CRV-REG Experimental Design


If random systems are influenced by consciousness, then the focused consciousness integral to relevant portions of an accurate remote viewing session may facilitate nonlocal mental interaction to correlate with departures from randomness in an intentionally-linked random event generator (REG).

1.1. Supporting hypothesis: Sessions that produce higher-quality data will also correlate with more pronounced deviations from randomness in the respective REG data streams.

1.2. For this experiment accuracy of a remote viewing session will be determined by comparing the data-producing segments of the session with known or reliably-inferrable facts about the selected target. Portions of the session that produce higher ratios of correct to incorrect information will be judged to be more accurate.


Six remote viewers will perform four controlled remote viewing (CRV) sessions each on a rotating schedule between noon on Friday, 7 November 2008 and Saturday evening, 8 November 2008. In each room along with the viewer will be a Psyleron random event generator and an operator. Both operator and viewer will be blind to the target which the viewer is to address. The REG data stream output will also be blind to both the viewer and the Psyleron operator, and recorded to computer disk without observation. The operator will not interact with the viewer except as necessary to perform such functions as coordinating start and stop times, providing the initial coordinate, and so on. Subsequent to the completion of all sessions, REG data and remote viewing session will be chronologically matched and analyzed to see if the primary hypothesis and supporting hypothesis are borne out.


Six subjects have been selected to participate in the experiment. This number was settled on as the best to provide the most remote viewing sessions manageable in the available amount of time, while keeping the number of sessions for each viewer low enough to reasonably avoid viewer fatigue that could affect session results.

Subjects are volunteers who meet the following criteria: 1) Are students of the CRV remote viewing method taught as by Paul H. Smith at Remote Viewing Instructional Services, Inc. (RVIS, Inc.) 2) Have completed at least the Intermediate level of instruction in CRV. 3) Have shown a consistent history of producing medium-to-high quality remote viewing results in their remote viewing attempts, as assessed by subjective evaluation by their instructors during their training regimens. 4) Are available to participate on the designated experiment days. For logistical reasons, preference is given to those student viewers who are closest in proximity to Austin, Texas, with secondary preference to those who can most easily afford the time and expense to travel to participate. Four subjects meet the proximity condition; two meet the “affordability” condition, which provided the desired subject roster of six.


4.1 The remote viewing methodology employed for this experiment will be controlled remote viewing (CRV). There are three reasons for this: 1) The ordered sequence of events (‘stages’) in the CRV process particularly commend itself to relatively straightforward correlation with mile-post events in REG data streams. 2) The immediate accessibility of a pool of research subjects whose general performance level is already known. 3) The relatively uniform level of training and experience of this particular subject pool helps avoid the possible confounding variable of too much heterogeneity within the pool.

4.2 Description of the CRV methodology. Controlled Remote Viewing is a formally-structured remote viewing method originally developed under contract to the US Army by Harold E. Puthoff, Ph.D. and Ingo Swann at SRI-International (formerly Stanford Research Institute). In the CRV process sensory-like and other impressions are perceived by non-ordinary means and expressed verbally, in writing, and/or via sketching on paper. These perceptions are derived from subconscious impressions deposited by a hypothesized ‘signal-line’ (a term of art in CRV for the presumed stream of information about the intended target which becomes available in the course of a session). Perceived impressions are collated over the course of six incremental and increasingly information-rich “stages.” Our experiment relies only on the first three of these stages:

Stage 1 presents a brief gestaltic notion of the nature of the intended target (e.g., the target is human-made structure, water, land, etc., or is a combination of these elements).

Stage 2 produces sense-related impressions of smells, tastes, textures, colors, qualities of light, and so on.

Stage 3 incorporates the preceding elements plus comprehension of dimensional elements of the target. Central to Stage 3 is representational sketching of the target or of aspects and sub-elements of the target.

A core feature of the CRV methodology is identifying and separating which mental events represent veridical sensory and other impressions in the viewer, and which merely constitute mental “noise” -- mental elements which represent analytical “conclusion jumping” or other similar distracting processes in the viewer. Such interpretation/distortion is characterized in CRV by the technical term “analytical overlay,” or AOL. The process of collecting and reporting correct target-related information by the viewer is termed a CRV ‘session,’ and produces a paper transcript of the various stages recording veridical data and noting episodes of internally-generated mental events (“noise”). Ultimately, the viewer produces sketch(es) and a collection of verbal reports which can subsequently be compared with a photograph and other feedback material of the actual target.


5.1. Reg Operator Training: A period will be set aside Thursday night, 6 November to train operators and alternates on operation of the random number generator and associated equipment. Any further training required will be conducted on Friday morning, 7 November.

