• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Definition of the word blind in remote viewing.


Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
How about something that even someone from Oklahoma can grasp. :-*
Blind: The viewer has no idea what the target is when they begin. There is no one in the room with the viewer who knows anything about the target when they work.
Simple put but nice.

as an example:

for a few years i have worked a series of on video rv projects for Farsight, I know that this has been given the name 'mysteries series' that is all I know, I only get an email telling me to start, and no one has ever been in the room or vicinity with me with ALL my remote viewing.

IS this BLIND?

I think it is becasue I have no specific information and it could be anything from the big bang, to a ghost sighting, to a ufo to, where is the black beards treasure...

BUT i do know the target will be comprised of a mystery becasue this is the parameters of the environment I have been asked to perform under.

All the main problems with blindess in remote viewing really stem from bringing RV out of a sterile lab environment and in trying to use it for applications in TRW. Its hard to recruit viewers for projects without imparting a little upfront information on the nature of the project and many other factors in the real world becasue MOST viewers and projects do not have the resources (money, time, people) to setup and utilize a lab/sterile environment for the project, nor in 99% of cases do they even care - they just want the data form the application sue of the RV.
To keep it going, I just repeat the question, as it is fundamental to our understanding.

You say:

PJ said:
Blind or double-blind can both mean working alone or with another person when both are NOT-informed.
You mention that the viewer can be NOT-informed. We don't know of what he is not informed, but anyways, he is not informed of some or all information before the session.

The question is then: Can the viewer be NOT-blind? Meaning he is informed of whatever he was not informed of in the first case.
Looking around for more information I came across this forum thread from 2010. That's 8 years ago. Obviously it has not been settled yet. We are witnessing a human behaviour of not being able to settle even simple and fundamental issues.

"What is BLIND and what is FRONT-LOADED"


In the first post there we get a good definition, that correlates to our #1 in the list, and it actually comes quite close to our #2. Maybe his way of expressing it is better than mine.

Then, unfortunately, someone else, appropriately names "robot" comes in and muddles up the definition completely.

The last poster, of only five, turns it back on track again.

That of course are only their personal opinions. There exist no official definition of the term "blind" in RV.
How did Rvrobot muddle it? I see a quote from him that says "This is not truly blind" as well as "This is not an ideal situation". It seems he doesn't think this is blind and it seems to follow what people have been writing in this thread.


Staff member
I thought maybe I should point out that Gene and I are close friends, in case anyone else from Oklahoma saw his quip and thought he was being mean. He was just teasing me. ;D

I use "fully blind" or "double-blind" or "solo-blind" to mean "zero information about THE TARGET."

I use the term "single-blind" to imply the viewer was blind but someone present was not -- such as the various psi formats "training" protocol (e.g. CRV training, or a lot of viewing by those using such methods if they don't believe in the double-blind, since some of the trainers pointedly teach against it).

If there was frontloading on an otherwise full-blind effort, I might say, "The session was solo-blind excepting the following frontloading: '____' and it would be provided just as the viewer got it, so onlookers have that for evaluation purposes.

Viewers sometimes work out of blinding protocol because they must, but it's not official Remote Viewing in that case, but sometimes that's not the point anyway. For example, when McMoneagle did the Japanese-FBI stuff, it was totally openly known that he was looking to describe a path to, and then the location, of some person missing for a long time. When he did the session to first describe the person, it was single-blind; people in the room knew the person's details, he didn't. But that was a mandate from the management of the project, that he appear to be "tuned into" the person, prior to them trusting his location-related sessions, where he couldn't possibly know anything since nobody did. He did that as demo for a client's personal needs, not as proof RV. The proof of RV was his location-related data helping find a bunch of people.

Getting viewers to understand the importance of basic blinding, so that it is only violated when they choose that decision knowing the sacrifices of it, would be enough of an accomplishment in the layman's field.

Micromanaging everybody's personal decisions about protocol down to even the most bare generic frontloading or concern over managed bandwidth target pools, would just be obnoxious.

Not that I mind being obnoxious :D I just don't see the value of it in that case.

Basics, from my world:

* 1/ We assume the viewer knows nothing about the target.

* 2/ We assume the viewer knows everything about the tasking source.

* 3/ It is possible that info about tasking context, which CAN function as a broad, generalized type of frontloading in some not all cases, may be conveyed by knowing 2/.

That's life. Targets, viewers, formats and more differ enough that there is no single, one-term thing we can say that applies to every session.

What I care most about when it comes to blinding is simply that people communicate with integrity about whatever they are doing.

