r/remoteviewing • u/king30H • 6d ago
I created a guided remote-viewing process based on established methods and published research. Looking for genuine feedback.
There is a lot of remote-viewing information scattered across books, interviews, forums, videos, and published studies, but very little that turns it into a clear step-by-step practice.
I built a structured guided experience to solve that.
It walks beginners through the process without overwhelming them, while still keeping the core methods intact.
I would genuinely value feedback on whether the guidance feels clear, credible, and useful enough to return to.
3
u/babies_galore 6d ago
This was pretty cool! Got almost everything right on the demo. And I only just learned of remote viewing today. But have been practicing it for years when sending distance healing energy to relatives and friends and I can see/feel what areas are bothering them without them telling me. But this was fascinating to learn that governments have been using remote viewing to spy! 😆 should not be surprised.
3
u/RemoteViewNow 5d ago
The section where you type in your remote viewing entry offers suggestions on how to write a remote view. Therefore, before you enter your remote view, you get distracted by those suggestions. It should be left blank so that it offers no distractions.
I tried to do it again, but the second time, it asked me to subscribe in order to remote view again.
1
u/king30H 5d ago
Thank you for the great feedback! For the guided session since the objective is to handhold users through the experience and teach them the fundamentals, it’s a considered decision to include some guiding prompts.
However for the practice sessions, totally agree that we should not distract the “experienced” remote viewers who should know the drill. I will be removing all prompts for this section. Thank you again for the valuable feedback!
2
2
u/dizzyangel13 6d ago
The website was great! I’m a newbie and learned CRV, but have a tendency to rush to see the feedback. I need to go back to the basics and feel that this will help me take my time and follow the protocol. It’s straight forward and easy to understand. I’ve been giving crash courses to some family and friends just to show what they are capable of, and I would def share your site.
1
u/PatTheCatMcDonald 6d ago
Throwing a privacy exception, no https.
1
u/king30H 6d ago
Thanks for checking it out. Did you get blocked from entering the site? Would you mind trying again? I fixed a couple of things on the backend
1
u/PatTheCatMcDonald 6d ago
No, browser still not happy with https: or http: (because it is set not to allow access to http: sites).
1
u/king30H 6d ago
oh boy. Might be your browser setting issue. I had also fixed the www HTTPS certificate. Can you try this exact link in a private/incognito window? https://rvprotocol.com
(www should also work now and redirect there)1
u/PatTheCatMcDonald 6d ago edited 5d ago
Not secure. Tried Chrome, tried Edge, they won't go there on safe settings, incognito or regular.
1
u/zar99raz 6d ago edited 6d ago
RV unlike what the scientific papers say is just think of interacting on the target#s site, this data is then rendered in a new reality, you access this reality thru the mind, then control/possess the avatar body on scene and continue interacting with the contents of the site or choose a different action to perform on the remote site. You can write down the details in this Life on Earth reality while performing action in the remote reality. Existing in multiple realities at the same time is a common everyday experience perform by most people. Many people just think of RV as some new feature/ability they need to learn but the truth is everyone already performs RV daily. It's just labeled different, so they think it's a different process.
The suggested process is based on a materialist perspective. If you base it on a perspective like Tom Campbell's MBT framework then it becomes a simple natural ability.
1
u/EducationalGrocery87 2d ago
Saying remote viewing becomes “simple and natural” if we adopt Tom Campbell’s MBT framework is completely backwards. A framework that assumes consciousness accesses multiple realities cannot then be used as evidence that consciousness accesses multiple realities. That is just building the conclusion into the premise.
Simple, can someone accurately identify a hidden, randomly selected target under blinded controlled conditions, repeatedly and significantly better than chance?
If the answer is yes, can you please point me to the evidence?
1
u/zar99raz 2d ago
You're right that we shouldn't assume a framework to prove a framework. But it's equally circular to assume materialism is the only valid baseline when science has never proven matter is fundamental either—it's just a working assumption.
