Remote Viewing
An Interview with
Lyn Buchanan
Remote Viewing is a fascinating subject of human potential which has captivated the attention of Lyn Buchanan for many years. Mr. Buchanan is considered a leading expert on the topic and for years has used his skills to assist the military, US government and various police departments on numerous projects. Since his retirement from the military he has devoted much of his time in using his talents in finding missing children. This article is a combination of an interview and some responses to questions that had been prepared prior to our time together. I am grateful to Mr. Buchanan for his generous efforts in making this article possible.
Hilary Thomas
HT: What is Remote Viewing?
LB: First of all, I would make a strong distinction between "Remote Viewing" (RV) and "Controlled Remote Viewing" (CRV). "Controlled Remote Viewing" (CRV) stands for a single, very scientific method for training non-psychic people to do the same work as a natural, gifted psychic. It was researched, developed and used by the US government from the late 1970s through the early 1990s to gain military and political intelligence against foreign targets.
"Remote Viewing", on the other hand, is nothing more than the New Age term for "psychic". It has so many definitions that it has come to have no definite meaning. It can stand for hundreds of different methods and practices, all of which fall under the more familiar term, psychic.
The CRV name is the proprietary property of Mr. Ingo Swann, and may only be used with his permission. Recently, though, many people have begun using "remote viewing" with some other first word in front of it. So, instead of "Controlled Remote Viewing", you get "Scientific Remote Viewing" or "Technical Remote Viewing" or some other type of "remote viewing". It only means that the person is teaching/doing psychic work according to a set of rules he made up. Some even say that their set of rules are derivatives or "improvements upon" the Ingo Swann method. This gives them the opportunity to use Mr. Swann's name and thereby subliminally tie themselves to him in the reader's mind. The fact still stands that they are being less than honest and what they are training is not Controlled Remote Viewing. The public must be careful about this point.
A plain vanilla "remote viewer", then, is pretty well the equivalent of " a psychic" of one form or another. Now, that is not to say that there aren't some very good and talented people who are using the term. It does say something about them, though. It says that they do not understand the basic terms for what they are doing for a living. There is a simple test for a person who calls him/herself a remote viewer: remember that when a person says he is a remote viewer, it means by definition that he is not a natural psychic, but had to be trained. If he tells you that he is a "natural remote viewer" or that he has been remote viewing since he was a child, or that he has been "remote viewing for 20-30-40 years." You can be sure that, at best, he doesn't know his subject well enough to know the proper words to use. At worst, he is out to get your money.
There is a lot of misinformation and outright disinformation flying around. It has been really confusing for new people to find reliable information simply because there is so much bad information. Therefore, throughout this interview, I would like to talk about Controlled Remote Viewing, since that is what I have learned, what I do, and what I teach others to do. The things I say will not necessarily apply to "remote viewing" in its meaning of "psychic".
So, back to your original question: "What is Controlled Remote Viewing?" Controlled Remote Viewing, or "CRV", is the name of a specific, highly structured scientific methodology which develops and utilizes a non-psychic person's ability to gain information without the aid of the normal senses, without logical deduction, without the use of devices, electronics, photos, etc.
In the beginning, the people at Stanford Research Institute wanted to separate this scientific process from the word "psychic" as that word had so many definitions that it had no meaning either. They came up with the term, "remote viewing". As soon as this method gained scientific acceptance, everyone jumped on the bandwagon and all kinds of people started calling themselves "remote viewers". Ingo Swann came along and said, ‘Just give me the coordinates of any place and I’ll tell you what's there.’ He started the protocol of always giving the coordinates of a location at the beginning of a session and using that as the only information given to a viewer. The wannabes countered with the statement that they, too, could use coordinates and therefore they, too, were "coordinate remote viewers". Finally, Ingo came up with the term, "Controlled Remote Viewing". He believed that the word "controlled" is one thing that natural psychics and others would tend to stay away from. This didn't turn out to be the case, though. It's a zoo out there. It really is.
HT: How does CRV differ from psychic or clairvoyant experiences?
