REMOTE VIEWING NEWS & COMMENTARY
MAY - JULY, 2006

Podcasts - Kelly Howell
Remote Viewing the Future
Out and About RV-Land
IRVA officer elections
IRVA Evolution

Recent Podcast interviews from Kelly Howell, founder of Brain Sync - July 15, 2006

Paul H. Smith: Remote Viewing - July 8, 2006

Paul H. Smith, expert Remote Viewing instructor is featured in our next podcast. He shares his experiences as one of the “Men in Black” Remote viewers for the CIA, theories behind the ability to remote view and other intriguing bits of knowledge around this skill. Paul and I have talked about doing another show on the mechanics of remote viewing for later this summer. He’ll be teaching Remote Viewing in the UK at a symposium hosted by Lynne McTaggart on July 15th, 16th and 17th. Sean, who has been setting up interviews for us, is taking the training in London, and we’ll be hearing all about it from him in the next show. I'll be posting this show in a couple of minutes...just waiting for it to upload.

Rupert Sheldrake: Morphic Resonance - June 27, 2006

Rupert Sheldrake author of "The Presence of the Past" talks about Morphic Resonance, telephone telepathy, email telepathy, and some of his online experiments. Ooh..he also has an interesting take on Dr. Emoto's water crystal photographs. Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative biologists, has revolutionised scientific thinking with his vision of a living, developing universe with its own inherent memory. He first worked in developmental biology and is best known for his theory of Morphic Fields and Morphic Resonance. His latest book, "The Sense of Being Stared at" develops his concept of the extended mind.

Dean Radin: Entangled Minds - June 13, 2006

Dr. Dean Radin talks about his new book "Entangled Minds." This interview is 40 minutes. A bit longer than usual, but fascinating.

Bob Durant on Remote Viewing the Future - June 20, 2006

An often asked question I've received over the years ponders 'why has there not been more success with the use of remote viewing for predictive purposes?'

And I would reply that there is a remarkably well established track record of success - viewing targets in the present, not in the future. But it was obvious at the outset that the results of RV, which is only a subset of clairvoyance and psychic phenomena, were at odds with standard physics. The viewers were gathering information about targets very far removed, and impossible to access via any known "perceptual channels." Electromagnetic transmissions were postulated, with the radio model in mind, but extensive testing absolutely ruled that out.

Neither I nor others a lot more competent in science have a scientifically rigorous explanation for the success. The work at Stanford Research Institute was done by two physicists, and SRI put at their disposal a number of world-class experts in various disciplines to help understand how remote viewing works. Probably of most importance was the emergence of the conjecture that remote viewing can be explained by Quantum Mechanics, and some particular interpretations of QM dealing with what is now called "non-locality" and "quantum inter-connectedness." (Harold Puthoff, one of the principals in the SRI research, came to SRI fresh from writing a textbook on Quantum Electrodynamics.) In the intervening thirty-some years, much progress has been made in Quantum Mechanics, and many of the results seem to fit nicely with the remote viewing process. But that is still far from an established and experimentally tested explanation.

So I will have to fall back on the opinions and instincts of the remote viewers, leaving the theoretical physicists alone for the moment. The viewers will tell you that by far the most trustworthy viewing sessions are those where the target is something physical and "now." Now meaning it exists at the moment of the viewing session. For example, the temple that served as the target for the session about which I wrote. Standard training targets are volcanoes, the pyramids of Egypt and of Meso-America, and the like. Note that these exist in the "now." They certainly existed in the past, and almost certainly will exist in the future.

Now consider some concrete object that existed in the past, but no longer exists. The Colossus of Rhodes is an example. Next we consider something that did not exist in the past, and does not exist in the Now. An example would be the "stocks, lotto numbers etc" cited in your query. These are examples of events that will only exist at some time in the future.

Referring again to what I claim is the consensus amongst practitioners, there is a hierarchy of what for want of a better name I will call signal strength from the target. It goes thus: Now, Past, Future, with relative signal strengths of strong, weak, and very weak, respectively. Why this is so, escapes me, and I recall nothing in the literature that attempts an explanation. But it is a fact, and perhaps a melancholy fact, because only by viewing the Future can one make money.

I overstated the case when I said no explanation has been advanced for the extreme difficulty encountered when attempting to view the Future. I have heard the speculation that the future is not yet fully formed, that it results from a multitude of Now events, each of which could go this way or that, and thus the further we get into the future, the less "solid" or "real" it is. In this interpretation, inability of the remote viewing process to get information about the future is caused by the literal absence of anything to view.

Or alternatively, by the existence of such a multiplicity of possible outcomes that the viewing mechanism is overwhelmed and can't process the data. (A quantum physicist would probably nod assent at this point if he subscribes to the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM.) Quite a bit of viewing of the Past has been done, mainly in connection with archaeological investigations. It seems to have fairly good results. Probably 99% of all attempted targets are firmly in the Now, because these are the easiest for training. Also, historically the funders of remote viewing research wanted answers to what was at such-and-such a location Now, and the research was devoted to that end. It is interesting to note that almost all Now targets have an intrinsic history of being essentially the same in the Past, and will remain unchanged into at least the mid-term Future. Do the three states reinforce by addition, making an especially strong signal? Discussion of those few but clear instances where the Future was viewed forces consideration of broader philosophical issues, in particular the question, "Does free will exist?" And the perennial, "What is the real nature of time?"

Remote viewing the Future just does not seem to work with anything like enough consistency to have practical use or to hold out to a skeptical audience as exemplary of the art of remote viewing. That doesn't mean viewers have abandoned the hope of viewing the future, because success would mean getting rich in a hurry, a fact that is not easily lost. I know of two long- term projects exploring tricks or shortcuts designed to enhance predictions. These are focused on sporting events or very short-term stock market dealings, because those Future events are very simple. Results so far are better than random, but not good enough to make "serious" money. In sum, remote viewing is not the royal road to foretelling the future. Unfortunately, a few reckless practitioners have made claims in public forums based on what they call remote viewing the future. For example, these predictions include natural catastrophes far in the future, together with details of the devastation visited upon the human race. Simply put, there is no record of success with that sort of prediction.

- Bob Durant

Out and About RV-Land - June 16, 2006

IRVA officer elections, new director - June 15th, 2006

The International Remote Viewing Association has announced a new slate of officers for the coming year. Long-time vice-president Paul H. Smith has been voted in as president-elect of the Association. Joining Paul as new vice-president is William (Bill) Higgins. Ms. Cynthia Tompkins, who is relatively new to the remote viewing field but has much valuable experience from work in previous non-profit organizations has accepted the position of secretary (much to Bill Eigle's relief), and Sandy Ray continues on as treasurer.

Further, IRVA has announced the addition of a new director to the Board. Dr. Jessica Utts, professor of statistics at the University of California at Davis, has agreed and was voted on to become the newest member of the IRVA Board of Directors. I concur with Paul's announcement, "We are very excited to have her genius and fresh insight in IRVA's governing council."

IRVA Evolution - May 21, 2006

The International Remote Viewing Association's 2006 conference has come and gone with good reviews coming from attendees. The annual board meeting resulted in some exciting, soon to be announced, changes. IRVA members will be happy to find several of their suggestions are under serious consideration -- and, as finances allow, will become actualities in the near future. Stay tuned.

-- Shelia Massey