up the RV potential acquisitions, and have larger implications beyond it. These new discoveries have a certain labour-intensiveness about them, but since over-all yield is much larger, an effort of technology transfer based on them is more feasible. In effect, the building of re-adapting of neural pathways to accommodate the shifting of psi capabilities into applied abilities can probably be achieved faster and more perfectly than via the time consuming RV training approaches.

I am considering, and have been so for some time, offering these new developmental precisions techniques to a selected nuclear group of people. But I have certain stipulations which must be met or resolved before this effort could come into existence. These new methods do not at all obviate any of the CRV processes, but the basis for them is quite different. When RV was developed at SRI under my direct and sole auspices, we were without adequate knowledge of the full and important meaning of hologramic foundations of time, existence, the mind and what might be called “operating” within holograms. During the last five years, I have undertaken to understand holograms in their psychic context, and have made a good deal of progress in working with them. Certain precision-orientated approaches have become clear as a result, and these, when neural pathways have been constructed to accommodate specific hologramic processes, yield faster results and higher quality (in terms of magnitude) results.

But if these new developments were to be offered to a nuclear group, the effort would have to be on some solid ad not ad hoc basis. An organised school of some sort is certainly called for, one which all members of the nuclear group would have to be committed for some time into the future. At my increasing age, I am not sure how to proceed.

In my twenty years experience, I can say one very sure thing about these capabilities. They exist naturally, and thus have a precise natural way of developing. When this natural developing in not precisely adhered too, then the whole psi system breaks down. Thus these are only one way to develop applied psi, and this way is determined by the ways which are inherent in the processes themselves. No amount of intellectual theorizing about these ways will do anything at all, unless intellect is first informed that the natural developmental ways exist, and that intellect must hone itself as a mirror image of these ways. I am sure you will recognise the compatibility of this statement in the light of all our other faculties and processes, each of which have their own precise ways of operating, and which, if deviated from, result in failure of those faculties and processes.

 

As you can see in 1991, Ingo was engaged in further RV research. In both letter sources, Ingo describes some of these advances and how he has ‘erected a technology so that they can be passed to others’.  In the Rima letter, Ingo discusses offering this training to a select group of people – If they commit to a set training timescale. Very much like the story the Ex Star Gate viewer has previous told about being invited by Ingo for advanced stages training – but that he could not commit to because of the extended timescale needed. This research fits well within the timescale of the Identified Stages document.

 

CRV training in the 90’s

For quite some years Paul Smith and his students have been stressing that Ingo did not evolve CRV or develop further stages. I and others did disagree, disputed this and it now appears that he did and they were wrong.  Their recent article states:

There has been some disagreement whether Swann changed CRV teaching techniques over the years.  We believe that what we have referred to as the “Stages Document” shows that Swann did make changes in the delivery of the CRV training delivered to Tom Bergen versus that delivered to the military viewers, but these changes did not change the overall content of the CRV training.

We know now that Ingo trained two (publicly) known people in all six stages of CRV (The two Toms). We also now know that these two versions of CRV are similar, but different, showing that Ingo was evolving CRV.

Now, in the recent ‘other’ article and above – it comments that the difference between the two methods are only ‘slight changes’ – And t try to give the impression that this is OK, nothing to see here. Yet, in a separate dispute over many years because other people using CRV, may have interpreted and use the Ideogram process differently – these people are called out as heretics, as people using an inferior technique, one that destroys the creative process (all unfounded of course). So a small interpretation over Ideograms is almost heretical when done by others – yet when trying to explain a different evolved form of CRV, one that changes the structure and removes complete stages like S5 – its suddenly OK to see ‘slight changes’ and they have minimal impact on the CRV processes. Double standards I feel. (Note: The stated articles main author Tom McNear has not been involved in the ongoing ideogram dispute). 

For example about one of the changes between the two versions of CRV – stage 5.
The article states:

Swann removed or even seemed to have forgotten Stage-5. Paul H. Smith stated that in an in-person conversation with Swann on 24 May 1999, Swann “denied any recollection of Stage 5, nor of having trained anyone in that aspect of CRV.” In one other reported conversation, Swann said he thought “the Army” had developed Stage-5. In this, Swann was either mistaken or forgetful.

I, personally met and spent a day with Ingo in 2011, during that time he answered hundreds of questions and to me, seemed very in touch with all his faculties. On this topic I have also written to Ingo’s longest CRV trained student and his last had this to say on if Ingo removed stage 5 for a reason or if he was just forgetful:

Tom Bergen – Ingo’s cognitive processes remained in good shape right ’til the end.