5.2. Blinding Protocol: All viewers will be double blind to targets they are assigned to remote view until after viewing is completed and session materials for that target are sequestered. All individuals associating with the viewers before and during the sessions will be fully blind to the target. The REG data stream output will be blind to both the viewer and the Psyleron operator, so any effects are unobservable at the time of recording. This insures that no voluntary or involuntary verbal or non-verbal influence from the operator as a result of surprising or other observed effects from the REG will distract the viewer. (It also effectively lessens the impact of spurious consciousness effects from the operator as he or she attends to the data stream.)

5.3. Target Pool Selection: The experiment target pool will be created by two of the experimenters. One experimenter (Paul H. Smith) has more than 25 years’ experience with remote viewing targeting. Targets will be standard geographic locations (including unique land forms, land/water features, human-made structures, etc.). Smith will select targets for five of the six viewers in the experiment. Since Smith will also participate as a viewer, a second set of targets will be prepared in the same manor by another researcher (Stahler) to be used for the sessions Smith will execute. The target pools will contain five discrete targets, four of which will be used, with one in reserve. The targets will be prepared in the following way:

5.3.1 Each target will be represented by a feedback sheet consisting of the target name, the name of its most specifiable geographic location, and geographic coordinates for its precise location. So, for example, if the selected target were the Eiffel Tower the feedback sheet would be headed by the name ‘Eiffel Tower,’ under which would be ‘Paris, France,’ and under that the geographical coordinates in latitude and longitude, including degrees, minutes, seconds, and where necessary for specificity, fractions of seconds (the geographical coordinates will be obtained from Google Earth). Under this will be a photo or photographs of the target location. [Note: viewers are asked to mentally access the actual target location itself, not the photo that represents it, for each target they address.]

5.3.2. Each target is selected to be as orthogonal as possible from the others in the set.

5.3.3. Each target will be sealed inside its own individual, identical, opaque manila envelope size 5 X11.5 .

These five identical envelopes will be presented to a disinterested third party who will shuffle the envelopes out of the researchers’ presence. The envelopes will then be presented to another third party who out of the researchers’ presence may or may not shuffle the envelopes again, but will number the envelopes arbitrarily from one to five.

The resulting five numbered target envelopes will then be placed inside an opaque 9 X11 manila envelope for transport and storage.

5.4. Selecting Trial Targets: Each new session rotation will be initiated by the random selection of the target to be used during that rotation. A single six-sided die will be rolled, and the resulting number of dots on the upper face of the die will be the number of the target envelope to be used for that session rotation. (Since this will also be done for each of the remaining three rotations, the die will be rolled until its upper face contains a number of dots for a target envelope not already chosen.)

The remaining envelopes will be returned to a safe location, and the encrypted coordinate (see paragraph 12, below) will be written on the target envelope selected for that session rotation.

The preceding process will be followed for the target that experimenter Smith will be assigned for each rotation.

5.5. Target Tasking: Viewers will be tasked at the beginning of each session and for each of the three subsequent rotations using what has become known as “encrypted coordinates.” These “coordinates” will consist in the year, month, and day in reverse order (so August 13, 2009 would be ‘090813') followed by a two digit target pool number ('01' for targets selected by researcher Smith and '02' for targets select by researcher Stahler) and an uppercase letter representing which session is being undertaken. So, for example, for the first trial on Friday, November 7, 2008 each viewer will receive the coordinate ‘08110701A’ or ‘08110702A’ when it is time for him or her to initiate the session. In the vernacular of CRV, the respective “encrypted coordinate” expresses the tasker’s intent to “describe the target represented by the feedback sheet contained within the envelope selected for” each session rotation in turn.

5.6. Random Event Generator Description (REG): The random event generator we will use in the Psyleron REG. The REG works by electronically quantifying the electronic noise present within certain micro-electronic devices (e.g., a diode), which is known to be fundamentally random, as binary events and representing the data as a stream of ones and zeros. The data stream is recorded to a computer hard drive for later statistical analysis as well as real-time analysis by the Psyleron software package.