LB: In several ways: First of all, CRV is a learned activity, whereas psychic and clairvoyance are the use of natural abilities. Second, CRV can be learned by almost everyone, whereas natural abilities are either there or they aren't. Third, CRV, believe it or not, is a physical, not a mental activity. Fourth, CRV is done wide-awake, whereas most of the psychic or clairvoyant methods are done in some kind of trance or altered state. There are several other differences, but those four are the most prominent.
HT: Can you talk more about remote viewing being a physical activity?
LB: Basically, the conscious and subconscious minds don't talk to each other but, they do talk to the body. If you can develop a physical language then you have an interpreter. Therefore, if we develop a physically oriented interpretive language, we can let the body act as a "translator" to convey questions from the conscious mind to the subconscious, and bring back the answers in the same manner.
HT: What are you defining as a physical language?
LB: As a beginning student, you start with certain conceptual words, Gestalt words like: land, water, motion, living things, etc. The beginning student makes the most minimal line drawing possible on a sheet of paper whenever they hear that word. For example, for the word "land", most people draw a flat line across the paper and for the word "water" they draw a wavy line. An ideogram is a graphic representation of an idea which must be performed on a purely automatic basis. It is similar to the discipline of Karate. You have to get your moves to where you don't have to think about them. So, you go through what is called, "ideogram drills. These are long, boring drills where the words are called out to you and you make your mark on the paper that corresponds to that cue. After a while, you tune out because it is so boring, and then your subconscious mind is performing the drill. That is when the practice is most effective.
HT: So, you build a language?
LB: You build a purely physical language. Right. Pretty soon, it gets to the point where you can say to the viewer, "I have a target. The target number is 93. Describe it." The hand of the viewer will automatically draw an ideogram, for example, a straight line and a wavy line. It's like a knee jerk reaction where the subconscious is telling you the basic Gestalts of that site. You can then consciously look down and say, "Oh, there is land and water at this site."
From there, other levels of the language lead you to finer and finer details. The physical language can be developed, for example, to the point where you can tell what is written on a document locked in a safe halfway around the world, draw the floor plans for a place where a hostage is being held, etc. Once you get that basic language established you can run with this whole procedure and develop it just as far as you want.
HT: What is the mechanism that allows the subconscious to have access to this information?
LB: Don’t I wish I knew!!! If I knew that, I would be a whole lot further along in this field than anyone else on the earth. The process of CRV was created as an application. There was a research side to the military program, which collected data and tried to figure things out. However, I was on the operational side of the program. We cared on a personal basis about what makes it work, but in our day to day work, we were busy testing it in actual use. We wanted intelligence data - we wanted information. It could give us that information, so we went to work.
HT: How would you describe the distinctive qualities of CRV?
LB: The two most distinctive qualities are:
First, CRV was developed to produce cold, hard, real-world information. There is no room for ethereal, "other worldly", "other dimensional" targeting. CRV is meant for real-world applications. If you want to know what's located at a certain place, where a criminal or missing person is, how the design of one machine differs from the design of another, actual physical ailments within a person's body, or such questions as that, you turn to CRV. If you want to know what's wrong with a person's aura, you turn to something else.
Second, CRV produces information in a highly standardized format. If you train a person to analyze the results of one CRVer, you have trained him/her to understand and analyze the results of all CRVers. There is no room for run-on, flowery phrases with mystical meanings. CRV wants the facts, and it wants them in order.
HT: What was the impetus for starting a CRV program in the US both in terms of why to begin this project and what was hoped that CRV could be used for? When did this occur and who were the key players?
LB: The basic impetus for starting the program was because the Russians had such a program. After all, "if the Russians have such a program, we have to have one, too." There was also the impetus of seeing that the Russian program was doing a really effective job. Since the Russians had already proven it to be an effective spying tool, it would be a good tool for us to have, as well. The people making the decisions were willing to use natural psychics, but they also wanted to know whether there was a way in which the normal grunt soldier could be grabbed off the battlefield and taught to perceive what was over the hill.
All this occurred in the mid to late 70's. The player list is pretty publicly available at this point.
HT: What level of security was placed on this project?
LB: For most of its existence, it was placed at either SECRET or TOP SECRET. Beyond that, it was also made a "SAP" (Special Access Project") so that access was limited to only those who needed the information about it. In other words, having a TOP SECRET or SECRET clearance wasn't enough to gain this information. You had to also be "read on" to the project itself before you could gain information about it. Beyond that, there were four levels of the SAP, so that, for example, a "customer" could learn about the project (level 1), but could not have access to the names of the viewers (level 4). In all, the project was pretty well protected.