I more recently asked Tom:
As you know I have shared these CRV differences with Tom McNear and Paul H Smith – Paul’s theory on the differences is that Ingo was forgetting what he previously taught and that’s the reason for the differences. I met Ingo in NY in 2011 and he seemed ‘of sound mind’ to me when answering all my hundreds of questions – so I find this hard to believe. What are your thoughts on this theory of Pauls? ( I know we have briefly touched on this in previous emails)

Tom Bergen – Ingo was of sound mind all the way to almost the end, when the pneumonia had weakened him so much.

So let’s look at the two versions of CRV being trained and the differences in more detail. NOT the one the article showed because the tom McNear hypothetical stages have never been trained so are not really relevant to the discussion on differences between the 1980’s CRV and beyond.

You can see that the evolved version of CRV starts off similar but an early emphasis in placed on dimensions as a stage. Where 1980’s CRV moves into the ‘matrix’ stage – the evolved CRV is in sketching. When 1980’s CRV moves into S5 – off line target interrogation – the evolved method has moved into the ‘matrix’ stage. The 1980’s CRV then finally moves into 3D models, so does the evolved CRV – totally removing the previous S5 process. The 1980’s CRV process stops there, the evolved CRV indicated another six stages – with only one in R&D. I don’t know about you – but I see lots of differences here especially in the removal of S5.

The ‘previous’ article states:

So, it appears Tom Bergen did receive slightly different CRV training than the military viewers. I believe Swann did slightly adjust the stage-numbering sequence of the initial four stages with Tom Bergen in which Swann shifted S&T and T&I forward one stage number each. The more noteworthy difference was the omission of Stage-5 from Tom Bergen’s training. This is the difference, and it is in line with Swann’s draft Stages Document.

Well, yes and no. Yes Tom Bergen did receive training in CRV that was different from 1980s CRV – was this a slight change though? I mean, the stages are differently placed, a stage is missing and It looks like it may have been possible for Tom to also have gone on to another six stages of CRV training (he didn’t). Is that slight changes? – personally I feel the evolution of CRV indicated are significant changes than the currently taught CRV version.

Finally.

The ‘previous’ article finally states:

Though Swann continued to ponder what heights CRV could reach, there is no evidence he trained or developed any CRV stages beyond Stage-6. Even Stage-7, for which there is evidentiary support, was never codified nor formalized as part of the well-attested 6-stage CRV training program.

No evidence? like the communications presented above – you mean:

during the last five years have made certain progress which establishes that the labour intensive methodology of RV, as designed by myself, can be undercut by other approaches which speed up the RV potential acquisitions, and have larger implications beyond it. These new discoveries have a certain labour-intensiveness about them, but since over-all yield is much larger, an effort of technology transfer based on them is more feasible.

Or this:

I am considering, and have been so for some time, offering these new developmental precisions techniques to a selected nuclear group of people.

Then this:

During the last five years, I have undertaken to understand holograms in their psychic context, and have made a good deal of progress in working with them. Certain precision-orientated approaches have become clear as a result, and these, when neural pathways have been constructed to accommodate specific hologramic processes, yield faster results and higher quality (in terms of magnitude) results.

And of course – there is no evidence Ingo developed any stages beyond stage six– except:

The Identified Stages document itself in the folder titled RV IMPORTANT. The first six stages we know Ingo DID develop and teach – Which also details six more stages and only one marked as in Hypothetical.

Yet the students argue there is ‘no evidence he developed stages beyond stage six ‘ – I say make up your own mind – what do you think?

Tom Bergen Q&A (June 2021)

As a final note to this – to show that Ingo was actually training the first six stages of the evolved CRV. I enclosed a recent Q&A with Ingo longest/last student and very close friend of Ingo’s – Tom Bergen.¹⁴

[Daz] How long did you train in CRV with Ingo?

[Tom] The training was in two forms. One being study (of things he felt important outside of RV) which involved reading and essays… and the other being hands-on RV training. Part One began roughly in 1998 and essentially was over by sometime in 2003, with occasional recurrences since. Part Two started 5/20/2004 and ended 1/13/2013.I would typically fly up on a Thursday and return home on Sundays. These trips averaged to be every 3 weeks.

[Daz] I’m curious as to the what and how you were trained in all the Stages by Ingo and how that came about – is there anything you can share on this? I ask because as we know – the list for full Ingo training is very short?

[Tom] Ingo trained me in all 6 stages. Some time within the last 2-3 years, he began including Training – Monitor training.