A lot of the hard-emphasis on the "absolute-double-blind" as I'll call it has come from ME over the years. But it has been dominantly in response to so many laymen viewers, badly influenced, who lie or omit critical info about their viewing in order to make it seem more legitimate. The number of hyped projects over the years that it turns out, after near dental-surgery level internet interrogation, had people informed of the target in the same room as the viewer, when that was NEVER mentioned when the data was presented, and often had a lot of wily wiggling before it came out no less, ought to make clear why this is an ongoing concern.


I think Slorri's request to "define blinding" is a great one. He has an excellent point about it not being falsifiable if we are willing to use the term when someone is frontloaded even all the way to the nature of the target.

On the other hand, Slorri I think it becomes an impossible artificial construct imposed on this expectation, in the following way: If you are only using one word "blind vs. not" -- and you're not allowed to say anything else, then yeah sure, that's going to be misleading, if frontloading or whatever is not defined. But it's not like the internet, where most data is actually posted, charges by the word! When people communicate about a session it ought to have a minimum bit of data, and the protocol -- more than just blinding -- is ideally part of it.

So, see my #1-3 above. Even if there is ZERO frontloading, so there is no spectrum of blinding at all (and there IS, in the real world), you still have the other elements which can impinge on the question. That's why "complete and honest communication about protocol" is to me the important point.

There is no way to judge how much the viewer gets from that -- it would vary with EVERY individual situation. Sometimes it doesn't tell you jack. Sometimes it tells you nearly everything. And a whole spectrum between.

There is also no way to judge how well the viewer might do at viewing despite decisions that are seldom ideal, but may be pursued anyway, for whatever reason. In the end, what someone does for blinding protocol is as much about taskers and viewers making good decisions given the reason for the viewing, the usage of the data, and both of those within the confines of the viewer's competence.

Edited to add: Of course, me opining about "what really matters" does not, in any way, make Slorri's question or point less valid! I think the problem is just that it CAN be complicated because it's "enormously variable" AND in a whole field of people doing something fairly new and with no hard rules field-wide. So there is no good answer that doesn't have either caveats or extensions or other considerations.



do you ever dream you're someone else?
Howdy Slorri,

This isn't about the definition of the word blind, but it does hit on blinding and one of its most important reasons as a sideswipe. It's from ten years ago (wow how time flies!), one of my blogs archived, with a comment from daz. In case anybody finds it of interest.


tbone said:
How did Rvrobot muddle it? I see a quote from him that says "This is not truly blind" as well as "This is not an ideal situation". It seems he doesn't think this is blind and it seems to follow what people have been writing in this thread.
You see how the original poster felt a need to clarify the difference between "blind" and "front-loaded". The paraphrased quote he uses has the word "blind".

The RVrobot quotes that line and to clarify it he seems to quote himself talking about knowing the cue and matrix and stuff; Something that gives him a good result. And then he says "This is not truly blind".

So what was it?
Was he using the word "blind" even though the knew he was "not truly blind" and "knew the cue"?

It sure looks like he was.

We can not mix in things that are not truly blind into a definition of being blind.

The talk about being "not an ideal situation" is irrelevant. Many things can be considered ideal or not ideal, but it has no bearing on the definition of a word.
PJ said:
I use "fully blind" or "double-blind" or "solo-blind" to mean "zero information about THE TARGET."


If there was frontloading on an otherwise full-blind effort, I might say, "The session was solo-blind excepting the following frontloading: '____' and it would be provided just as the viewer got it, so onlookers have that for evaluation purposes.

We see that you, in accordance with the TKR protocol, use the words "blind" and "front-loaded" simultaneously, at the same time, describing the same situation. You are saying that the viewer can be both "blind" and "front-loaded". While as I, and others, would argue that once the viewer is "front-loaded" he is no longer "blind". Giving him information beforehand, that is, loading him with information up front / front-loading, makes him "not blind".

Also what is confusing is that when you say "zero information about THE TARGET" you obviously doesn't mean zero information about the target, but zero information about the targeted information. That makes it impossible for the viewer to be not "blind".

How can there be frontloading on an otherwise full-blind effort if "fully blind" means "zero information about THE TARGET" in any other way than if THE TARGET (in capital letters) doesn't mean the target? ???

The capital letters must add some extra meaning here. It's not just the target, it is the actual target. It is not even the target, it is targeted informations hidden inside the target.

It gets too complicated for me.
I would like it better to say what JohnD said: "...if you know ANYTHING about the target, you're NOT running blind."
To keep it simple.
Here is a bit more.

