I was surf­ing around for more infor­ma­tion when I stum­bled upon this rather infor­ma­tive arti­cle. Most remote view­ing enthu­si­asts are aware of the gen­eral pro­to­cols of remote view­ing but I still find it use­ful to read up and remind myself of them once in awhile.

Pro­to­cols of Remote Viewing

Under the remote view­ing fam­ily of pro­to­cols, the viewer is blind to the tar­get, i.e. is not explic­itly told what the tar­get is; rather it is spec­i­fied in one of sev­eral ways. One com­mon method is that the tar­get is described either in writ­ing or by a pho­to­graph or by some set of coor­di­nates (e.g. lat­i­tude & lon­gi­tude), the lat­ter of which may be encrypted.

The descrip­tion is then placed in a double-set of opaque envelopes which may be shown to the viewer or its loca­tion described to the viewer, but which the viewer is not allowed to touch or open dur­ing the view­ing ses­sion. The viewer then writes down what­ever infor­ma­tion he can gather about the tar­get, typ­i­cally includ­ing draw­ings and gestalt impres­sions as well as visual details (and some­times audi­tory or kines­thetic details as well). The view­ing ses­sion is often admin­is­tered or facil­i­tated by a sec­ond per­son called the monitor.

The out­put of the view­ing ses­sion is eval­u­ated by a third per­son, the ana­lyst or eval­u­a­tor, who matches or ranks the out­put against a pool con­sist­ing of the actual tar­get with some num­ber of decoy or dummy tar­gets. In research sce­nar­ios (exper­i­ments) the mon­i­tor and ana­lyst are also blind to the tar­get along with the viewer until the eval­u­a­tion is com­plete. The viewer is typ­i­cally given infor­ma­tion about the tar­get after the eval­u­a­tion is com­plete, espe­cially dur­ing train­ing sessions.

Click here to continue »