HT: When did you enter the picture of CRV? And how did that come about?
LB: I entered the CRV picture in 1984, under circumstances which are still partially and highly classified. A certain PK (psychokinesis) event happened to me at the place where I was stationed. It attracted the attention of the (then) commander of the US Army Intelligence and Security Command (USAINSCOM), General Albert Stubblebine. As a result of that event, he picked me to be a part of this project.
HT: In on-going research and work with CRV, did you find that the acquired skills for the individual Controlled Remote Viewer and the methodology evolved? Or are there just a number of classifications for people with different talents? For example, was it the case that a Remote Viewer could initially see a person, and then later through further practice and development, could then provide a personality profile and with even more training and practice could actually "influence" that person? Is there a progressive tendency to this skill or are these separate skills?
LB: Again, CRV is a physical, not a psychic science. You develop it, and as you do, you can "rise through the ranks". Just like Karate, Kung Fu, or any other physical science, you learn more and more complex abilities as you become trained and capable. For example, just looking at a person and saying, "Good/bad guy" is quite easy. Developing a personality profile on a foreign leader and delivering it as a report, say, to Congress requires a bit more talent and work.
There are also the mundane aspects of what to do with the information. After all, it is no good if it doesn't make sense to anyone. Aside from developing an ability to: get that information to the surface, you also have to develop an ability to: report it in a way people can understand and; database and document the results.
Those skills are all co-dependent and they must all be learned and improved upon. So, the CRV process also involves such mundane things as learning to create well-written reports, databasing acquired information, etc. Therefore, the abilities required to do CRV and to do it properly do improve with continued training and experience.
HT: What do you see as other potential aspects to this skill?
LB: I personally think that we are in "kindergarten" in this field. New, non-military applications and techniques are already being developed. There is no telling where it will lead.
HT: I'm really not clear if CRV is progressive or if it is developmental.
LB: I think you would have to say that it is both of those. I don't think that its an either-or situation. It is progressive. For example, in your training, you begin learning to accurately tell me which gestalts (land, water, etc.) are at the target. If you get it right, you've done a great job and you get rewarded. A year or so down the line, you are being tasked, say, with drawing the floor plans of a building you have never seen. That same process occurs with every single session. On page one, you start off telling me that there is, say, something "manmade" at a target location. Many pages later, you end up drawing the floor plans of the building which is there.
HT: That process can still be developmental.
LB: Well, it is developmental within the person himself. However, I have seen, over the period of 16 years that I have been doing this and teaching it to others, that there is a collective consciousness going on - sort of a Sheldrake effect, if you would.
HT: Are you referring to morphogenetic fields?
LB: The morphogenetic field. Right. What I'm finding is that people right now are learning to do the quality of work within 3 months that use to take us 2 years to learn. There is a collective growth that is happening. I've been very surprised about it.
HT: What do you see, or know, or imagine is the ultimate potential and expression of CRV?
LB: I think you are asking a kindergartner to comment on the ultimate potential of college. I'm very much along for the ride on this. I can teach others to do CRV and I can do it myself. However, it seems like every day I find some new potential that I hadn't expected. I could tell you all kinds of war stories at this point of how it has actually saved my life and the lives of other people. The national and international applications for CRV have already been pretty well set. We have the ability already to know the plans and intentions of foreign leaders, military leaders and so forth and the outcome of the next day's battle. We also know what steps to take to change the future as we see it, if it is one we don't like. On the personal level and on the business level, we have people out there right now using the principles of CRV to sell houses, work the stock market, perform medical diagnostics, find missing children, etc. I have no idea what's down the road for it.
HT: For a variety of reasons which are too lengthy to go into in this interview, the government's involvement with CRV was officially closed. Would you care to share some comments on this subject?
LB: No.
HT: Do you believe that the government is still continuing this program?
LB: I would hope so. I think they'd be stupid not to. Of course, that leads to the question of whether our government would ever do something stupid or not, doesn't it?
HT: Why do you believe they may want to continue the research and to continue it in secrecy?
