The Ingo Swann Roll of Honor
For Remote Viewing and
Process-Discovery Research

Ingo Swann (10Jun03)


The term “remote viewing” was brought into usage in December of 1971 as a way of categorizing a certain type of extra-sensory perception experiment involving “over a distance.”
The larger background of those experiments can be found in my on-going memoir entitled REMOTE VIEWING - THE REAL STORY, and which is slowly being recounted and presented as Section 2 of this Website.
The initial remote viewing experiments were undertaken within limitations of parapsychology contexts that almost exclusively focused on establishing scientific proof of various types of PSI phenomena.
However, during the course of 1972 and thereafter, remote viewing experiments began to be lifted out of proof-oriented constraints and frames of reference, and increasingly transferred into much larger process-discovery research.
One of the results of this transfer was that the process-discovery research began to involve and incorporate more and more individuals all of whom contributed to some kind of positive and supportive activity.
As the size and results of the process-discovery system grew in various dimensions, the numbers of supportive individuals eventually increased into the many hundreds.
Some thirty years have now passed since the initial undertaking of the process-discovery research and testing, and during those decades “remote viewing” has undergone many strange and sometimes awkward vicissitudes.
One of those vicissitudes involves the very many who have fallen into the forgetful folds of the overall remote viewing memory and history. This forgetting has several results, all of which are deplorable.
It enables only a very few to be identified, while the names of many more are consigned to oblivion. It also enables the larger dimensions of the overall remote viewing effort to be truncated and minimalized.
This forgetting is not all that unusual in terms of conventional history. But in the case of remote viewing I have regretted it for some time, ever since the early years during which I witnessed valuable workers being brushed out of the record as if they never existed.
A few years ago, I visited the Viet Nam War Memorial in Washington, D.C., upon which are collectively inscribed the names of those soldiers who perished in that remorseful conflict, and whose names would otherwise vanish.
Some days after this, I began to think that something like this memorial should be erected so as to at least record by name those many workers who played some roll, in constructive and honorable support of the remote viewing research and history.
In trying to design how to do this, I realized that process-discovery regarding PSI in general did not actually begin with remote viewing research - which, after all, was initially formatted only in 1972.
Because of this realization, it seemed unfair, and even dishonorable, to segregate and then elevate latter-day remote viewing process-discovery from very similar past efforts.
I thus felt that NOT including mention of past participants and researchers in process-discovery of PSI faculties would serve both to truncate and minimalize the whole history of what is involved, and to deny public recognition and appreciation of the greater panorama involved.
THAT panorama is filled not only with research, theories, and results of testing, but also with people – with humans having names, and each of which have had some small or large function in fleshing out the panorama.
In any final analysis, proof of PSI is only relative to the criteria being utilized to judge it, and those criteria constitue the first and last aspect of the proof-oriented endeavor.

However, process-discovery research concerning telepathy, clairvoyance, remote viewing, and etc., is relative to people – simply because if PSI does exist, it does so nowhere else than in people who must innately possess the processes to be discovered.
It is thus that people constitute the first and last aspect of any process-discovery effort.
There are some large and significant differences between proof-oriented and process-discovery research. One significant difference is as follows.
Proof-oriented research can, as it usually is, be conducted in the abstract, and does largely depend on the testing of theories put forth and the acquisition of number-crunching statistical data on behalf of proving the theories.
Process-discovery research cannot be conducted in the abstract, and by definition it must incorporate humans who, at first hand, can provide examples of the phenomena to be examined.
Such research does not depend on statistical data, but upon the discovery of similiarities within the phenomenological examples provided by individuals. Such communal similiarties are signals and evidence of the internal processes involved.
This is NOT to suggest that proof-oriented research is unimportant.
But as many have pointed up through the decades involved, that kind of research tends to depersonalize, minimalize and even to erase the human elements that are involved.
Process-discovery research, however, must take into full account the human elements involved in such discovery, while proof-oriented research does not need to do so.
Therefore, all human elements necessary to process discovery research should be honored and accepted for what they can contribute – and doing so can perhaps restore humanizing elements gone missing, or which have been ruefully put down or deliberately obscured.


In initiating the roll of honor, there are a few factors to be considered. The first of these has to do with how HONOR is to be defined.
To begin with, the term is one of difficult usage – if only because its anthithesis, DISHONOR, has long been seized upon as a psycho-political tool within the phenomena of competition and attempts to achieve ascendancy and power.
Another complicating factor is that ideas of honor can be gotten up and perpetuated to serve various situations, agendas, and activities within which concepts of honor are at least questionable.
Another factor is that the twentieth century, like the many before it, has not been too much awash with honor, or the honorable. Indeed, even conventional historians are obliged to observe that the twentieth proved to be the most vicious and violent of all, this despite its wonderous scientific and technological advances otherwise.
In large part, this can only mean that the active societal forces of the twentieth century were very permissive with regard to the non-honorable. It is via this permissiveness that observations of what honor consists of must have become cloudy, or even meaningless.
In order to step somewhat outside of this confusing situation, it needs to be established that honor as it is to be used herein pertains only to the contexts of the individual self.
As to definitions of HONOR, I will merely utilize those found in most dictionaries.
The term HONOR has several definitions having to do with the status and success. But in its fundamental essence it refers to:
(1) Having a good name or reputation; and, (perhaps more importantly)
(2) Showing outward respect toward others, things, or whatever.
It is in the sense of this fundamental essence that I bring usage to the term HONOR.
The term HONORABLE also has several definitions having to do with status and rank. But it also has basic definitions, which are: “Characterized by integrity; and, performed or accompanied with marks of honor and respect.”
The foregoing definition utilizes the term INTEGRITY, and this use brings additional difficulties.
One reason is that just about everone can observe that the on-going affairs of the human world are are not too much awash with integrity either, and so demonstrative instances of it are hard to identify.
In any event, the effective definitions of INTEGRITY in its moral sense seem to be found only in the Oxford dictionary of the English language:
(1) The condition of having no part taken away or wanting.
(2) Soundness of moral principle; the character of uncorrupted virtue, especially in relation to truth, fact, and fair dealing, uprightness, honesty, and sincerity.
The foregoing definitions are provided not only for what they may be worth in general, but also with respect to the platitude that goes something like “Ye shall recognize them by their actions.”
From within the contexts of the terms above, it is possible to establish a role of honor not so much having to do with judgement and achievement per se, but with the attitudinal auspices within which communal work is undertaken by groups of individuals.
In their communal sense, such attitudinal auspices must of course be positive and communally self-reinforcing if anything of value and enduring is to be accomplished – and, I suppose it should be mentioned, uncorrupted by selfish motives and agendas.