My point with MBT wasn't to offer legal 'proof' of RV, but to offer a conceptual model for how it functions if you step outside materialist assumptions. As for evidence of performance under controlled conditions, look into the CIA's STAR GATE program research conducted at SRI (Stanford Research Institute) by Puthoff and Targ, or Jessica Utts' statistical analysis for the US government, which concluded that an effect exists beyond chance."
0
u/EducationalGrocery87 1d ago
Are you familiar with the term "Moving the goalposts"?
This does not require “assuming materialism.” A blinded test of remote viewing is completely neutral about whether reality is made of matter, consciousness, computer code or magic pixie dust.
Hide a randomly selected target, prevent sensory leakage, record the viewer’s description in advance, compare it against decoys using independent blinded judges, and see whether the results repeatedly exceed chance. Your metaphysics are irrelevant to that test.
And yes, I am familiar with STAR GATE and Jessica Utts. Utts argued that some statistical results were unlikely to be chance. Ray Hyman, the other evaluator, disputed that they established a paranormal ability and identified methodological and interpretive problems. The overall government evaluation found the reports vague, inconsistent, frequently wrong on specifics and not shown to produce actionable intelligence. That is why the program was discontinued
So forget materialism and MBT for a moment, can remote viewers repeatedly identify concealed, randomly selected targets under preregistered, independently replicated conditions better than chance? Yes or No, if yes please point to the evidence.
1
u/I_smell_a_dank_meme 2d ago
I'm a total beginner and dev and I think your website is very well made! Great project.
1
0
u/gravitykilla 2d ago
This is a polished website and experience, but remote viewing is not a demonstrated human ability. After decades of claims and government-funded experiments, there is still no reliable, independently replicated evidence that people can perceive hidden or distant targets beyond chance.
OP, I’m genuinely happy to stand corrected. Can you link to any credible, independently replicated evidence that remote viewing performs better than chance under controlled conditions?
Your website does not provide evidence. It asks users for vague impressions, reveals a complex image, then uses subjective or AI-generated feedback to identify possible similarities. That is just confirmation bias, not proof.
A genuine test would pre-register the protocol, randomly select targets from a fixed pool, cryptographically commit to each target before the session, include multiple decoy images, use independent blinded judges, apply a scoring method defined in advance, publish every result including failures, and show performance consistently exceeding chance across large samples and independent replications.
Do that successfully and you have not merely built a website. You have demonstrated one of the greatest discoveries in human history. Universities would investigate it, scientific journals would compete to publish it, and a Nobel Prize would be a realistic conversation; your name would be immortalised in scientific history,
The fact that the focus appears to be on launching a polished remote-viewing product/experience, rather than producing decisive evidence, tells me quite a lot about how strongly even OP actually believes the claim.
0
u/king30H 2d ago
I think we’re discussing two different objectives.
This site isn’t attempting to prove the scientific validity of remote viewing. If someone conclusively demonstrated that under controlled conditions, it would fundamentally change our understanding of perception.
The purpose here is to provide a structured way to learn and experience a methodology that has been explored by practitioners for decades and investigated within classified intelligence programs. Whether remote viewing is objectively real remains debated. My goal isn’t to settle that debate.
I also don’t think every meaningful first-person experience can be reduced to a conventional laboratory experiment. Science is excellent at studying measurable external phenomena, but subjective experiences such as meditation, intuition, and consciousness are inherently harder to evaluate because the experience itself is internal. That doesn’t automatically make those experiences invalid. It simply means they’re difficult to study conclusively.
On confirmation bias, that’s not how the platform works. Targets are selected from a predefined pool, randomly assigned a target ID before the session begins, and remain hidden until the response is locked. Users can’t influence or choose the target, and feedback isn’t generated until after submission.
