Displacement

Displacement is when the remote viewing report describes a different target instead of the intended target, or describes both the intended target and another target. I distinguish between two different types of displacement: switching, and merging. Switching is when the report describes a different target but not the intended target, it is as if the targets switched places with each other. Merging is when the report describes both the intended target and also another target. There are two different types of merging. Merging can show elements which are recognizable from each of the targets, or merging can fuse elements of the two targets together into a new merging fused hybrid to create a brand new target landscape which can be related back to the two targets but which does not exist on either of the two targets and is like a brand new artificial target landscape which only exists as a merge effect.

In the standard school of remote viewing, typically synonymous with the Controlled Remote Viewing CRV method, displacement is seen to happen in the Associative Remote Viewing ARV protocol when self-matching or self-judging is made, in that a report can describe the other target instead of the intended target. By trying out various different kinds of remote viewing protocols to test things and experiment on remote viewing, I have identified several different types of protocols in which different kinds of displacement occurs, and I clearly distinguish between the two forms of displacement that I have found, namely switching and merging.

I started out calling this phenomenon "switching" after the first form that I observed which was a classical case of switching, but adopted the term "displacement" which is used in the standard school of remote viewing. Switching and merging are the two types of displacement, but these are only recognized in my ETC method.

Actual example session reports will be provided here later of each of the different types of displacement I have seen and documented, as well as actual statistical calculations on RV performance which could be related back to the inhibiting effect, and presence, of the displacement effect.

(1) Self-matching protocol

The first time when I encountered displacement was under the protocol where I remote view one blind target, and do not get to see the feedback to find out what the target was. I then show myself the target image together with several non-target images or decoys in random order of arrangement, and attempt to match my report to the actual target which should have been remote viewed. What I found was that in several cases, my report was a strong depiction of one of the other images, it was as if targets had changed places with each other, or switched! I named the phenomenon switching. One evidence of the existence of switching was the strong correlation of the report to one of the other images. Another evidence or indication at least of the emergence of an inhibiting factor when going from the previous normal protocol and to this self-matching protocol, was the significant reduction in individual correlation grade, in particular in the significant increase of the fail rate. When the only variable which had been changed from the normal protocol and to this protocol, was that the report was to take part of a self-matching assignment, it indicated that the significant increase in fail rate must be due to this one variable.

The individual correlation grades were assigned the same way for this protocol as for the previous normal protocol, and in this protocol the individual correlation grade had nothing to do with the self-matching assignment nor with the outcome of the self-matching. For both protocols the individual correlation grade was a measure of the correlation of a report to its own intended target image. The strong depiction of reports to other images in the set for self-matching, as well as the significant increase in fail rate, were evidence of there being an inhibiting factor which was due to the self-matching assignment, and since switching was seen to have occurred, the inhibiting factor was identified as being confidently verified to be the switching effect in itself.

(2) Two blind targets at the same time

A protocol I used in which two blind targets were assigned at the same time to be the target both at the same time, resulted in a merging effect. The target landscape which was perceived, and described in the report, was an artificial new landscape composed out of the merging or combination of the two targets. The new artificial target landscape has elements of both targets, but is in itself neither of the targets and is a new target landscape which only exists in the merge effect. This protocol seems a sure way to set up for the merging effect to occur.

(3) False feedback

Under the SK protocol in which skeptics were the taskers, I instructed myself to remote view the feedback which I will see in the near future, and to not remote view the target. In remote viewing there is a difference between "remote view the target" and "remote view the feedback". To "remote view the feedback" is considered bad practice, in particular since it tends to produce a poorer connection to the target site and perhaps is suspected by some to only produce a depiction of the target picture and not of the real target site. When I have skeptics be the taskers, I want to be sure to remote view the picture which they will post in the near future as the feedback picture. I do not want to dive into the target signal because the skeptics might assign a target number with no target image assigned to it at all, or the skeptics might assign one target image initially and then post a different target image as the feedback image. This is why under the SK protocol I make sure to instruct myself to "remote view the feedback", and not "remote view the target". This means I am intentionally reaching out toward a picture that will be posted in the near future, and I am not diving into the target number or target signal for impressions like how one usually would or should remote view.