In CRviewer we get explanation of terminology used in remote viewing.

"Double Blind Tasking"

"Double blind session"

Quote: "Double blind tasking is where neither the viewer nor the monitor know what the target is."

If it only could be that straight forward and simple. But it is not.
In a best of all worlds it should not be necessary to add that the target is the target, and to not know what the target is means to not know what the target is. This assumption that it can not be misinterpreted and also the desire to not being patronising by explaining things too much, will lead to an opening for deceptions and misunderstandings.


do you ever dream you're someone else?
This is good, Slorri. I think it's very common in many fields -- I've seen it in other arts and in business as well -- where all the people involve have adapted sufficient assumptions (or sometimes groupthink) that when someone comes around and suddenly says, "But wait, why? How does this make sense, why do you say that?" And it seems so obvious to everyone and yet, if it's not obvious to the person asking, then clearly, it is not obvious at all.

Humor: I noticed the original CRV manual had no entry for blind in its glossary. And the version I put online, I even made the glossary larger (using all the terms in every part, as the original glossary for some reason only had some of them). Of course, they were working with someone who knew the target (yes, the targeted-data) at the table with the viewer.

More in a bit,



do you ever dream you're someone else?
Reading this at the moment: So, from

East and West
An Account of the Military Use of Psychic Espionage
as Narrated by the key Russian and American Players

Edwin C. May, Ph.D.
Victor Rubel, Ph.D.
Joseph W. McMoneagle
Lloyd Auerbach, M.S.

Is this casual reference to double-blind:

Which is to say... that's pretty much back where we started. :D ;D



do you ever dream you're someone else?
Maybe I should add the trivia I assume everyone knows but maybe they don't --

That initially "Remote Viewing" experiments by which I mean those actually using that coined term, was literally describing a location. Sometimes, describing what was 'at' or 'happening-at' a location.

So the viewer knew that it was tangible, that it was real-life scale (not microscopic or cosmic), and that it was a location, whether this was via describing the weather, describing an outbounder's environment, or describing a photograph (all were "locations").

So that amount of foreknowledge -- which today we would call 'frontloading' if someone told you that -- was an assumed 'given' for RV from the start, even within "a double-blind."

Because the possible targets in that pool are INFINITE. (uncountable)

If a viewer's info whatever it may be, still leaves that much open, they are considered blind to the target (and it's double-blind if they AND anyone else with physiological interaction with them during viewing is also blind -- two or more persons blind).


We are having this poll going at facebook.


At the moment it is pretty even between viewer not informed of the target and not informed of the project, with other alternatives being a bit less popular.

When the viewer is not informed of the project then, according to me, he is not informed of anything at all. It doesn't help to hand him a sealed envelope, he must be ignorant of what it is about.

Why do I think this. Primarily because that's what I believed it meant, until I learnt that it didn't mean that to others. And also because it is possible, and best. Why would we want to give the viewer more information than he needs? He needs nothing. So give him nothing. In that way the viewer is given the best possible situation to work from, and he is also cleared of any fault if the RV result goes the wrong way.

Viewer can only be physically "blind" but never metaphysically "blind".

Viewer "blind" to target can be like when they searched for the "missing MH-370", just because neither viewer nor tasker knows where the plane is. The plane itself can not be the target. All of the sessions I saw had a cylindrical shape flying through the air and going down in a curved arrow path. They never called it blind, but front-loaded. That is a result we can expect when we tell the viewer we look for a missing airplane. In a case like that the viewer must take responsibility for what he does. We should help the viewer. Set up the project to succeed.


Staff member
Great question! It depends on the quantity. Scientifically there is a quantity a pool must have for statistical reference (whether or not the viewer knows the targets) but I don't know what the number is off the top of my head. Over 300 I think. PJ
I think blind connotes no information. A blank sheet of paper. Write something. It is scary. Might be totally wrong. RV is not easy. Nothing worth anything is easy and we make mistakes. It is human. I like it.
I think blind connotes no information. A blank sheet of paper. Write something. It is scary. Might be totally wrong. RV is not easy. Nothing worth anything is easy and we make mistakes. It is human. I like it.
I agree.
There should be no conscious information given, neither directly nor indirectly.
In no other way can the viewer be uninformed and "blind".

But, we had a survey on the topic, and the majority think that the viewer can be informed of the target and still be labelled "blind".
This is what we must be aware of. "Blind" is not uninformed, "blind" is informed.
The same way as it is used in the TKR protocol, even though it takes it to an extreme.