LB: That's actually two questions. Why would they want to continue the research? For the same reason I, and the others in this field do. It has such tremendous potential.
Why would they want to continue it in secrecy? The reason has become obvious since the first iteration of it has been declassified. They let it out to the public, and along with the good and valid researchers and practitioners, the kooks and loonies came crawling out of the woodworks in droves. "Debunkers" and stiff-laced religious leaders rail loudly against it. (By the way three of the viewers in the project were ministers, there is nothing about CRV which is against the Christian belief structure, and those religious people who have taken time to actually look into CRV have supported it. Most, however, would rather rail against it than to take the time and effort to see what it is.) People who know nothing about it go around preaching that it is a tool for contacting ETs, speaking to God, and no telling what else. In short, CRV is controversial, at best. The government wants as little of that as possible. It is easier to keep it secret.
HT: How is CRV currently being used?
LB: We are presently using CRV for work with the police and other civilian agencies which require the collection of information for which there are no other means. We are also developing new applications such as medical diagnostics, archeological and historical investigations, locating missing persons, etc. As people leave the CRV training, they tend to use it in their daily lives and workplaces. It has been especially useful to real-estate salesmen, doctors, lawyers, stock brokers, etc. New applications are multiplying rapidly.
HT: Where do you see CRV could be applied where it is currently not being used?
LB: I'm just trying to keep up with the new applications which are already being developed.
HT: What is the accuracy rate of CRV?
LB: That varies with the viewer, but also with the viewer's strengths and weaknesses. One viewer, for example, may almost always get the color right, but will be weak in another area, say, shapes or textures. Another viewer will be good at perceiving shapes, but never get the smell correct. CRV was always meant to be a group effort for this very reason. We can use viewers who, for example, may have average overall scores of around 75% accuracy (dependability), and by tasking them toward their strengths, we can come out with a product which has close to 90% accuracy. By the way, if you hear anyone telling you that CRV or their special brand of "RV" is 100% accurate, avoid them. They either don't know what they're talking out about, or they're out to rip you off. CRV is a human activity. It isn't perfect.
HT: Is all the information from the individual viewing sessions for a single project or case collated together?
LB: Well, actually not. It was done that way in the unit and that usually proved to be a good thing but, sometimes it turned out very badly. For example, if one viewer said the car was green and 9 other viewers said the car was red they would do what's called "consensus reporting". They would throw out the piece of information from the viewer who said the car is green and just report that it is red. I do it differently. If 9 viewers say it is red and one viewer says it is green then I report to the customer that 9 viewers said it was red and one viewer said it was green. I also look into my database for dependability ratings. If I find out that each of the 9 viewers who said it was red have a 30-40% reliability in reporting colors and the one who said it was green has a 99% reliability in reporting colors, then I am certainly not going to throw out his piece of information just because other people don't agree with him.
HT: Your database really lets you massage the information. This may be a little esoteric, but has there been any research done where the individuals are "linked" on a collaborative effort?
LB: Oh, absolutely. In fact, we have to prevent that as much as possible. For example, lets say I have a beginner-level viewer and I asked him to determine the color of the car but, I also tell him that Joe McMoneagle (probably the best viewer in the world) is working on the same question; he will tend to find what Joe finds. Now, Joe, is very open about telling people that he only accesses the target 50% of the time. Half of his sessions are complete misses. So, let's say that Joe gets this one wrong. In an attempt to get the same information that Joe gets, the beginner viewer will also get it wrong. This happens on an unconscious level, and is most difficult to train out of people. Basically, it is much easier to keep each viewer working on a different question, even when they are both working on the same project.
HT: So, the movement has been toward segregation. Has there been research to "link" the viewers to see if the information goes to the next level?
LB: Let's say we have a project which has 10 questions. Instead of running 10 viewers on the same question we have each viewer work on a separate question. We then pass that information to a trained analyst who can put those answers together. As a result, we don't have leak-over mistakes between viewers. One of the most dangerous things is for one viewer to say, "I know what it is", because they then start imagining their own scenario and start messing up. The other viewers can pick up on that bad information without being conscious of doing it. So, in reality what we try to do is keep all of the viewers working on different questions about the same project.
HT: You teach CRV. What advice would you give to those interested in learning CRV?
