Below is the introductory background and overview I wrote for the 1998 release of what was then called the “Coordinate Remote Viewing Manual” originally printed in limited copies by the Defense Intelligence Agency 0n May 1, 1986.


The Coordinate Remote Viewing Manual

Introduction by Paul H. Smith [Major, ret.]

For a number of what I consider to be very good reasons, I strenuously resisted making the DIA CRV manual public. Since some of my former colleagues had fewer reservations about its dissemination, it now appears inevitable that the manual will become widely available, beginning with its posting here on this webpage. The best I can do now, it would seem, is to at least provide its context so people will better know how to take it.

In 1982-1984, six personnel from the military remote viewing unit at Ft. Meade participated in training contracted from SRI-International. This was the recently-developed coordinate remote viewing training, and the primary developer and trainer was the legendary Ingo Swann. One of the first trainees, Rob Cowart, was diagnosed with cancer, and was medically retired from active duty, terminating his training after only a few months. (Sadly Rob, who had been in remission for many years, died a year or so ago from an apparent heart attack.) The second, Tom “Nance” (his pseudonym in Jim Schnabel’s book, Remote Viewers)1 completed all training through Stage VI as the proof-of-principle “guinea pig.” His results were not just impressive. Some could even be considered spectacular.

Beginning in January of 1984, the remaining four of us began training with Ingo in California and New York. This contract lasted for a full year. Ed Dames, Bill Ray, Charlene Shufelt, and myself continued through until December (though Ed dropped out just before completion due to the birth of a son). We completed through Stage III training with Ingo. Towards the end of 1984 our patron and commander, Major General Burt Stubblebine was forced to retire and the RV program was threatened with termination. Consequently, no further contracts were let for training.

During the course of 1985, our future was very uncertain. However, the branch chief, together with Fred “Skip” Atwater (the training and operations officer), were hopeful that the unit would find a sponsor (which indeed happened) and decided to continue our training through Stage VI, with the help of Nance’s experience and considerable documentation and theoretical understanding that Atwater and others had managed to accrue.

At the conclusion of our training, and with a number of successful operational and training projects under out belts to show that CRV really did work, the further decision was made to try and capture in as pure a form as possible the Ingo methodology. The reasoning was that we might never get any more out-of-house training approved, yet we needed to be able to perpetuate the methodology even after the folks with the “institutional memory” eventually left the unit. I had developed the reputation of being the “word man” in the unit, plus Skip and the branch chief seemed to think I had a firm understanding and grasp of the theory and methodology, so I was asked to write a manual capturing as much of the CRV methodology as possible, with the assistance of the others who had been trained.

We pooled our notes, and I wrote each section, then ran it by the others for their suggestions and comments. Corrections and suggestions were evaluated and added if it could be established that they matched true “Ingo theory.” Skip and Tom both reviewed the manuscript and provided their input as well. When the thing was finally done, a copy was forwarded to Ingo, who deemed it a “comprehensive and accurate document.” Finally, Skip provided a three-page introductory section which it now turns out was apparently originally drafted by Joe McMoneagle.2

The finished version was printed at the DIA press in May 1986. It was a specialty run, and was never given an official DIA document number. I don’t believe any more than thirty or so were printed.

Things to keep in mind about the CRV manual: It wasn’t intended as a training manual per se, and certainly not as a stand alone training manual. It’s primary purpose was to capture and preserve for posterity Ingo’s methodology. The very first page declares that it was “prepared to serve as a comprehensive explanation of the theory and mechanics” of CRV, and as a “guide for future training programs.” We certainly didn’t develop it as a “how to.” Since we always assumed any further training to be done would either involve Ingo or someone who had already been trained, the manual did not incorporate lessons-learned, nor the practical implementation of CRV in an operational setting, nor even to explain how one taught people to do CRV, nor why CRV included certain points of theory and process in its methodological base. There are of course lots of things to be said about all these points, and we had ambitions at one time of writing a practical hands-on RV training manual. Unfortunately, events conspired against us and it never happened.

In the hands of someone who understands CRV and already knows what is going on, the manual can be extremely useful in teaching others to remote view. We used it in the theory and lecture part of the CRV training of everyone who became a CRVer at the Ft. Meade unit (the one exception was Lyn Buchanan, whom we taught CRV before the manual became reality). I have used it exclusively in my commercial training activities (augmented, of course, by my own experience in training and operations), and I think most, if not all of my students would confirm the efficacy of this approach. It represents CRV in its purest form, and any departures from the principles it contains should be examined at long and hard before they are accepted. There are already a number of alleged “product improvements” based upon the CRV manual that not only are not improvements, but if they aren’t just changing “happy” to “glad” or adding superfluous embellishments, may even be outright eviscerations of CRV’s principles and effective methodologies. In considering these “new versions” of CRV methodology, it is definitely a case of caveat emptor.

I see as a positive benefit of posting the manual that some of the chicanery and foolishness may finally be unveiled that has been able to persist around derivatives of CRV because the “bottom line” hasn’t until now been available. There are of course those who will offer as their excuse that this manual represents obsolete technology. My response is that none of its derivatives have thus far demonstrated anything better–or in most cases even as good–under similar constraints.

Paul H. Smith
Austin, TX
3 July 1998

(Return to Controlled Remote Viewing Background and Overview)

  1. 2020 NOTE: This is Tom McNear, who is now retired from the military and acknowledging to the public his role in the remote viewing story.
  2. 2020 NOTE This appears to be incorrect; Joe McMoneagle insisted he had provided the introduction; but I had no recollection of this and included this statement based on his say-so at the time of writing; but considering that Joe left the unit in April 1984, and we didn’t even begin writing the manual until early 1985—and that I can find no evidence for such an introduction—I think the statement is dubious.