For the purposes of the role of honor, I have taken the unusual decision to omit reference to social, academic, political, and military honorifics.
The reason for doing so is that those kinds of honorifics contribute to horizontal and vertical class and status systems in which credit can be misassigned, even misappropriated, in accordance with honorifics rather than in accordance with performance and dedication to whatever work is involved.
As it is, then, in the case of the role of honor, it does not in any first instance honor honorifics, but honors people, their integrity, and their contributions whether small or large.


One final factor now needs to be pointed up in this Introduction to the roll of honor.
If the larger history of human superpower research is examined, it can be seen that all of it took place within societal contexts that were vigorously and actively opposed to it.
It is thus that great conflicts arose - in the throes of which many such researchers were caused to suffer greatly.
There is thus an element of bravery with regard to those who faced such opposition with courage and endurance.
But the exact nature of the great conflicts seems not to be understood very well. Some aspects of the conflicts have been discussed in an early essay introduced into this Website dated January 20, 1996, entitled REMOTE VIEWING VERSUS ITS SKEPTICS, as found in Section 1.
But the gyst of the conflicts can briefly be outlined here.
Societal forces have to put up with the occasional and spontaneous manifestation of PSI, simply because examples of it occur everywhere among our species all of the time, and have done so at least since the recording of history began.
The real existence of the superpowers therefore has never been in doubt.
What has been of great consternation, however, is the issue of whether the superpowers could somehow be lifted out of occasional spontaneous manifesting, and, via process-discovery research, refined and improved to high and predictable efficiency.
To better grasp what is involved, it is necessary briefly to review what the superpowers actually do. With the possible exception styled as PK, all of the superpowers provide and produce information by means other than the physical senses.
This production not only transcends the “laws” of physical possibility, but does so in ways and means against which the “laws” of physicality are no barrier – and which, in essence, implies that nothing can remain invisible to the superpower faculties.
There are, however, two types of information that can be produced via the superfaculties, via clairvoyance, telepathy, remote viewing, or future-seeing, for example.
Those two types are: (1) Information that proves to be correct, and (2) Information that either is proven incorrect, or cannot ever be proven as correct.
In larger societal terms, information that is proven as incorrect, or cannot be proven either way, actually has no relevance to anything.
But information that proves to be correct does have relevance, but only with respect to whether its scope is small and discontinous or large and continuous.
In order to understand this, information can be provided which is 0-10 percent efficient, as contrasted to information that can manifest much higher efficiency.
In accord with the foregoing observations, individuals who are categorized as psychic should actually be thought of not as psychic, but as individuals who PROVIDE INFORMATION via their superpower faculties.
After this nomenclature shift is made, something then depends on how meaningful in scope and accuracy the provided information actually proves to be.
Societal systems do not worry to much about mere demonstrations of the superpowers, but worry commences according to the scope and magnitude of the information acquired by them.
In this sense, if societal forces have to put up with spontaneous manifestations of superpower information, and which are usually only of low-grade content, any organized research to discover and enhance superpower processes clearly leads toward enhanced applications of them.
This in turn leads toward increases of invasive potentials via which nothing is invisible or can remain hidden – including motives, goals, and agendas, for example.
It is thus that PSI researchers can occupy themselves with proof-oriented research as long as they want. But proof alone, if achieved AND accepted, will mean very little when compared to process-discovery and applications enhancement.
The great conflicts between PSI and science, for example, are not conflicts either about PSI or science per se.
The actual issue involved is whether any of the superpowers can be enhanced via process-discovery to higher states of scope and efficiency.
It is therefore that research into process-discovery has, in societal terms, been vigorously resisted, and those undertaking that kind of research have been submitted to various kinds of indignities, some quite dishonorable and unconscionable.
It is thus that the element of honorable bravery should be included within the overall contexts of the roll of honor.


The constructing of the roll of honor will be a long-term process, and, of course, will never be all-inclusive. Too many have already been forgotten, and too much has been submerged into obscurity, sometimes deliberately so.
However, as the roll of honor is increased in length, the true perspective and duration of process-discovery will become more apparent and inclusive. This, in fact, is the basic reason for bringing the roll of honor to light.



Ingo Database | Real Story | Contributed Papers | Contributed RV Papers |
Superpowers/ET Intelligence Probabilities | RV Honor Roll | Superpowers Art

Miscellaneous | Reviews | Species Guild | Welcome | Home

Copyright © 2014, Tom Bergen. All rights reserved.