[Daz] Generally – what was the CRV instruction like? How did you find it, some people say it was very hard, Bob durant says it was mind blowing…

[Tom] I would tend to agree with Bob. There were hard days, but these were surely in the minority.

Overall, the training days, including the end-of-day rehashing, were dominated by experiences of Amazement. That such a thing… being able to take and jot down a set of coordinates and with nothing more to go on, come away with detailed information on what you would find were you at those coordinates… truly exists, still pushes my buttons just thinking of it!

Not only did I have these experiences as I did sessions, but I can’t tell you how many times Ingo would chirp up, sigh, and say that it still gave him goosebumps!

[Daz] Ingo is well-known for his Military CRV method – six/seven stages – how many stages of this did he train you?

[Tom] All 6. 7 was not fully baked, but we did spend a fair amount of time playing in that space the last few years.

[Daz] Thank you for sharing that handful of your training  CRV sessions with me – I recognise the targets from previous trainees in the 80s, they used the same targets. Approx how many training targets do you feel you may have done during your training period?

[Tom] No reliable count. Really. Ingo liked to end the workday on a good note, so some days we would do 7-12 targets maybe. Others, 2, 3, even 1 and done would be the case.

[Daz] Ingo is well known for how hard the training was with him – was this also your experience or had he mellowed with age?

[Tom] I obviously have no experience of him as taskmaster prior to 2004. That said, and based on hearsay reporting, I would say that he probably had mellowed considerably.

[Daz] None of your CRV is in Ingo’s Files at UWG (so far) I’m wondering did you also have to write essays at each stage of crv training like the previous students did?

[Tom] Certainly. The essays started in Part One.

[Daz] I have enclosed the document from the folder: RV IMPORTANT – from Ingo’s files. The first six stages of this appear to be  the six stages CRV you were taught by Ingo and you communicated with me – is that correct?  We have discussed this previously – but your CRV is structures differently from what Ingo Taught in the early 80’s (see below): Did Ingo ever indicate that these were changes and why he made them?

 

1980s CRV

• s1: ideograms
• s2: sensories
• s3: sketches
• s4: the matrix
• s5: emannations (interrogating the signal line)
• s6: modelling

 

Your CRV:

• S1: Ideogram/FM/A/B
• S2: Tactiles
• S3: Dimensions
• S4: Sketches/Trackers
• S5: Intangibles (grid of S2/AI/EI/T/I/AOL/AOLM
• S6: Clay Models

[Tom] Yes. I’m familiar with both now and this information appears to be accurate. During my training, Ingo instructed me to NOT “interrogate the signal line.”

[Daz] As you know I have shared these CRV differences with Tom McNear and Paul H Smith – Paul’s theory on the differences is that Ingo was forgetting what he previously taught and that’s the reason for the differences. I met Ingo in NY in 2011 and he seemed ‘of sound mind’ to me when answering all my hundreds of questions – so I find this hard to believe. – what are your thoughts on this theory of Pauls? (I know we have briefly touched on this in emails)

[Tom] Ingo was of sound mind all the way to almost the end, when the pneumonia had weakened him so much.

[Daz] Tom it has also been said: //However, Ingo didn’t actually DO much with CRV after the mid-90s//. Now, the CRV sessions you shared with me were in the mid-late 2000’s so I find this statement to probably be incorrect – can you confirm this?

[Tom] Other than my training, which in my world certainly constitutes “doing something,” he would do an active session now and then, right up til perhaps late 2012.

[Daz] I noticed that in your S5 matrix/grid – you don’t use AOL/S but use AOL/M – is the M for matching? – the 1980s version the S was for signal – do you have any information on why Ingo made this change?

[Tom] Yes, AOL/M is for matches.

[Daz] Tom – did you ever work any CRV projects not training for Ingo? For example I have seen letters discussing multiple client projects for Richard Butler, projects with BOB, and a Roswell project?

[Tom] The Roswell effort was something he did for Joe Stefula. Possibly Bob as well. It’s been so long that I don’t remember. The Butler stuff, yes, but that won’t be opening up for discussion quite yet.

[Daz] I know Ingo also trained Bob Durant and the author Jim Schnabel in CRV – but over a very short two week period (mid 90s?) – did he ever mention this training or anyone else he had trained?

[Tom] I’ve heard Bob’s description many times, as well as Ingo’s description of Durant/Schnabel’s training many times as well. He also mentioned having trained another team in the IC (Intelligence community).

[Daz] Tom – do you still use your CRV training or plan to?

[Tom] I have not, since Ingo moved on. No real conscious reason why, but I may give it another whirl one of these days soon.

