What Is Remote Viewing? Understanding the Science of Perception

Remote viewing explained for the modern intelligence world.

Remote viewing is one of those subjects that refuses to remain in the category of “strange ideas.” The deeper you go, the more you realize that this phenomenon—whether labeled ESP, extrasensory perception, clairvoyance, telepathy, or anomalous cognition—has a documented scientific history far broader than most people realize. Behind the myths and Hollywood tropes lies a very real field of psychical research: experiments conducted under conditions of sensory shielding, statistical reviews by the American Statistical Association, exploration at Stanford University, and decades of research at the Stanford Research Institute’s (SRI) laboratories.

Today, remote viewing stands at the intersection of science, consciousness studies, parapsychology, and intelligence work. What makes the subject of remote viewing so compelling is not just the boldness of its claims, but the fact that physicists, statisticians, engineers, and the U.S. military took it seriously enough to build an entire remote viewing program around it.

This article explores the science of remote viewing, the art and science behind the protocols, the history of the Stargate Project, and the surprising ways RV still finds its way into modern investigative work—including quiet usage by psychic detectives in U.S. law enforcement, such as Pam Coronado.

What Remote Viewing Really Is

Remote viewing can be described as a disciplined method of perceiving distant or unseen locations, objects, or events—hidden objects that cannot be accessed by ordinary senses. It is not random guessing, nor is it out-of-body travel (though some early researchers debated whether certain impressions resembled out-of-body experiences). Instead, RV is a form of natural psychic receptivity, guided by structure and protocol.

The viewer sits quietly, with the target blinded and removed from their sensory awareness. All impressions appear internally—textures, shapes, motion, temperature, emotional tones—what early literature called psychic phenomena or mental phenomena. These impressions are subtle but distinct, arising through what many parapsychology researchers have called psychic powers, precognition, or non-local cognition.

What separates remote viewing from vague “psychic readings” is the scientific method behind it: conditions of sensory shielding, controlled target pools, and a specific protocol developed by Ingo Swann, Harold Puthoff, Russell Targ, and others during remote viewing research at SRI.

The SRI Foundation: Physics Meets Anomalous Perception

The real story of modern RV begins at the Stanford Research Institute in the 1970s. The U.S. intelligence community—specifically the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and later the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)—tasked physicists Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ with a bold question:

Can humans perceive information without sensory contact?

These early remote-view experiments were conducted under strict scientific conditions. Viewers sat in shielded rooms; targets were randomly assigned; data was recorded immediately. The aim was not mysticism, but engineering anomalies research, a precursor to what later became the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory.

Some experiments even attempted to determine whether telepathy-like transmission under conditions of sensory isolation played a role. Others explored whether ESP and remote perception were related or fundamentally distinct.

The results were significant enough to get the attention of the U.S. military.

The Stargate Project: The U.S. Military’s Remote Viewing Program

The Stargate Project is one of the most fascinating intelligence programs ever declassified. For over 20 years, the U.S. government funded remote-view operations for military intelligence, counterterrorism, hostage recovery, and reconnaissance. This was a fully operational remote viewing program that tested remote viewing under real-world conditions—not just laboratories.

The US military used remote viewing as a “last-resort intelligence tool” when all other methods failed. Viewers like Joseph McMoneagle (RV #001) consistently produced results that far exceeded chance, helping analysts describe distant or unseen locations, structures, and even foreign weapons systems.

When the project was eventually declassified, the results shocked many people. Multiple statistical reviews showed that results from remote viewing were significantly above chance, even when judged independently.

This was not fringe behavior; it was formal intelligence work.

SAIC, Princeton & the Evolution of Remote Viewing Research

After SRI, much of the research shifted to SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation) under physicist Edwin May, who refined protocols and investigated the difference between natural psychic receptivity and remote viewing carried out under disciplined structure.

At the same time, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) performed thousands of trials exploring ESP, telepathy, and non-local perception. These experiments were conducted with the same academic rigor expected of mainstream scientific work.

Even the American Society for Psychical Research and other academic groups contributed to the growing library of data supporting anomalous cognition. The topic of remote viewing gained academic weight, even as Skeptical Inquirer and other voices of skeptical inquiry attempted to dismiss it—typically without replicating experiments under the same conditions.