The real-time Psyleron software analysis is displayed as a graph of cumulative deviations about the theoretical mean. The graphic display is set up with a standard x-y axis, with a symmetrical parabolic curve starting from the origin of the x-y axis, and imposed on the graph from left to right centering on the x-axis, with the open end of the parabola at the right edge of the screen. This parabolic curve represents the thresholds of statistical significance. The theoretical odds are 1 in 20 that an effect exceeding these thresholds is due to chance alone. This curve represents the point at which cumulative imbalances in the ratio of ones and zeros in the data stream (deviations from the mean), reach statistical significance. As the cumulative deviations extend beyond the threshold of the curve, the odds that the effect is due to chance diminish rapidly. In the software employed by the Psyleron REG, line movement below the x-axis is considered ‘negative’ (but merely represents a proportionally higher number of zeroes in the data stream than ones) and movement above the x-axis line is considered ‘positive’ (and represents a proportionately higher number of ones). These designations are arbitrary, and could as easily have been described as 'up' vs. 'down,' 'heads' vs. 'tails,' or – if the graph were oriented vertically – ‘left’ vs. ‘right.’ No metaphysical significance should be inferred from whether the effects stream moves into ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ territory.

5.7. Recognizing an Effect: It should first be stated that what an REG ‘measures’ (if measure is even the right word) is unknown. It has been speculated that it detects consciousness fields or the impact of mental processes on quantum systems, but there is no concrete evidence of such causal linkages. All that can definitively be said is that any effects observed consist only in the REG outputting more 1's or more 0's than is statistically warranted, correlated with some human activity involving consciousness or focused attention. For the purposes of this experiment, we will consider any of the following to be an effect:

5.7.1. An excursion of ‘positive’ cumulative deviations (more ones than zeros) beyond the curve representing the positive 5% probability space.

5.7.2. An excursion of ‘negative’ cumulative deviations (more zeros than ones) beyond the curve representing the negative 5% probability space.

5.7.3. An excursion that does not cross the statistical significance threshold in either direction, but which correlates consistently over three or more remote viewing sessions in approximately the same ‘locations’ (stages) in the remote viewing process.

5.8. Scheduling of Sessions and Viewer Management: Rotation sessions and subject/viewer performance will conform to the following schedule (R-numbers identify individual viewers while preserving their anonymity):

Friday, November 7, 2008:

1:00PM Briefing, Target A Selection

Target A Sessions

2:00PM REG1 - R0801

REG2 - R0804

3:00PM REG1 - R0802

REG2 - R0805

4:00PM REG1 - R0803

REG2 - R0806

5:00PM Feedback Target A, Target B Selection

Saturday, November 8, 2008:

Target B Sessions

8:30AM REG1 - R0804

REG2 - R0801

9:30AM REG1 - R0805

REG2 - R0802

10:30AM REG1 - R0806

REG2 - R0803

11:30AM Lunch(Sandwiches), Feedback Target B, Target C Selection

Target C Sessions

12:30PM REG1 - R0801

REG2 - R0804

1:30PM REG1 - R0802

REG2 - R0805

2:30PM REG1 - R0803

REG2 - R0806

3:30PM Break, Feedback Target C, Target D Selection

Target D Sessions

4:00PM REG1 - R0804

REG2 - R0801

5:00PM REG1 - R0805

REG2 - R0802

6:00PM REG1 - R0806

REG2 - R0803

7:00PM Dinner (Pizza), Feedback Target D and Debriefing

5.9. Psyleron Reg Recording Parameters: The Psyleron REG outputs data in sets of 10, 20, or 200 bits at rates of 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 data sets per second. For this study we will use the Psyleron recommended parameters of 200 bit data sets at a rate of 2 data sets per second.

5.10. Psyleron Reg Data Management: The Psyleron REG data from each individual remote viewing session will be in its own separate data file. The data file will be stored in the following location on a personal computer running the Microsoft Windows operating system:

C:\Program Files\Psyleron\FieldREG\users\FIELDREG_\experiments\CRVREGStudy\

Individual session files will be labeled with the Psyleron REG serial number, a space, the viewer number , a space, and CRV encrypted coordinates for that session (e.g, RGZD177 R0801 08111701A).

Data will be backed up to a USB memory stick at the completion of each session by copying the entire “C:\Program Files\Psyleron\” folder to the memory stick leaving the original data on the computer hard drive.

A long duration (in excess of eight continuous hours) REG 'baseline' data run will be conducted the night before the experiments for each REG device. The baseline data file will be stored along with the experimental data in the \CRVREGStudy\ folder with the file labeled with the word “Baseline,” a space, the Psyleron REG serial number, a pace, and the date in a YY/MM/DD format (e.g., “Baseline RGZD177 081116”).