LB: First, there is a large distinction between RV and CRV. As for advice to those who wants to learn "RV", I would tell them to be VERY careful where they spend their money. The field is so full of crackpots and charlatans that it is very difficult to sort the good from the bad. Investigate every potential teacher as thoroughly as possible. Ask for the specifics of what they will teach you. Contact past students and see what they have really learned. If the teacher is good, he won't mind you talking to his past students. I have found that students who have investigated me thoroughly before coming to the course come with a background of knowledge about CRV, and therefore make better students, learn faster, and do better in the long run. I have also found that students who come to me after going to some crackpot have to first be "untrained", and they have a tremendously harder time. I would advise the prospective student to do a lot of studying in advance.
HT: You use CRV to find missing children. Could you talk about this program?
LB: At great length. It is called the Assigned Witness Program (AWP). It is a public service to police and other approved agencies. We do not work for the families. If you want us to work on a specific missing child, you must contact us through either the police or one of those agencies. We work as a public service and never charge for our services. We have had many good successes, and generally, the police departments then turn around and ask us to do other cases for them. Therefore, we are pretty backlogged, but as we train new viewers, I always obligate my graduates to work at least five missing child cases. I know that within the span of five cases, they will have seen enough success to become addicted to doing this good work, and then I have a volunteer for life.
HT: Aside from yourself, who are currently viewed as the "big players" in CRV?
LB: That, of course, is dependent on your definition of "big player". Ingo Swann, of course, will always be the "biggest" of the "big players". Ingo does not train CRV any longer.
Probably equal to him would be Joe McMoneagle, who has a company called Intuitive Intelligence Applications, Inc., (P.O. Box 100, Nellysford, Virginia 22958, 804-361-9215; FAX: 804-361-9056). Joe does not train CRV. There is also another ex-military viewer who does train CRV. His name is Paul Smith. He has a web site at: http://www.rviewer.com
The other viewer which most people have heard of is David Morehouse, author or "Psychic Warrior". The last I heard, Dave is now teaching CRV in a college or junior college somewhere in (I think) New Jersey. I have temporarily lost contact with him.
Notably absent from this list are the names of two other people who are generally known to the public because of their ability to draw public attention to themselves. I will mention them here because they have gone out of their way to connect themselves to the military project, and have in the process proven to be somewhat of an embarrassment to the valid CRV community.
Ed Dames was an administrator in the military unit, not a viewer. One of his students, Courtney Brown, a professor at Emory University, took 9 days of training from Ed, wrote a book on the subject and started his own school which has, as I understand it, since folded. I am not saying that there is anything bad about these people, but I am saying that they are not the "big players" they would have people believe, specifically in the "CRV" field. What they are teaching has turned out some good students, but it isn't CRV. There are, in fact, several people out there making claims of ties to the military project and to CRV, who have no truthful reason for doing so. Again, the difference between "RV" and "CRV" remains a point of confusion for most people, and the person who is interested in the field must be very discerning.
HT: Do you or your school work with The Monroe Institute?
LB: No. I have attended the Monroe Course and would recommend it to anyone. Many of my students have attended the Monroe Institute, either before coming to the CRV training, or as a result of my recommendation. I have only found one person so far who has not been pleased with it. At one time, USAINSCOM was sending military personnel to Monroe for development of enhanced personal performance in the workplace. Almost all of the members of the STAR GATE unit attended the course for that purpose. For that reason, the Monroe Institute has been closely tied with the military CRV unit in the public's mind for quite a while.
A side affect of this association in the public's mind is that CRV has often been mistaken for OBE (Out of Body Experience), which is taught at Monroe. In reality, CRV and OBE have so many differences that the two are almost opposites.
1) They are performed in totally different ways (OBE is done in sleep, CRV is done wide-awake).
2) The targets are totally different: OBE targets the inward and/or spiritual self while CRV collects information on the "hard world". OBE goes for the underlying bases of being human. CRV goes for the hard, cold, surface descriptors of targets such as physical people in physical locations, events, activities, etc. Each discipline has its own and separate set of uses and applications.
3) OBE is about as unstructured as you can get. What you get in an OBE session is reported and that's what you get. In CRV, every perception is reported in a highly controlled fashion, and if the viewer is not producing the information needed, there are ways to aggressively pursue it.