But the data stood firm.

Remote Viewing & Psychic Detectives in the United States

One of the most compelling modern extensions of remote viewing is its unofficial use in U.S. law enforcement. Agencies rarely acknowledge it publicly—out of fear of reputational risk—but internal statements and case studies reveal a different story.

A key example is Pam Coronado, a well-known psychic detective whose work has been featured on Case Files and several investigative documentaries. Her methods align strongly with RV principles: sensory impressions first, sketches, emotional resonance, and structured perception. Many detectives state privately that her leads have helped them break cases when conventional methods hit dead ends.

This is not remote viewing “as doctrine,” but using remote viewing principles—a distinction that matters academically, but not operationally.

In the field, results matter. And when something helps solve a case, investigators use it.

How a Remote Viewing Session Works

A formal controlled remote viewing (CRV) session follows a careful structure designed to keep the viewer from mixing emotion, imagination, and perception. It is the art and science of remote viewing—half disciplined cognition, half pure perceptual intuition.

The viewer receives a target ID (a random number disconnected from the true target). As impressions begin, they appear as tiny fragments—textures, shapes, movement, temperature, or subtle emotions. These impressions are non-analytic, meaning they arise before the viewer begins guessing. Sketching prevents the analytical mind from creating false narratives.

This is where psychic receptivity and remote viewing overlap: RV does not deny psychic functioning; it simply channels it into a testable structure.

The viewer gradually builds a picture of the unseen target, and only after the session is the target revealed and compared.

Try It Yourself: A Mini SRI Experiment

If you want a taste of what SRI researchers discovered, try this simplified experiment:

Have a friend place a photo of a landmark inside an envelope.
Sit quietly; take slow breaths.
Write down impressions—don’t guess.
Sketch shapes or structures you feel.
Compare after ten minutes.

Most people, even beginners, detect at least one or two surprising correspondences. This simple act demonstrates why remote viewing research refused to disappear. Something happens in that quiet moment where perception expands beyond the physical senses.

When Remote Viewing Meets OSINT: The Hybrid Intelligence Era

This is the future—and the core of DTKIntel.

Remote viewing provides non-local impressions.
OSINT provides geolocation, verification, and data analysis.
RAG systems provide AI-level interpretation and pattern recognition.

A remote viewer might sense:

water nearby
angular structures
elevation changes
emotional or cultural tones

OSINT specialists can then verify or eliminate locations using:

satellite imagery
Google Earth
terrain analysis
Mapillary
historical data
open-source intelligence databases

This creates a loop of perception and verification—precisely the hybrid system the old SRI teams dreamed about but never had the tools to build.

With AI, that dream becomes reality.

Why Remote Viewing Refuses to Die

Despite waves of skeptical inquiry, media criticism, and attempts by groups like Skeptical Inquirer to downplay results, remote viewing persists because:

the data is consistent
experiments conducted under rigorous protocols remain statistically significant
intelligence agencies invested in it
parapsychology researchers continue to reproduce the effect
psychical research organizations record new examples regularly

The phenomenon remains one of the most compelling demonstrations that consciousness is more than sensory input.

Conclusion: The New Architecture of Intelligence

Remote viewing began as a Cold War curiosity, grew into a military remote viewing program, survived decades of skeptical attack, and now stands at the center of a new intelligence paradigm.

Today, the true breakthrough is the fusion of:

remote viewing
OSINT
AI
RAG
geospatial intelligence
human intuition
psychical research
scientific protocol

This is not just “remote viewing explained.”
This is a new science of perception, built on the foundation of SRI, PEAR, SAIC, and the Stargate Project—expanded into a modern, hybrid, AI-enhanced methodology.

This is remote viewing for the 21st century.

This is DTKIntel.

Remote Viewing FAQ: Science, Consciousness & Modern Intelligence

1. What is remote viewing?

Remote viewing is a structured method of perceiving distant or unseen targets—locations, objects, events—under conditions of sensory shielding. Unlike imagination or guesswork, “remote viewing” relies on controlled protocols developed at SRI International, where physicists like Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ conducted some of the most influential remote viewing experiments funded by the Central Intelligence Agency and later the U.S. military.