Under the SK protocol, the skeptic tasker has to return at a later time to manually post the feedback for me to see it. The feedback is not available as soon as I want it to be. This led to there being usually a many hours of waiting period from the time when I finish my report and until the feedback is delivered. I found in most of the sessions that we did (7 sessions at the time of writing this), there was a strong displacement effect where during the time that I had to wait for feedback to be posted, when I saw other pictures or videos that were not the target, then those turned out to have been depicted in my report a moment earlier. It seemed that "remote view the feedback" went to the first picture that I would see after starting the session, and since the first pictures that I saw were not the actual feedback picture, I had remote viewed some other picture or video that I would see first instead. I have revised the SK protocol so that feedback is sort of immediate instead of delayed, by having a set time for when feedback is to be posted by the skeptic tasker. If I can plan my session so that I complete the report only a short moment before feedback is going to be posted, then the feedback should be the first image that I see, and displacement should have no reason or pathway to occur.

(4) Two sessions too close to each other

I have seen that if I do one session immediately after completing another session, and I only look at the target feedback of the first session for a second or two and do not have a proper feedback or closure procedure, then remote viewing seems to not know how to separate the two sessions, and information from the second session target can end up having been depicted in the report of the first session, before the second target has even been prepared into existence. This is in the standard school of remote viewing referred to as "bleedthrough".

(5) Improper closure

If I complete a remote viewing session and only spend a second or two on the feedback to look at the feedback picture and then immediately go to looking at pictures or videos somewhere else, there is a risk of displacement from other pictures or videos that I see after the session. One example of this kind of displacement is session WR89 with the moose from the video that I saw after the session.

(6) Far from future displacement

I once did a series of remote viewing sessions and reports and that was that. A significant time later in the future, by hours or a few days (will have to check how long time had passed), I then decided to use some of these sessions to test judge matching with them. So for each of them, I created a copy of the text report and placed the report drawing and a newly generated non-target image in a randomly determined order into the text report. To my utter horror and surprise, several of these sessions had done a switching displacement or merging displacement (which one was the case in each, I will need to check), in that the non-target images were in several of the sessions well represented in the reports, to a degree which I think was beyond any kind of coincidence or retrofitting.

Consequence of displacement

The objective in remote viewing is to describe the intended target. Remote viewing performance is only measured by the correlation of a report to its intended target. If the report describes other targets because of displacement then this lowers the RV performance. We do not get points for correctly describing some other targets.

Displacement is interesting

However displacement is just as interesting as remote viewing. Displacement is functional remote viewing, just that remote viewing went to the wrong address. Displacement is correctly describing another image other than the intended target image, so it is functional remote viewing but not at the intended target image. It seems that displacement only occurs when the remote viewing protocols that are used are enabling it to occur, or even setting up for it to occur, so displacement can be thought of not as a failure of remote viewing or failure of remote viewing skill, but as a problem with the protocol. Each of the six protocols I have listed above in which displacement is seen to occur, are protocols that have problems in the protocol. Under the normal protocol of remote viewing, displacement has no pathway to occur and is not observed. Displacement is however a source of error in remote viewing, since a description of anything other than the intended target, reduces the performance since performance is measured by the correlation of a report to its intended target. Going to another target and missing elements and impressions of the intended target reduces performance, or the inclusion of elements and impressions from the wrong target into the report also reduces performance.

How to avoid displacement

We do not want displacement to occur, because the objective of remote viewing is to describe the intended target. It might be interesting to experience displacement under any of the six protocols that I have listed under which I have observed various kinds of displacement to occur, and this displacement effect could perhaps have its own applications in remote viewing, but in principle for most applications of remote viewing, we want to only describe the intended target, and descriptions of other targets through displacement will only be a nuisance.

