Gary Langford's RV Teaching Method

Project Home Page

RVwebForum

TKR @the Dojo Psi

Help make it possible for everyone.

RV CHAT

Monday Nights
9:30-11:30pm Eastern
6:30-8:30pm Pacific
dojopsi.com/chat/

Weekly RV Chat

CS Labs
Ingo Swann
Joe McMoneagle

Baylands Nature Preserve
Pete's Harbor Restaurant
Lucid Dream Example
Radio Listening Post
Test-Bed Trials
Video ABC Put to the Test

The Home Made Viewer

P.I.A.

TKR Blog

Noetic Vision

Serious Kilowatt

Red Cairo

Cosmic Spoon

Psychic Journey

Psyforce

Remote Review

MindBlogging

BadMoJoe

Dojo Blog

Firedocs RV Blog

the McMoneagles

LFR/CSL

RV Roast (alt)

RV Library

[Don_Williams]

       I'm still speechless.

       One of the computer scientists at SRI back in the early days - a guy we never hear much about - Gary Langford,was described as seeming "like a new Pat Price" sometimes by Puthoff and Targ in Schanabel's "Remote Viewers".  His description of the at-that-time brand new, enormous  Typhoon class submarine matched the famous session done by Joe M.  He predicted the kidnapping of General Dozier several days in advance.  

This training method of his that Daz has posted (at RemoteViewed.com) contains the best writing on the internal process and experience of remote viewing that I've ever read!!  It's some amazing insights into RV:

SRI suggested RV training procedure 1986
(80 pages)

It's 80 pages of some of the best information I've ever seen in print.  

It's different than Swann's method, a little more free-form but with some well-defined structure as well.  I REALLY like the way he breaks down the remote viewing action of perceiving into small periods of time.

I'm printing this up and keeping it for reference!
Don  

[PJ]

Gary is well known currently in the lab world. He is just very seldom named... on purpose. FYI.

[bill161]

See

Posted: 12.8.2005 - Daz

Then about 10 down

NEW SRI suggested RV training procedure 1986
(80 pages)
2.6 mb .pdf file - right click to 'save as' OR it will just open!

Over all it's a little more than a third of the way down.

Regards

[Gene]

Gary is well known currently in the lab world. He is just very seldom named... on purpose. FYI.

Sounds like another fascinating candidate for a chat room interview.

Gene

[Daz]

Here the link...

daz

http://www.remoteviewed.com/files/stargate/12.8.05/SRI%201986%20suggested%20Rv%20training%20procedure.pdf

[PJ]

It's worth remembering Larry that the majority of Swann's method is "creatively compiled"--from some of the major components such as ideograms (which he certainly didn't invent) to the less obvious issues (such as data-sequence)--one of the actual strengths of CRV is that it borrows from a collection of existing and well-known ideas and practices.

The main argument to formal methods is that you can parse out and use many of these tools and ideas (and many do sometimes without even being aware they are in methods, or sometimes coming upon them accidentally as part of practice) without the whole packaging of the rest of the method to go with it.

In any case, I believe more than just two of the lab-level psychics made at least some attempt to devise and record a methodology or a start on one. If we can ever talk Dr. May into coming back into chat, we could ask him about that Langford method and if it was studied etc.

PJ

[wizopeva]

SInce I've taken Lyn B's training, these ideas aren't as new as they may be for those who haven't take formal training.  Still, there are some aspects that he still uses and others than he doesn't.  Seems like the emphasis on getting a first impression and then right away taking a big break is not there so much now, for instance.  There is however a lot of explanation in this doc of the idea behind interpretative overlay (which I think later came to be called analytic overlay or AOL) and how one might understand and manage it.    

Other stuff, check out pages 71, 72, and 73 to see their suggested training schedual and info on learning curves in rv and how often you might want to view.

Page 74 has a bit of idea about considering how and WHAT to reinforce when a viewer performs.  I think PJ talked a bit some weeks back on the galleries board about the issue of 'novices' reinforcing each other's perfomance and some potential dangers and advantages of such.

Pages 19 and 27 discuss some previous methods and hint vaguely on why this 'new' method (that looks like an early form of CRV) might be better.  Page 27 hints and some earlier viewers that did or did not give statistifcally significant results.  I saw some hints of this last one in another one of the docs that I will try to dig up later today in order to compare and contrast.  