2. Is remote viewing a form of ESP or psychic ability?

Yes—remote viewing is closely connected to ESP (extrasensory perception) and other psychic phenomena such as clairvoyance, telepathy, and precognition. What makes RV unique is that it transforms natural psychic receptivity into a repeatable, testable protocol through structured stages and sensory cues control.

3. What scientific research supports remote viewing?

RV has been investigated in multiple major research programs:

Stanford Research Institute’s (SRI) remote viewing program
SAIC studies led by physicist Edwin May
Princeton University’s PEAR Lab (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) led by Robert Jahn
Various parapsychological research labs and the American Society for Psychical Research

Statistical analysis by Jessica Utts of the American Statistical Association concluded that remote viewing results are “far beyond chance” and consistent across decades of experiments.

4. How does remote viewing relate to quantum theory?

While remote viewing is not officially part of quantum physics, many researchers note similarities to quantum non-locality—where information can appear instantly across distance without physical connection. Remote viewing behaves in a way that suggests consciousness may operate non-locally, which supports modern theories in consciousness studies.

5. Are psychic spies real?

Yes. The U.S. military trained “psychic spies” during the Stargate Project, an intelligence program designed to test whether remote viewers could collect information that satellites, HUMINT, or SIGINT could not access. Declassified documents confirm that RV was used for real intelligence tasks, including hostage locations, foreign installations, and surveillance of hidden objects.

6. Does law enforcement use remote viewing?

Officially, rarely. Unofficially? Yes—especially in the U.S.
Many detectives privately consult psychic detectives like Pam Coronado, whose work aligns with remote viewing principles such as sketching impressions, emotional resonance, and sensory cues filtering. RV provides leads when traditional investigative methods stall.

7. What is the difference between natural intuition and remote viewing?

Natural intuition or natural psychic receptivity is spontaneous and unstructured.
Remote viewing, by contrast, is a disciplined perceptual protocol with strict stages:

No sensory cues
No front-loading
Blind targets
Controlled sketches and descriptors
Post-session analysis only

The structure reduces noise and increases accuracy.

8. Did skeptics disprove remote viewing?

No. Critics like James Randi dismissed RV publicly, but rarely tested it under proper laboratory conditions. In contrast, independent statisticians and scientists—Utts, Jahn, May, Targ, Puthoff—found statistically robust evidence. Skeptical Inquirer raised objections, but these largely ignored controlled SAIC and SRI data.

9. Can anyone learn remote viewing?

Yes. Modern training programs—including those taught by researchers like Courtney Brown—teach viewers how to:

quiet analytical interference
sketch impressions
interpret sensory information
separate signal from noise
build target data slowly

With practice, many people discover an ability to perceive information non-locally.

10. Is remote viewing paranormal?

Remote viewing is often categorized under the paranormal, but researchers prefer terms like “anomalous cognition” or “non-local perception.” The data itself is scientific: repeatable experiments, statistical significance, and decades of controlled trials.

11. What role does consciousness play in remote viewing?

A major hypothesis is that RV demonstrates a non-local understanding of consciousness—meaning consciousness is not confined to the brain. Studies at Princeton and SRI suggest perception may extend into a broader field, independent of sensory organs. This view aligns with modern theories of mind in physics and neuroscience.

12. What did the Princeton PEAR Lab discover?

Under Robert Jahn, PEAR documented thousands of trials showing:

consciousness can perceive at a distance
intention affects physical systems
non-local information transfer is real

This positioned remote viewing within a larger context of engineering anomalies research.

13. How do remote viewing results avoid sensory cues?

Strict controls are used:

sealed envelopes
random target selection
independent judges
sensory shielding
no verbal hints
no pre-session information

This ensures that transmission under conditions of sensory isolation is measured accurately.

14. What does “viewing is that the latter” mean?

This phrase refers to the idea that viewing is the latter form of perception—not limited to physical senses but operating through a deeper cognitive field. In other words: remote viewing taps into a latent human faculty beyond normal sensory boundaries.

15. Why does remote viewing still matter today?

Because:

RV expands our understanding of consciousness
It shows that the mind can access distant information
It has intelligence and law-enforcement applications
It merges seamlessly with OSINT and AI
And its implications for human potential are profound

Remote viewing isn’t just about perceiving hidden objects—it’s about redefining what mind truly is.