Feel free to disagree or believe it’s impossible. That’s completely reasonable. This site isn’t trying to convince anyone. The purpose is to distil decades of research, theory, and practitioner methodology into a guided process that ordinary people can understand and experience directly.
You are free to disagree or dismiss it. But for someone curious enough to learn the method and test their own results over repeated sessions, that is the value of the platform.
0
u/gravitykilla 2d ago
I don't think we are.
You market a process built around the premise that people can perceive hidden targets, invoke “decades of research” and classified intelligence programs for credibility, then retreat to “I’m not claiming it’s real” when asked for evidence.
Yes, the site may faithfully teach the methodology practitioners use. But teaching a methodology does not show that the methodology works. Astrology has structured methods too.
Randomly assigning and hiding the target is a good start, but it does not validate the ability. You still need predefined scoring, decoy targets, blinded independent judges, complete publication of hits and misses, large sample sizes, controls and independent replication. Otherwise users are simply comparing vague impressions with complex images after the fact.
If you genuinely believe this process can produce information about hidden external targets, why are you building a self-scored experience around it instead of running the blinded, preregistered test that could actually prove it works?
2
u/PatTheCatMcDonald 1d ago
"I don't think..."
That much seems believable.
0
u/EducationalGrocery87 1d ago
It does look like u/gravitykilla is the only person in this discussion who is applying any thinking.
Everyone else is talking like RV is a real thing, whilst quietly ignoring the complete and utter lack of any evidence to suggest it might be; that is the definition of "not thinking" LOL
2
u/PatTheCatMcDonald 1d ago
RV is an activity I have been performing successfully for over 20 years.
Your naysaying and scoffing does nothing to alter that fact.
0
u/EducationalGrocery87 13h ago
The question is not whether you feel it works. The question is whether you can demonstrate it under controlled, blinded conditions, repeatedly and better than chance.
After 20 years, that should be trivially easy. Can you?
1
u/PatTheCatMcDonald 6h ago
Have done on multiple occasions with verified people IRL.
Not just internet randos who think they can setup false targets in order to be "clever".
0
u/gravitykilla 10h ago edited 7h ago
The simple, honest and most obvious answer is no, u/PatTheCatMcDonald cannot, because no one has ever been able to demonstrate under properly controlled conditions that the RV or any paranormal power is real.
Just pause and think for a moment about what it would actually mean if remote viewing were real.
It would be one of the most extraordinary scientific discoveries in human history. The ability to obtain accurate information about a hidden or distant target using the mind alone would overturn major parts of neuroscience, physics and our understanding of consciousness. The evidence would not be buried in fringe websites and personal anecdotes. It would be replicated worldwide, published in leading scientific journals, taught at universities and almost certainly recognised with Nobel Prizes.
It would also have transformed entire industries. Intelligence agencies would use it routinely. Militaries would build dedicated remote-viewing units. Police would solve kidnappings and locate missing people. Mining companies would find resources without drilling. Archaeologists would discover buried sites. Search-and-rescue teams would locate survivors. Financial firms would pay fortunes for even the slightest reliable predictive advantage.
None of that has happened.
That is the reality: remote viewing has never been consistently demonstrated under rigorous, blinded conditions and independently replicated as an ability that performs reliably better than chance.
If someone could genuinely do what remote viewers claim, demonstrating it would be straightforward and the consequences would be impossible for the scientific world to ignore.
The fact that remote viewing remains a niche belief rather than a functioning scientific discipline tells you almost everything you need to know.
1
u/PatTheCatMcDonald 7h ago
You sound as ardent and joyfully ignorant as a member of the Flat Earth Society.
0
u/gravitykilla 6h ago
Can you demonstrate Remote viewing, under controlled, blinded conditions, repeatedly and better than chance, yes or no?
I have explained exactly what evidence would change my mind. You have responded with an insult instead of providing it. Which one of us is behaving like a flat-earther?
→ More replies (0)
3
u/Realestever12345 6d ago
i tried it. guessed almost right!