5.11. Time Synchronization: For purposes of synchronizing the remote viewer CRV transcript, viewer audio data and REG data the session the following techniques will be employed:

5.11.1. Electronic audio recorder file time-stamping.

5.11.2. Electronic REG data file time-stamping.

5.11.3. Manual audio recording of start and end times by operator annunciation of time to the viewer.

5.11.4. Manual REG data recording of the start and end times by comment data field entry.

5.12. Session Outline: The following is a step-by-step outline of how it is expected each iteration of the experiment will proceed:

5.12.1. A 60-minute period is allotted for each session. As the period begins, the REG operator prepares his device for the next viewer, establishing a new REG data file, establishing data identification, and ensuring that the device is ready to operate. He or she then runs the machine for five minutes before the viewer enters the room, and leaves it running as the viewer enters and prepares for the session.

5.12.2. When the operator indicates readiness, the viewer enters the room and takes up his or her position at the viewing table, out of sight of the REG and operator. Blank session transcript paper is arranged to the viewer’s taste, and appropriate administrative headings are added to the first page. Initial information in this heading will include viewer number (not name), date, and location. The viewer indicates to the REG operator that he or she is ready to begin.

5.12.3. The REG operator will initiate the audio recording, which will electronically time stamp the audio file, and announce Time now XX:XX am/pm. Both the viewer And the REG operator will note the time. The viewer will note the time under the 'number/location/date' header, and the operator will note the time in the comments field of the Psyleron software.

5.12.4. REG operator verbalizes to the viewer the target coordinate to start the viewer on the session. The viewer begins the session.

5.12.5. As the session progresses, the viewer verbalizes as specified by the CRV methodology, and writes down data and makes target-relevant sketches according to CRV structure.

5.12.6. As the viewer session proceeds, the operator annotates the REG data recording with significant session events using the following vocabulary and in chronological order:

Start XX:XX am/pm - CRV Session Start Time

S1 - Beginning CRV Stage I

S2 - Beginning CRV Stage II

AI - Aesthetic Impact Break, Transitioning from Stage II to Stage III

S3 - Beginning CRV Stage III

Summary - Beginning CRV Data Summary Phase

End XX:XX am/pm - CRV Session End Time

Additionally, the following annotations will be used for noting CRV breaks encountered during Stages I, II, or III:

BK - AOL or other CRV break

RE - Resume from break

5.12.7. As the viewer completes the session he or she drafts a short summary of results, declares “session end,” and both verbalizes and notes the time annunciated by the REG operator. Sessions shall last no longer than 25 minutes. The REG operator will proactively terminate sessions in excess of 25 minutes by requesting a viewer summary.

5.12.8. The viewer will collate the session transcript, staple it, and place it face down in the place designated.

5.12.9. The REG operator will allow the device to record 'baseline' data for 25 minutes after the completion of the remote viewing session (during this time he or she may attend to other activities or tasks outside the experiment room). At the conclusion of this period, the operator will carefully save all results in a folder uniquely specified for that session.

5.13. Session Feedback: An important part of the remote viewing protocol is that whenever feasible, feedback about the target should be presented to the viewer as soon as reasonably possible after completion of the session, just so long as contamination of the experiment’s results is avoided.

Feedback will be withheld until all viewers have completed their sessions for that rotation, and their transcripts and other results have been secured from further amendment. At this point all the viewers will be presented the feedback at once by the process of the experimenter unsealing the selected target envelope and allowing the subject/viewers to examine the feedback sheet.

Once viewers have had the opportunity to examine the feedback sheet, an experimenter will write on the sheet the encrypted coordinate which was used for that session rotation, return it to its envelope, and return it further to its original target pool envelope. All these materials, plus the transcripts of all six viewers, will be kept together and segregated from target materials from other session rotations.

During the feedback phase at the end of each rotation, viewers will also be allowed to see the REG results of their individual sessions, but will not be permitted to see others’ REG results. This will be done by presenting each viewer an opaque envelope containing printout(s) of his or her REG trace, to be examined in a setting of his or her choosing sequestered from other participants. These will be returned and kept on hand by the experimenters until the end of the experiment, when the materials will be returned to the viewers, along with photocopies of their other materials.

5.14. Session Judging/scoring: Traditionally, remote viewing experiments require blind judging of RV results. This is performed by constructing a pool of targets (usually four or five) including the correct target in advance of the remote viewing activities. After the remote viewing activity is concluded, judges are expected to try to match the RV results with the correct target, thus allowing a means of statistical assessment of whether remote viewing has indeed occurred. Since in this experiment statistical analysis is being performed on the REG data, blind judging of the remote viewing results against their respective target pools is not a primary goal. However, the remote viewing data will be preserved in a way that will not compromise or contaminate future double blind judging as a sequel experiment. Judges will be selected and a suitable protocol devised and properly vetted in advance of conducting such an experiment.