[Daz] Tom, I have found other Ingo communications whereby he and later his estate stated that he never endorsed any commercialisation of CRV/remote viewing – did you ever have any experiences of this or hear Ingo comment of this topic? I ask because I also have a conversation with Robert Knight about the last film they were making of Ingo’s Life – whereby Ingo would not let anyone teaching CRV for money be in the film – And I was trying to find exactly why that was?

[Tom] Yes, I’m pretty familiar with this. I don’t recall him ever explaining the “why” so much though, as it seemed pretty obvious, so it really wasn’t needed. He purposely wanted to avoid pismires (one of his fonder terms).

[Daz] Tom, in all my years of looking at the Star Gate archive s and now Ingo’s archives – I have yet to see a written set of full stages or training material that Ingo created to use as a reference or anything – did you ever encounter Ingo using training notes, a manual or papers?

[Tom] No. Just the slides he used for presenting to potential clients, going back to the SRI days.

[Daz] Did Ingo ever express an opinion as to the military CRV training manual or trainers?

[Tom] When the first one surfaced, he instructed me to avoid it as long as I was still being trained. The one written by TM actually resulted from Ingo repeatedly pressing the clients/managers to have one. Once he (and earlier Hal P) had left, they eventually got around to it.

[Daz] I know we have in the past discussed you’re not wanting to become a part of the Rv discussion community – have you had much exposure to this, and if so do you have any opinions of it?

[Tom] Once I put up the Superpowers site, I inadvertently became the digital point of contact for Ingo. That, I had failed to see coming. The experience kind of left me wanting to avoid more rabbit holes! I have my life with my family and I like to keep it that way.

[Daz] Do you have a favourite Ingo movement that sticks in your mind that you feel you could share?

[Tom] There really isn’t a single favourite. But winter nights, we would sit around the fire burning in the wood stove, and talk about many things. His paintings, for example, and my interpretations (I blew a few, but also hit a few out of the park)… ghosts he has seen… ghosts I had seen but didn’t realize what was going on until he pointed it out… what is really going on with Life, The Universe and Everything, to name a few.

With permission of Tom B – here are three CRV training session examples ( showing the evolved CRV in practice circa 90’s 2000’s):

• Tom_B-Popocatepetl
• Tom_b_levell hill cemetary
• Tom_b-Pantanal Swamp Brazil – Stage 2 CLASS B

 

Final Conclusions.

To myself and the people who have researched the Ingo files at UWG, It’s absolutely clear that Ingo went on to make further breakthroughs and to evolve CRV/RV in the years after he left work for SRI and CRV training. It’s clear he did evolve CRV and that he did train that version of evolved CRV to some level.  In my honest opinion, the evolution makes sense and so does the removal of Stage five – it’s in the wrong place in 1980s CRV– (but that’s another discussion for another day).

In full disclosure – at this time we have no data that anyone was trained in the last six stages of the Identified Stages of CRV. But what is also clear from being involved in RV history for a long time is: never say never. We have clear statements from many people, and I have a personal experience with Ingo whereby he verified he did train another small (unknown) group of three letter Intelligence community people in CRV – who knows what secrets they may hold.

My hope is that we as a CRV and larger RV community can move on from here. That we can stop the sometimes ‘cult-like’ feel that surrounds the myth of Ingo and CRV. Ingo left a huge legacy, some of which is still to be found in his papers and archives, some which is to be found by the generations that build upon this great body of work.

Sources:

1. UWG Ingo Swann files documenting the progress of CRV R&D and training 1981-83
2. June 3, 2021 Did Ingo Swann Add More Stages to Controlled Remote Viewing? – https://wp.me/p71QFz-qk
3. Three books compiled by Daz Smith on remote Viewing – https://www.remoteviewed.com/?p=1722
4. Eight martini’s remote viewing magazine – http://www.eightmartinis.com/
5. 1985 – Tom McNear training notes – https://www.remoteviewed.com/crv-manuals/
6. 2013 Swann Family Public statement on CRV training & related products.
7. Authors Email conversations with Tom Bergen about his CRV training with Ingo Swann.
8. University of West Georgia Ingo Swann archives. https://uwg.galileo.usg.edu/repositories/2/resources/274
9. Author emails with source material from Tom Bergen and replies from Tom McNear.
10. Author emails with source material from the UWG Ingo archives: Rima letter, Ed dames letter, RV important folder
11. Debra Lynne Katz statement on the Ingo Swann files.
12. Author letter to Ingo Swann Dec 2008.
13. Letter to Author from Ingo Swann Dec 2008.
14. Interview with Tom Bergen June 2021.