Immediate feedback after the report is completed is one strong way of avoiding displacement. It means that no other pictures or videos will be seen first since the start of session before seeing the feedback. Some remote viewing is done where the remote viewer will never be shown the feedback, and in these cases the remote viewer must "remote view the target" and not "remote view the feedback" since there is no feedback, and that can solve the problem. I have done a few sessions where feedback was never given to me by the tasker, and I found out from another person who had graded the sessions that my correlation to the feedback had been good, but still I was not informed anything of the feedback, but this indicates that remote viewing can be successful also when the remote viewer is not shown any target feedback.

Proper feedback and closure process is helpful in keeping remote viewing on the intended target and avoiding remote viewing going to other images or targets outside of the intended target. Spending a longer time looking at the feedback picture more than just a few seconds. Studying the details on the feedback picture, reading through your report once again, comparing all the different elements between your report and the feedback. Creating a grading or closure comments can be helpful where you write down your thoughts on the correlation between report and feedback. I have also done a "feedback tracing" and "feedback report" to strengthen the feedback closure process. Feedback tracing means to use a copy of the feedback picture and trace around elements with a black pen which matched with your report, I then used a 50% opaque white highlighter around those elements. A feedback report is a mock pretend report in writing and drawing based on looking at the feedback picture and creating the kind of report you would expect or want remote viewing to deliver to you from the picture, the feedback report is done after a session and after feedback has been obtained.

I further advise to not go directly after a remote viewing session to watching videos or pictures because then there is an elevated risk that those other pictures turn out to have been remote viewed in the near past. Allow at least a few hours after a remote viewing session before doing another session.

A normal protocol in which one target is remote viewed and feedback is immediate after completing the report does not have any pathway for displacement to occur, the only risk for displacement might be if the remote viewer goes directly after spending only a second or two at seeing the feedback image and then watching interesting pictures or videos then those other images might have been remote viewed through the bleedthrough type of displacement, however under a normal protocol displacement is considered to not occur.

Displacement conceals a portion of RV skill

I consider displacement to be genuine functional remote viewing. It is real remote viewing, just that it went to the wrong address, but it correctly describes a target, just not the intended target. And the interesting thing about displacement, is that if a remote viewer does not know about displacement and is not aware of how it functions, then displacement can occur because of problems with the protocol and problems with how remote viewing is carried out (such as insufficient feedback and closure process) and the remote viewer can come under the impression that remote viewing does not work, or that remote viewing works much poorer than it actually does! It is good to catch displacement when it has occurred, because any accuracy that displacement has toward the wrong targets, is accuracy that can be regained and won back by learning how to direct it to the actual intended target.

Displacement when

Displacement is when the report describes some other target which is not the intended target. But we cannot start searching for a displacement target from a large catalogue of lots of different pictures hoping to find a match to the report. Usually displacement is identified because we encounter another non-target picture either in a self-matching assignment, or seen as a picture from start of session before feedback is given, or as a picture seen immediately after a session, or as the subsequent target picture following immediately after a completed session if it is bleedthrough displacement. Displacement is noticed on pictures immediately during or immediately after a remote viewing session, so these false targets that were in the report due to displacement are found very near in time to the remote viewing session. Furthermore, the correlation of a report to a displacement false target must be a strong and not vague correlation. Proximity in time to when a session is made, as well as also a strong not vague correlation, are what qualify a non-target image to be a suspected or verified case of displacement.

Avoid displacement

- Immediate feedback, not delayed feedback
- One target image at a time, not two or more target images at a time
- No self-matching or self-judging, someone else should do that if it needs to be done
- When possible, "remote view the target" not "remote view the feedback", this keeps your RV on the target and not grasping around
- Spend more than a few seconds on looking at the feedback image at feedback, a minimum of 30 minutes is advisable, you can compare your report to the feedback back and forth, and can also do exercises such as grading individual elements and impressions in your report for correlation, writing comments on the correlation, writing comments on where the RV report or method went wrong and how it could have been improved and what you could have done differently for better correlation, you can make a "feedback tracing" and a "feedback report"
- Do not look at any interesting pictures or videos right after a session, preferably have some calm time without pictures after a session