Hi Alex,
When you say "WE now know", who are you speaking for?
I'm speaking for myself and I suppose for those who, like me, ascribe to the peer-reviewed, laboratory-designed, scientifically accepted protocols as originally developed at Stanford Research Institute. These are people who have stated (often repeatedly and vehemently) in public that, for PSI perception to fit the definition of "remote viewing", those protocols must be followed. SOME of those people are Joseph McMoneagle, Edwin May, Dean Radin, Charles Tart, Fred "Skip" Atwater, Ingo Swann, Richard S. Broughton, Palyne Gaenir, Gary Langford, Charles Puthoff, Brian Josephson, and many people who frequent TKJR like Eric, LD, Tunde, Gene and many more. I don't presume to speak for them. But I do presume to know how the feel about the paramount importance of the protocols.
Here's a quote from a post I made in a different thread. In that thread, the issue was someone in the room knowing what the target is and whether that invalidates the exercise as being remote viewing or not. That's a slightly different issue but the important points are the same:
We often forget that the term "remote viewing" originally was coined to put a label on a specific type of scientific experiment. Being a scientific experiment, the protocol is paramount. The ingredients necessary in that protocol are not only the double blind. Also included are things like (1) a specific target, the parameters of which are known and articulated beforehand (which excludes common fortune-telling staples like "past-life readings, "romantic outlooks", "life readings", "lucky numbers for the week", etc.), (2) no frontloading of any kind (which can exclude the remote viewing of the same "type" of target repeatedly. So the remote viewing, in succession, of the Pyramids, the Sphinx, the Sphinx temple, and King Tut's Tomb might constitue a kind of frontloading), (3) blind judging (meaning the judge cannot take part in any other aspect of the remote viewing effort in any way), and (4) verifiable feedback (which technically excludes, to one degree or another, targets such as UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster. At least, until feedback on those subjects is obtained).
As PJ alluded to, these - and other aspects of protocol - are the very things that define RV and separate it from all the other "iffy" practices that have been historically referred to as "psychic" (and, because of their lack of protocol, may or mat not be truly "psychic" in nature - there's no way to know with any certainty because of their lack of protocol).
What has happened over time is that the term "remote viewing" has come to be used to refer to the activity of PSI reception, as opposed to the conditions under which PSI reception occurs (the protocols)
Those same issues apply to our discussion here.
In fact he wrote in his book that I, along with Brent and Dawn were the best viewers he every trained. (maybe he was just being kind)
And I'm sure you are. I have no question about your remote viewing ability. Where we differ in is the definition of remote viewing.
See... I was personally trained by Retired Major Ed Dames. (I was told by him that he was personally taught by Ingo Swan/ he calls himself Ingo's protégés) For weeks ... 8-9 hours a day, Ed and I sat across the desk from each other going through the protocols and doing sessions.
Here you have mentioned one issue that probably lies at the heart of our differences. What Ed Dames (and some of the other CRV trainers) refer to as "protocols" are more accurately termed a "methodology". The "protocols" are the rules under which the psychic perception takes place or, as in the case of when RV was first being developed, the rules under which a scientific experiment takes place (and remote viewing, after all, was originally coined to refer to a scientific experiment. There were many methodologies that were tested and used throughout Project Stargate. But there was only ONE scientifically-accepted, peer-reviewed protocol. And the foundation of that protocol is the double blind and the complete absence of frontloading.
Over the years I have reviewed different RV sessions, produced from different RV techniques. Clearly I am more comfortable with my/Dames/ technique, but I never found any other type of RV work to be remotely as clear and accurate as what Dames taught me...
And I'm sure it works for you. It works very well for others as well. The methodology is not the issue. The issue is the protocols. Any methodology can be used. As long as it is done under the scientific controls (the protocols), then it is remote viewing. As McMoneagle used to say (paraphrasing), "I don't care if you stand on your head in a bucket of pea soup and whistle Dixie to produce your information, if you do it under the protocols, then it is remote viewing". See, I'm not questioning your training, your ability, your accuracy or your experience. I'm questioning the fact that you have stated you are producing PSI information outside of the protocols and are calling it "remote viewing".
As I stated in my previous post, there actually ARE some very limited ways of using frontloading that have been generally accepted (at least among the Ft Meade unit). But they always entailed a previous double blind session, and then in a second session, the RVer might be asked to expand upon something he has already perceived, under protocol, in the first session. And even THAT would likely not be accepted by science, especially since that approach was never published nor peer-reviewed.
