If you would like to pursue Remote Viewing on your own or in real-world projects, we recommend you familiarize yourself with legitimate RV protocol. This protocol evolved over many years and is based on extensive research and experimentation.

At the bottom of this page you will find a visual chart of a larger RV protocol, that will show where viewing -- the 'art' element of RV -- fits in. Also, you'll find links to sources of information on the science and art of RV.

Remote Viewing is a term coined in a science lab
to describe a novel combination of art and science:

RV, the
A [free-response] [intentionally controlled process] of communication which provides [accurate data] about [an intended target] for which [there is no known non-psi source of information] for the viewer.
RV, the
The science-derived control basics and evolving best-practices which serve to support and [validate] the process and the information brought forth via that process.

All the details relevant to the art and science of RV combine to make a set of process points and rules which all together are called "a Remote Viewing protocol." Details in a protocol often vary. Many vary with the reason for viewing. Some rules, excepting a specific science focus, should always be present (such as degrees of blinding). See below for more detail, and page-bottom for a simplified diagram of an overall RV Protocol's elements.

The art without the science is just creative communication.
The controls without the art is just cognitive science.
Only both together comprise what is legitimately known as "Remote Viewing."

A Legitimate RV Protocol:

  • Will be intentional not spontaneous.
    • Sudden "knowings" are not RV.
    • Dreams, unless intentionally 'controlled' during the process such as targeted Lucid Dreaming, are not RV.
  • Will be free-response psi, not forced-choice.
    • Dowsing, card-guessing, or other forced-choice approaches are not RV.
    • There are some 'intermediate' levels of response in some psi formats such as tarot. IF these are 'freely interpreted', if the process is attempted to be brought under control by the viewer and done within an RV protocol, that can qualify as free-response.
  • Will have an intended target, not be a 'random wandering.'
    • The target may be an unknown specific, including future targets, but would still have a context that defines it. "Open search" targets for "anything interesting at the moment" and "ideal outcome" targets [when there is no tasking vs. objective feedback for compare] are not RV.
  • Will be viewer-controlled, not stream-of-consciousness or random.
    • Pure synchronicity (literal-layout readings in tarot, a random page in a book, searching a random image) are not RV.
    • These are not rules, but "best practice" comments:
      • A degree of learning from this to evolve one's personal process is expected, since a "controlled" personal process is part of the art.
      • Viewer communication is expected to be clear to the best of their ability. For example if they know that certain information is sourced from their own analysis or association, they should note this in the data. If they believe they might recognize the target, they should note this in the data (and cease the session at that point, since if they're wrong it's all wrong from there, and if they're right it is memory, not psi). Communicating to allow better evaluation of not only the data but the viewer and the session, as insight by others evaluating the data, is usually considered part of controlling the RV process.
  • Will be blind and double-blind to the targeted info (and ideally but not required, the target context as well). This goes for the viewer and anyone within physiological proximity (directly or virtually).
    • (As slang, many viewers call it "solo-blind" when the viewer is actually working alone.)
    • Targeted info means whatever the viewer is being asked to provide as data. See below for more explanation.
    • Physiological proximity means anyone in the room with the viewer. (This is the "double" part of "double-blind.") Even if they are not visible/audible to the viewer. Body-to-body transfer is more extensive than most believe, although the full extent of this is still in research--this is a whole science of its own that few besides RV scientists and skeptics pay attention to. To follow on the logic, this should also mean anybody on the telephone speaking during the session, or on a webcam audible or visible to the viewer during the session, as both of those involve physiological proximity in their own way.
    • "Non-specific tasking or target context" information is allowed, but the closer to specific a level of 'context' the viewer or persons present are aware of, the less ideal the protocol becomes.
      • There are three general levels of target context:
        (This is a helpful mental-model only, not something official)
        1. Target Pool Bandwidth. This means the 'range' of possible targets is known, even though the targets themselves can still be very diverse. For example, that the target is likely to be a singular focus, normal-human-scale location, landscape, structure, etc. More importantly, this will imply what the target will not be, such as microscopic, outer space, life forms, events, non-structural objects, alphanumerics, etc. Statistically (and functionally), a "moderate" target pool bandwidth such as used in research is diverse enough to be both challenging and legitimate for 'evidence' in the most conservative science setting.
        2. Target Genre. This is a somewhat 'generic scope' classification, and things can slightly overlap categories. For example, 'biological' could mean anything from a Lemur to a Human to a 12-cell embryo on a microscope slide. 'Manmade' could mean anything from a building to an engine to a plastic figurine to a space station or giant water-dam to a synthetic polymer molecule. The genre can also instead refer to target scale, such as microscopic or macroscopic, or functional category, such as medical or military.
        3. Target Nature. This is the nature of the 'target' even if it is not the focus that the viewer is to describe. For example, this might say the target context was "a location" or "a person."
      • The actual targeted info the viewer is working for is something different than the context. (E.g. if the 'nature' of it were also the 'targeted info,' then the nature of it would not be 'merely context' anymore.) For example, the 'targeted info' of a viewing might be to describe "what is going on at that location" or "the current environment or state of health" of that person.
      • As a protocol process, on the occasion when a viewer cannot avoid having "target context," they should have the least-specific level of target context possible.
        • In applications work, either with others present or with the viewer themselves, the element of 'known target context' can vary and sometimes gets all the way down to the 'nature' of it. This is to be avoided... but sometimes can't be. If (like the example given above) the 'target context' does not in any way provide 'targeted info' even by likely inference or guess, then this is not considered out of protocol. (In an ideal world it may be discouraged, particularly with viewers who do not have a great deal of experience and may be more influenced by that.)
        • Sometimes 're-tasking' occurs for additional detail on a target which by its nature may, even subtly or by implication, provide info (or a subjective sense of 'validation' to the viewer) about context of the target or a detail. For protocol reasons, re-tasking is usually done generically and/or using data the viewer has provided (e.g. 'tell me more about X from page 3').
      • Having the targeted info (even only some of it) known to the viewer (...obviously...) or to persons with proximity to the viewer (as noted above), should never be present under any circumstance. This is one of the primary elements of the controls that science established as part of the evolution of the Remote Viewing protocol (in short, to prevent fraud or collusion, by accident or design).
  • Will have the data secured, not 'reported after the fact'.
    • The viewer's data cannot be changed--and the protocol may not allow any situation where this is possible by accident or design--once the session is complete, and before feedback or target-info is revealed.
    • The data is usually expected to be provided completely, and the session experience 'contained' completely, for the same reasons as the data-securing.
  • Will have feedback to enable a comparative evaluation between the data and the target.
    • If we cannot verify the data is accurate, we don't even know whether a remote viewing [accurate data obtained via psi] has even truly occurred. Both feedback and comparison are required elements to finish the protocol cycle.