4) OBE is known mainly for the person's ability to fly through the air, rise to the ceiling, go through walls, etc., and the person can do these things all throughout the session. CRV is more "like actually being there", but only in its absolutely most advanced stages. This stage is called "perfect site integration" or "bilocation". You can pick up a lot of information like smells, tastes, feel the wind on your face, etc. However, if you were actually there, you couldn't fly up or walk through walls. In CRV's "perfect site integration", you can't either. Like I say, it is just like being there.
HT: Was CRV used during the Gulf War and if so, were you involved with what?
LB: In the Gulf War we were using it quite a bit to get Saddam Hussein's plans and intentions. Of course, the man is crazy, so his plans and intentions could change five minutes later but, we kept extremely close track. Our information sometimes allowed troops to be waiting whenever he tried something.
HT: What was the name of the CRV project at the time of the Gulf War. I know it has been through many names.
LB: It went through 7 different names while I was there. At that time, it was SUN STREAK.
HT: So, it was still an official operation at that time?
LB: Yes.
HT: And it was officially closed down several years ago?
LB: Right. When it closed, it was called PROJECT STAR GATE.
HT: In reading a lot of the material on CRV what was coming into my mind, and this may be fantasy, but it seemed that the project was intentionally undermined in terms of creditability to allow it to be officially closed to take it underground.
LB: You like British humor with these understatements, don't you?
HT: Yes, I do.
LB: I would get really nit-picky with your question, though. Yes, it was undermined. Yes, it was done intentionally. Yes, the intentional undermining was done in terms of creditability. Yes, this was done to allow it to be officially closed. But was all that done in order to take it underground? That is something I wouldn't know about. I'm out of all that stuff, now.
HT: Well, it seemed that even though it was loosing official credibility it appeared that its classification was getting even higher and higher.
LB: That's right.
HT: That doesn't make sense.
LB: I know. As you read the AIR Report, Ray Hyman, a fervent debunker, has a fantastic quote in there, saying that the study's statistics showed that this was an effective unit - therefore we should wait at least ten years for the science of statistics to catch up with reality. That has to be an all-time classic in debunking illogic.
HT: So, was I reading the information correctly, that the classification status kept getting more secured yet, the credibility was consistently decreasing.
LB: That's right.
HT. See, that doesn't make sense to me.
LB: I know. It doesn't, but the whole thing can be summed up in one word - politics. There were many reasons why the closure occurred. For years, several of the Generals had done everything they possibly could to close the unit down - unsuccessfully. All kinds of things were tried. I know when I got out of the service - on a Friday - I was due to go back on the following Monday as a civilian and continue working. Well, I dropped my security badge off on Friday and that following Monday morning, when I went back to get my civilian clearance, I was told that they would still have to do the paper work for that. Eight months later, I finally got my civilian clearance. By that time, while the unit was without a database manager (me), all kinds of database requirements had been strapped on the unit. Then when the unit didn't deliver as they liked, they said, "Oh, see, they can’t do their job." There was all kinds of stuff like that that was going on all the time.
HT: The issue of security clearance and credibility was not meshing together but, I want to come back to the idea of CRV being progressive. What also seemed to be emerging at this time was the understanding that the remote viewer could go beyond actual observation into the potential of influencing.
LB: Now, there's a very serious note on that. The unit itself, SUN STREAK, STAR GATE, CENTER LANE, GRILL FLAME, none of those incarnations of the unit were ever allowed to do remote influencing in any way. I had developed the protocols for remote influencing on my own, but not for the military. I had tried it out and performed several carefully controlled and fully databased experiments and found out that the protocols worked. However, when the question came up of whether it would it be used for the unit or not, the answer was basically, "Not no but, Hell, no." If the National Inquirer ever found out that we existed it would be one thing but, if they ever found out that we were doing anything along the lines of mind control or influencing it would be death to the careers of all politicians who supported us.
HT: Yes, but, you see this is my point exactly. If it is officially closed and doesn't officially exist and goes ultra black or, whatever the term is, it can be further explored. In reading these documents, it became apparent that the military found this methodology of influencing. It then seemed what they needed to do was to completely discredit the program, shut it down and then take it underground. It is too important of a potential asset to let go of. That was my thinking.