This area has long been a bone of contention in the RV community. Ingo trained people to RV with a "training methodology". That's fine for training but not for remote viewing. Being frontloaded or having a frontloaded monitor is like having training wheels on a bicycle. Until you take off those training wheels, you aren't really riding that bike. The problem is that many in the Ft. Meade unit, once they started training private citizens, didn't tell people that. McMoneagle states that he has answered hundreds of emails and letters from people who learned to RV frontloaded or with a frontloaded monitor who then realized that they couldn't really remote view - once they tried to work double blind. So many people were taught a methodology that works great. But they were never inoculated with the knowledge of the protocols, the very rules that define remote viewing, that make remote viewing what it is.
That does not mean that you can't remote view. Daz and others who use the CRV method (and that's what Dames' method is) work targets double blind and do a fantastic job all the time. It's just that it sounds like the primary, no-exceptions, paramount importance od the scientific controls - the protocols - were never taught to you. Many other people are in the same boat. Do the same thing you have been doing and having such great success with, only do it under the double blind, no frontloading protocols, and no one can argue with you about it.
Who trained you and what tangible results have you achieved?
I discovered remote viewing in late 1997. I guess I'm a "natural". I've experienced psychic events all my life. But I was always very skeptical and I knew how it easy it is to delude yourself into thinking something is psychic when it is not. So I was very excited about RV. It offered a way to both test and train myself under a scientifically-accepted protocol. At that time PSI-TECH (Ed Dames) were the only people I was aware of that were training people to remote view. The cost was out of the question for me. But then I quickly found Joe McMoneagle's first book "Mind Trek" and I devoured it. Even though Joe said in the book that it was not a handbook for training, that's what I used it for. After having some excellent, amazing early sessions, I began missing targets repeatedly (after many direct hits, I totally missed about 25 targets in a row). I wrote to Joe, explaining what I was doing, how I was setting up targets so they were double blind, etc. Early on, he had the same experience. He told me to stick with it, that I would pull out of it. And I did.
Over time, I developed my own meditative, altered state method - what Skip Atwater termed "ERV" for "Extended Remote Viewing". I communicated with Joe frequently (he wasn't as busy back then and was very, very gracious and helpful with the thousands of my questions and his many helpful suggestions). So, Joe didn't train me. But he did guide me.
(These days, I think the main differences between the structured methods - like yours - and the free-form, ERV methods - like mine - are these: (1) I also weed out the AOLS, but I do it in my head, not on paper, and (2) I don't restrict any type of information from coming in at any point in the session, so even though there are natural "stages" that I tend to experience, I'm always open to the sudden, spontaneous perception of any type at any time throughout the session).
I wanted to learn all I could about RV, so as part of that, I decided to buy a complete set of videotapes from PSI-TECH and I learned Dames' method. Later on, relying on open sources, I learned elements of Smith and Buchannan's approach to CRV. Then I studied Courtney Brown's SRV and a little of Prudence Calabrese's TDS method. What I ultimately learned was what Joe had been telling me all along: it's not the methodology that's important; it's your own innate talent, dedication, and willingness to practice, practice, practice until you're blue in the face.
Early in my RV experience, for about 3 years, I remote viewed 2-4 times daily (usually 3 times a day). And I mean EVERY day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. That's when I was at my best. Later, when I was doing a lot of operational work, I also trained/practiced daily. I was very good then, too. But no where near as good as I was during that period when I was RVing 3-4 hours every day. Practice really makes all the difference for me.
I've done somewhere around 8,000 training sessions and 300-400 operational sessions so far. Around 140 of those operational sessions were done for 2 different private security firms (both owned by the same family) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. This is something I rarely mention because of privacy agreements. Contractually, I can't speak much about them, so I don't. But I loved doing the work and I learned a lot from it. I had to quit in 2008 because my wife was diagnosed with brain cancer and I did nothing but care for her until she passed away (sold the cars, lost the house, credit went down the tubes, etc. but I did the right thing by my wife). During that time, my employers sold the company to a couple who believe remote viewing is "of the devil" - so that was the end of that job, lol. I've never made a lot of money in RV. But, for a time, it did make up about 40% of my income. I've never really been into RV to make money - although I'm not against it! Lol!
When I'm in-practice (I didn't RV at all for a couple years), my accuracy runs about 72-74% and my reliability usually ranges from about 51-88% (as best I can tell, calculating those things scientifically is not easy). The few times I've actually sat down and ran a group of trial sessions (4 times now) and tried to calculate the numbers, that's about where I was. I'm currently trying to get back into practice - and I'm getting there. But, since my sessions are done in an altered state, I can't RV a target in less than 20-30 minutes total. So finding time can be difficult sometimes. Is that what you wanted to know? Don
so let the conspiracy theories continue! lol I haven't tried yet - but if I do I'll post it too. 