5.15. Safeguarding Data: All session transcripts, REG traces, and audio recordings will be properly catalogued, archived, segregated, and preserved at the end of the experiment. A complete copy of all originals of each media will be made and left with experimenter Paul H. Smith. Originals will remain in the possession of researcher Melvin Morse. If time allows, a further copy will be made and entrusted to researcher John Stahler.

5.16. Statistical Evaluation: Initial data analysis will be conducted using the real-time Psyleron data analysis and graphing package. REG output data will also be available in a raw data 'text-file' format for further analysis using other established statistical research tools.


5.17.1. Local Sidereal Time (LST) Considerations. Some statistical studies seem to indicate that performing remote viewing activities during certain times of day reckoned according to local sidereal time produces higher quality results, while at other times session accuracy declines. The real impact of this apparent effect remains controversial. A check of the LST for experiment working hours on 7-8 November shows that no sessions will be conducted during the least-optimal LST time periods.

5.17.2. Geomagnetism. Studies have shown a possible link between decreased remote viewing session quality and higher levels of background geomagnetic activity. We are presently in the quietest period for geomagnetic activity in a half-century, so there is little impact expected on viewer performance. Local geomagnetic levels will be checked and recorded for later analysis as a just-in-case measure.

5.18. Control Group Considerations: The original proposal for this experiment included a provision for a control group. However, in consultation with three outside-expert reviewers, it was decided to drop that provision from the experiment for two reasons: The actual control for the experiment is the REG data-stream profile obtained before and after the active phase of the experiment, and between sessions. This presumably quiescent random stream will then be compared to the streams collected during the active phase of the experiment and the differences, if any, analyzed. Thus, a control group of non-remote viewing subjects engaged in an activity is not a control condition, but rather a further test condition, which merely adds unnecessary complexity to the experiment.

Second, a group of art students sketching and commenting (as per the original proposal) captures only one of many possible alternative conditions that could be contrasted to remote viewing activity. For example, members of a group of art students could be monitored as they draw an object or scene they see in front of them, while other students could be doing the same for an imaginary object or scene. On the other hand, individuals in a group involved in a relaxing activity (such as watching television) could be tested, versus members of a group involved in working math problems in their heads, and so on. This seems to present an entirely different experimental modality which could (and probably should) be explored completely outside a remote viewing context.


To preserve viewer privacy, all participating subjects will be identified only by an individually-assigned number, except on materials requiring more specific identification, such as “human use” documents (see below). A confidential viewer number/personal identification key list has been prepared. Viewers will be provided their assigned identification number at the start of the experiment. The numbers will begin with the letter R and consist of the two-digit year designation (for 2008 it will be ‘08') followed by a two-digit sequence number unique to that subject/viewer. As necessary, research personnel and the subjects themselves may be made aware of the numbers and the subject to whom each refers, but all involved are under obligation to protect this information from public release. The exception is that each subject/viewer may release his/her number and identification (but no one else’s) if he/she so chooses once the experiment is completed.


While it remains debatable whether remote viewing experiments fall under guidelines for experimentation on human subjects, government experiments of this sort were often determined by legal counsel to constitute ‘human use.’ We have elected to take the conservative course and meet minimal human use requirements, including forming an institutional review board (IRB) and providing disclosure/consent forms for all subjects.

6.1. Institutional Review Board. The IRB will consist of six members, including the following: Dr. Jessica Utts (professor, UC-Irvine, and board member, IRVA); Mr. Stephan Schwartz (board member, IRVA); Dr. Tom Brown (Thomas M. Brown, Psy.D. LLC); Dr. John Alexander (board member, IRVA); Mr. William Eigles (board member, IRVA); and Dr. Dean Radin (Institute of Noetic Studies). The IRB thus consists of five male members and one female member, four of whom are members of the organization’s governing board, and two of whom are outsiders. Additionally, on the board is a clinical psychologist (Brown), two scientists (Utts and Radin), an experienced researcher (Schwartz), an adviser to the Army Science Board (Alexander), and a legal advisor (Eigles). This configuration meets or exceeds basic requirements for IRB constitution as outlined by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

6.2. The responsibility of the IRB will be to review and approve the research proposal, experimental design, and human use documentation for compliance with the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Research Protections guidelines.

6.3. There will no intrusive examination or risky or dangerous activity involved in the experiment. Subjects will be performing actions that they have themselves elected to undertake on their own many times in the past. They will be fully briefed on what they are being asked to do to participate in the project, and will be given a consent form to sign. All participants are over the age of 18.


“Control” group study (see Paragraph 24 above).

Bit-size/sample rate

Other remote viewing modes/methods

Dowsing and REG

Associative remote viewing and REG