    Psychic functioning can occur even with one, many or all of the elements above out of place. (Even with viewer or those present partly-informed, there are likely to be some elements of data that were not known.) But Remote Viewing is a specific thing of its own, with both the art and science elements required for its definition. Viewers often call their process 'viewing' as "slang" no matter what. But a process isn't Remote Viewing "officially" without, or until, an appropriate protocol is in place. Appropriate generally means "best-practices for the context," and like anything in science, medicine, or business, 'best-practices' evolve, and are not engraved in stone anywhere, so it's up to viewers who care about RV to investigate what those best-practices might be for each of the many areas of an overall protocol.

    The above are the requirements that must be in place to legitimately call something "Remote Viewing."

    Sometimes we see people on the internet or in media who want to use the term 'Remote Viewing' because of its legitimacy in science and recent history related to that, yet they ignore the tenets which give it that legitimacy. This is, at best, misappropriation of the term.

    What is commonly advertised and sold as "the RV Protocols" via media and internet today, is usually only the one step you see in the figure below for "viewer-control of their session process" -- a psychic methodology. Education about the rest of the elements of protocol, including the 'required' elements to call something RV officially, is often omitted. We recommend all viewers seek their own education on this subject, regardless of prior experience.

    No methodology done outside an appropriate RV protocol is legitimately called RV; none should be taught without emphasis on RV protocol and advertised fairly as RV; and any free-response psi method controlled by the viewer (with appropriate RV protocol elements in place) can be legitimately called RV.

    TKR supports all free-response methodologies which may be used within an RV protocol. Our staff represent several different approaches to the art, and a stalwart support for the science.

    There are other details in an RV protocol, which can vary, depending on why the viewing is done. These are the basics.

    Below is a simplified flow-chart of some of the steps in an overall Remote Viewing protocol. This chart does not cover every possible element, or detail on them, but is a visual concept to help viewers understand where their controlled personal process, the 'art' part of RV, fits into the bigger picture. The art is one of many elements of an overall RV Protocol, and while it is obviously crucial, all of these elements, done properly (according to the latest understandings of "best-practice" via science, generally) are important.

    RV as a protocol, like all science-based efforts, has evolved with time as research has improved understanding.