However, it should be kept in mind that this particular doc seems to be based mostly on anecdotal evidence.  No rresearch and very few stats are included and the author even emphasizes that strongly.  Seems like they were jusst starting to formulate a basic working plan for potential training techniques.  I am guessing they probably had a certain motivation to show to the higher ups that they were making progress and learning stuff so some of this stuff may well have been a tad overstated.  It will be interesting to see if they change course at all in any docs from later dates.  Anyway, I still have a lot of reading to do so these are just some preliminary impresssions of mine.
-E

[Don_Williams]

Regarding timelines and the development of methods...Bear in mind that Harary, Hammid, and Langford were all either kicked out of Swann's project or left of their own accord when he pitched one of his infamous fits in 1982.  

It all blew up because all the other remote viewers didn't like Swann's method and Swann got angry about it. Harary and Hammid wanted their own project, seperate from Swann's.  Targ was in support of this.  Langford wrote a memo in support of those two and against Swann.  

So Swann's method was in development and use well before Langford's training method we're talking about here, which was in 1986.  It sounds like Swann had Nance and Cowart recruited as trainees for his method because no one else at SRI who was already operating as remote viewers agreed with his methods.  

*NOTE*  The above is all according to "Remote Viewers" by Schnabel and alittle bit from McMoneagle's "The Stargate Chronicles".  I doubt Swann would agree with this interpretation of what happened.  The important thing is that Langford's method came years after Swann's.

I see a lot of original ideas in Langford's writings (for the time, especially).  But some is the same, the ideas of consistent symbology, for example.  Langford's method is much closer to the average remote viewing experience imo than Swann's approach.  It's also much less pedantic, more allowing of individual expression.  I think he calls "interpretative overlay" that - as opposed to analytical overlay - because that's what he sees it as.  I also think his term is probably closer to reality than "analytical" is because the mind will interpret at such subliminal levels that we can only surmise analysis has taken place.  It seems a bit more obvious that interpretation has to me.

Also, I think this is a different approach.  It's almost certainly not an early form of CRV, from the timeline alone.  And given the personality problems, I wonder if Swann would have allowed an independent contractor (langford) to posit changes in HIS method, especially 4 years later. lol.  

I believe in most places, Langford has taken a slightly different tack than Swann.  He absolutely describes the internal experience of remote viewing better, finding no need to create imaginary organs or processes to explain psi (Swann invented the "psychic core", named many different "cognitive filters", came up with "cognitrons" and the use of "cognates", etc.).  Granted, describing and trying to suggest how we perceive and process psychic information is extremely difficult but did he HAVE to invent all these possibly completely imaginary brain organs and mind functions? lol!  

Swann seems to have always "stayed with: the target until or unless a problem is encountered.  Langford believes the mind naturally contacts the target in brief snippets and that this allows time to get it on paper.  The basic rhythm of Langford's method really rings well for me.  It's almost exactly how I usually work, what I just naturally started doing from the beginning.  My experience with altered states, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, etc. doesn't agree with his though.
Don

[MoonDaughter]

  I cannot access this file at all. Tried with Advanced  Browser (my default) and then regular (and updated) IE. I also have the most resent version of Acrobat Reader. Has this file been taken down temporarily perhaps? Looking forward to reading it.

[Don_Williams]

Larry,
No, that shouldn't mess up the chronology of events.  Langford was a remote viewer since the very, very early days at SRI.  He worked with computers at SRI and it was found he had psi talent.  I think the chronological order of psychics they used consistently went Swann, Price, Langford, Hammid, Harary....

But in 1982, Hammid and Harary left (Harary still did some RV work as a consultant, not sure about Hammid).  But Langford stayed on working at SRI, just not under Swann's project.  He still remote viewed as well though, I'm sure.

The reason I said this training method of Langford's most likely isn't directly related to Swann's CRV is because of the date of it (1986), because Langford describes himself as an independent consultant (meaning he wasn't working with Swann), because Langford clearly had problems with Swann's CRV, and because I see so many differences between Langford's approach and Ingo's.

However, I'm sure they both knew about all the observations that were being made about psi functioning during their time there.  Certainly, they both had an understanding that the conscious mind caused problems, that raw impressions were most likely more accurate, of the importance of feedback to the developing viewer, and the realization that, in order to target a viewer, all that's needed is a way to set the target apart from the rest of reality (by a blind address, description, by viewer or tasker intent, by coordinates, by photo, etc.).  I'm sure they both were taking the same observations into account.
Don