LB: Well, that is a plausible scenario, but like I say, they don't tell me much anymore. I am out of the service now and they don't tell me anything at all. What is actually going on? I have no idea. Again, I think they would be very stupid not to continue a project along this line, but whether they have done so or not is as hidden from me as it is from you.
Back to the AIR report, though. They had taken the unit down to where there was only one remote viewer there. Then they did the AIR Report judging mainly the people who had done practice sessions and those people were not remote viewers.
HT: Yes, by then you had channelers and psychics in the project.
LB: Yes, by then they had taken the remote viewing staff down to basically one person. They were just waiting for him to retire. As time went on, the remote viewers who were there were increasing in their own ability. I know that the one who was left during that time, had earlier been on a project that we had run against drug people, and that one viewer was almost directly responsible for a total of over $80 million in drug seizures. The abilities we were evidencing were growing as we continued and so, as a result they stopped letting the unit have remote viewers and started putting other people in.
HT: Why do you think that occurred? Are you just writing it off as politics? Why were they pulling off staff that could perform well?
LB: I think politics was mainly the problem. From the first day I was in the unit, I wondered whether or not we were the only unit. Very possibly we weren't. Very possibly the things that we were learning and developing were being passed along to someone else. So another plausible scenario is that they haven't created a new underground unit, but that they've had one all along, and we were just there as a sort of bait, in case the effort ever did get exposed. Remember that this is the intelligence community you're talking about. Nothing is ever simple, nor is it ever what it seems on the surface.
HT: That was another very distinct impression I had when I was reading the material. How would I phrase this, you were the "store front."
LB: Well, whether we were there solely to be exposed or not, I don't know. I do know that we were exposed. That much is fact. The main thing is that we did a lot of good and valuable work while we were there. We definitely earned our keep as more than just bait.
HT: Is there anything that I haven't asked that you think needs to be addressed?
LB: Again, I think that the most important thing is a warning for everyone who wants to get into this field. They must be very discerning. Remember that there is a lot of misinformation out there. Many people calling themselves remote viewers are nothing more than frauds, or at best, simply don't know enough about their own line of work to know that what they're doing. It isn't remote viewing but, something else.
Be very leery of people who are "natural remote viewers" or who have been "remote viewing for 40 years", or who are "palm remote viewers" or "aura remote viewers" or whatever. It is sad that people who may be good in their natural field of, say, clairvoyance, psychometry, divination, or whatever, feel the need to turn their backs on the rich heritage that each of those fields have in order to jump onto the latest bandwagon. They loose so much by doing so.
You should also be very leery of those who want to teach you "remote viewing" using targets such as aliens, ET bases, "the Galactic Council Headquarters building", other dimensional beings, etc. There is no feedback on those things. Real remote viewing trains you with targets which have valid feedback so you can see what you are doing right and wrong and can learn from it. If an instructor says that your work is either right or wrong, make certain that he can prove it with valid feedback information. If someone tells you that, by using his method, you can be 100% correct, it's a con. There is presently no official association for remote viewers, American or otherwise. There is, however, a private company which calls itself one. It is just that - a private company. In its original advertising flyers, it listed me as one of its Board members - which I never was. To add insult to injury, it even spelled my name wrong.
Further, I think that in spite of all the pitfalls, the adventure is worth it. People should get involved in this field. The ability of the mind is phenomenal, and I don't think we've even begun to scratch the surface of what it can do when given proper training and used in worthwhile and realistic pursuits.
And last, I'd like to thank you very much for considering me for this interview. I hope that the information is helpful to your readers.
Lyn Buchanan is currently the Executive Director of Problems Solutions Innovations (PSI), originally a small data analysis company located in Mechanicsville, Maryland, USA, now completely dedicated to the training and application of Controlled Remote Viewing. His involvement with CRV came about by a long, strange, and circuitous route that took over half a lifetime.
Beginning at about age 12, several events that could only be described as "psychic" and "psychokinetic" happened to him. Throughout his childhood and adolescent years, the tendencies were not suppressed, but were largely ignored and/or hidden.
After high school, he went into the U.S. Army and served for 3 years as a computer systems technician, working on analog (pre-digital) computer systems. After this service time, he returned home and worked for the IBM Corporation.
