Remote viewing by committee: RV using a multiple agent/multiple percipient design
2003; Rhine Research Center; Volume: 67; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
ISSN
0022-3387
Autores Tópico(s)Military Strategy and Technology
ResumoThe basic idea of 'seeing' or sensing beyond normal sensory modalities is an old one (see Mental Radio by Upton Sinclair, 1930/1962), but Targ and Puthoff (1974) are recognized as having renewed interest in concept. They also originated term Remote Viewing (RV) to describe this form of ESP. Thalbourne (1982) defines remote viewing as neutral term for GESP ... especially in context of an experimental design wherein a percipient attempts to describe surroundings of a geographically distant agent (p. 67). Targ and Puthoff (1974) achieved considerable success with their RV experiments at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) using such star subjects as Hella Hammid and Ingo Swann (note, however, that Targ & Puthoff also used unselected subjects). A television documentary film, The Case of ESP, was made which highlighted successes of Targ and Puthoff (Edwards, 1984). But Targ and Puthoff's more intriguing results came in form of impressive RV achieved by retired police commissioner Pat Price, who was not only able to see gross objects (i.e., furniture, buildings, etc.), but was even able to read text concealed in folders or envelopes inside filing cabinets (see Targ, 1996). Many hundreds of RV experiments were carried out at SRI between 1972 and 1986. Accounts of this work (including work with Pat Price) have been published on separate occasions by both Targ (1996) and Puthoff (1996). Targ pointed out that RV was not affected by distance, size of target, or electromagnetic shielding around subject, and Puthoff described RV work initiated by intelligence community (i.e., CIA). However, Marks (2000) has criticized these experiments by SRI scientists. He noted that (i) selections of targets were made without replacement, (ii) transcripts were not edited of material that could give cues to judge, and (iii) transcripts were not always randomly presented to judges. Experimentation with RV has continued elsewhere. While serving in US Army, Joseph McMoneagle (1997) joined a top-secret military program, code-named STARGATE, to develop and apply RV skills for purposes of maintaining national security. He spent 20 years refining these skills, and has also discussed various methodologies and protocols that facilitate RV (McMoneagle, 2000). Two examples are Extended Remote Viewing (ERV) and Controlled Remote Viewing (CRV). ERV uses meditative methods to reach a semi-trance state or dissociative state, both of which are meant to help establish a connection with target. The remote viewer then reports whatever is being seen, felt, heard, or otherwise perceived. CRV is meant to counter problem that information can be tainted by false data, such as fantasy and emotional reactions. McMoneagle is of opinion that to recognize and willfully use psychic information in an unspoiled way requires that remote viewer must learn to respond through writing or relating RV information directly before it is modified by cognitive interference (p. 98). McMoneagle (1997) believes that remote viewing can be learned, and that basic ability is innate in most people, but may need refining. McMoneagle is also of opinion that RV is one of most reliable methods of information retrieval. However, STARGATE work was evaluated by American Research Institute (AIR) in an official report (Mumford, Rose & Goslin, 1995), and their conclusion was that project was too costly ($20 million) to justify results it produced. McMoneagle's (1997) major criticism of AIR report was that it (i) was not written by experts in RV field; (ii) was based on only 1% of all documentation (the declassified component); and (iii) relied on extremely limited nonrandom interviews with agencies working in final year of a nineteen-year period; the single worst year in unit's history (p. 221). RV work has also been conducted by Marilyn Schlitz and her colleagues (see Schlitz & Gruber, 1980; Schlitz & Haight, 1984), and Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) lab (sec Dunne, Dobyns, & Intner, 1989; Dunne, Jahn, & Nelson, 1983; Jahn & Dunne, 1987). …
Referência(s)