Lyn then attended college. There was some renewed interest in "psychic stuff", but only as a "campy" diversion. After college, the tendencies all but atrophied, except for occasional uncontrolled events.
Having obtained a Master's degree at Stephen F. Austin State University, he taught foreign languages in rural East Texas. Only one college course away from his Texas Teaching Certificate, the wanderlust seized him and, after a 12 year "break in service", he returned to the U.S. Army to become a linguist with the US Intelligence and Security Command. His first "second" languages being German and Spanish, he spent the first year of his enlistment studying Russian at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California.
As a Russian linguist, he was stationed in Japan for four years, where he also gained a proficiency in Japanese and Mongolian. For his last 12 years in service, he was the only Mongolian linguist in the US military. After his assignment to Japan, he returned to the Defense Language Institute for another year to attend their Intermediate Russian course and was then assigned to a 4 year stint at the US Intelligence Field Station in Augsburg, Germany.
It was in Augsburg, Germany that his "PK" ability resurfaced one fateful day in an event, parts of which are still classified. Shortly thereafter, Major General Albert Stubblebine, who was at that time Commander of the U.S. Intelligence and Security Command, decided to transfer him to the Washington, D.C. area, where he spent his last 9 years of military service in a special assignment in the military’s Controlled Remote Viewing unit. In this unit, he was first a controlled remote viewer, database manager and property book holder (he was signed for and financially responsible for everything). As time continued and he gained experience, he also took the newly open job of Training Officer and began training newly arrived troops.
In this role, he studied the CRV protocols and methodologies which had been developed by Ingo Swann, Ph.D., some years earlier. He quickly became proficient in using the CRV techniques and has been teaching them to other people for the last 16 years, both in the military unit and after retirement. This interest continues to this day.
Lyn received several awards and medals for his work within the unit, to include the Army's Meritorious Service Medal, and over 1000 letters of appreciation from units throughout the Army.
After retirement from the U.S. Army in 1992, he settled down with his wife and youngest son in Mechanicsville, Maryland. At the same time, he began building his own company, Problems Solutions Innovations.
While Problems Solutions Innovations remains resident in Maryland, Lyn and his wife Linda have recently moved to Alamogordo, New Mexico, where training is now conducted.
Adding his computer skills to the CRV process, Lyn has developed techniques for enhancing the results of organized CRV efforts. He has developed computerized analysis techniques for identifying, categorizing and predicting viewer dependability rates. He has developed and maintains a database which tracks a trained viewer's individual strengths and weaknesses.
In addition to providing standard computer systems-oriented data analysis and programming services, PSI also provides CRV services and CRV training to both individuals and organizations, and also performs a free public service through its "Assisted Witness Program ".
Those interested in training or CRV services should contact:
Abby Buchanan at the home office in Maryland:
26944 Bosse Drive, Mechanicsville, MD 20659
Phone: (301) 884-5856
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Those interested in the services of the Assigned Witness Program should have the police detective conducting the case contact:
Ken Mahler
(505) 443-8285
For further information on Remote Viewing, please visit Lyn's web page: http://www.ameritel.net/lusers/rviewer/
Other web sites:
Cognitive Science Laboratory (Dr. Ed May's web site)
http://hrcweb.lv-hrc.nevada.edu/cogno/cogno.html
Superpowers of the Biomind (Ingo Swann's web page) http://www.mindspring.com/~biomind/Pages/RealStoryMain.html
Anomalous Cognition Program (Univ. of Amsterdam, Netherlands) http://info.psy.uva.nl/Psychonomie/research/anomal.html
Consciousness Research Lab (Univ. of Nevada @ Las Vegas) http://eeyore.lv-hrc.nevada.edu/~cogno/cogno.html
Monroe Institute (Nellysford, Virginia)
http://www.monroe-inst.com/
Parapsychology Sources on the Net (Great Britain) http://www.ed.ac.uk/~ejua35/parapsy.htm
PEAR LAB (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, Princeton Univ.) http://www.princeton.edu/~rdnelson/pear.html
SPR: The Society for Psychical Research, (London) http://www.ed.ac.uk/~parapsi/spr.html
Interview date 4/13/98
Together We Create Heaven on Earth
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
