Melvin L Morse MD FAAP

Paul H Smith MS ABD

John Stahler




Remote viewing is “the acquisition and description by mental means, of information blocked from ordinary perception by distance, shielding, or time (United States Department of Defense definition from May 1, 1986).  Since the military developed remote viewing for defense and military purposes, typically it involves a viewer in the United States accurately drawing and describing  military targets or providing information on terrorist activity .  Much of the military remote viewing program was “black box” ultra top secret, however, it is a known fact that the remote viewers won many of  the highest awards for service that our government gives to its employees, including awards from the Secret Service and the United States Congress.  Two presidents, Reagan and Carter have commended the remote viewing program.

Initially, the remote viewers worked without any specific protocol.  For example, Joe McMonegal preferred to work in a sensory isolation chamber and whisper his observations into a tape recorder.  However, this approach could not reliably produce useful results or be taught to others.

As a result, the psychic  Ingo Swan and physicist Hal Puthoff, at the Stanford Research Institute, developed a systematic protocol which involves a procedure and mechanism for screening mental noise from the true sensory input from the target.  As Ingo Swan said, “we are not teaching remote viewing, we are teaching fundamental concepts of the perception of reality”.  

Brain research has validated the Swan-Puthoff Controlled Remote viewing protocol.  It is now understood that remote viewing involves perceptions from the right temporal lobe feeding into already existing sensory neurobiological systems to create visual and emotional perceptions using the same mechanisms we use in ordinary perceptions.  The mental noise screening process is a reliable means of sorting and screening out left brain input which can confuse accurate perceptions of the target.   Remote viewing clearly documents that human beings are capable of non-ordinary perceptions involving the gathering of information from the universe by non-ordinary means.  Most likely this talent evolved in ancient times and was helpful in hunting and exploring.  I do not find it surprising that most remote viewers today are male and military minded; reflecting its hunter/shamanistic origins.  There are less than a 100 experienced well trained remote viewers in the world today explaining why this natural phenomenon is so little known.


Remote viewers refer to “the signal line” as the source of information about the remote target.  We don’t really have a good understanding of what the source of the information is that is used in remote viewing.  I have a theory that it is from “non local reality”, which by definition contains all the information in the Universe that ever was or will be.  If that is true, then remote viewing has much in common with medium-ship, remembering past lives, religious and spiritual visions, and any non-ordinary perceptions that human beings have in which they gain information from non-ordinary sources.  For example, the near death experience cross culturally has the common element that something is learned when we die.  In other words,  we learn lessons about love and life, while we die, through non-ordinary means.  That is a form of non-local perception, but is it CRV?

I want to be careful in pointing out that this is not the majority opinion about remote viewing.  I, of course, think I am right, because Pim van Lommel was one of the first to theorize that remote viewing is but one of many types of non-local perceptions. I think Pim van Lommel is a big smarty.

However, Paul Smith ( wrote and preserved the original Stanford Research Institute Controlled Remote Viewing protocol, and he is careful to point out that there is no evidence linking all these other types of non-local perceptions with remote viewing.  There is solid evidence proving that remote viewing is a real phenomena, both in the scientific literature as well as in my personal experience.  I certainly understand anyone who is skeptical, as I personally did not “believe” in remote viewing until I could do it myself.  Reading articles published in Nature about remote viewing is of course a strong piece of scientific evidence, but the history of science is filled with examples of scientific evidence that is ignored as it conflicts with personal worldviews.  
This is an important point, as Remote Viewers are understandably protective of their reputation.  Remote viewers have prevented untold disasters, saved lives and our country millions of dollars.

I do not want to damage the reputation of remote viewing by inappropriately lumping it with ideas and concepts that at this time have little or no scientific backing.  Furthermore, the fierce anti-intellectual climate created by the Scientific Fundamentalists has made any scientific inquiry into “paranormal” topics taboo for most mainstream scientists.  In fact, there is nothing “paranormal” about remote viewing.  Any student of prehistoric man recognizes that remote viewing is an excellent explanation for many of the accomplishments of the early hunters and explorers.

The remote viewing community avoids these issues by using terms such as “signal line” for the source of the non-local perceptions used to create the final image and description of the target.  I like this term, and my wife and I frequently discuss “the signal line” in our everyday lives.  I am particularly uncomfortable when my wife talks about “god’s plan”, or that “everything happens for a reason”, which is her way of reminding us that we are part of a greater “plan” or subject (my words) to the whim of a higher power.  Of course, Pauline wouldn’t call it a “whim”.

Nevertheless, she is expressing a valid concept that resonates with the concept of a “signal line”.  Remote viewers talk about “finding the signal line”, “surrendering” to the signal line, learning to separate “the signal line” from our own mental noise and over-analysis of situations, or analytic overlay as they call it.  Analytic overlay can reflect true information from “the signal line” but often reflects our own fears and preoccupations.

Paul Smith (who wrote the CRV manual) defines the signal line as “the train of (perceptual) signals emanating from a universal source of information and perceived by the viewer.  It is a rhythmic transmission of information at a specific rate or frequency.  It converges in the viewer to allow him or her to create the image or description of the target”.


The monitor provides the coordinates for the viewing and makes sure the viewer keeps to the proper structure that prior research has documented as most effective.  Deep remote viewing can lead to strong right brain dominance, which in turn makes any analysis of the information difficult.  The monitor can provide invaluable objective analytic support.  The monitor also records the data of the session and can provide feedback if appropriate.  For example, I was recently remote viewing a target and I drew a picture of marble columns, seats, people in the seats and a center isle that people marched back and forth on.  I described the people as getting up and down.  Unfortunately, I then decided  it was a military parade.  Pauline appropriately alerted me that my idea obviously showed all the signs of analytic “overdrive”, but I ignored her!  After telling her I was certain it was the May Day parade in Russia, we opened the envelop with the target picture and it was a cathedral!



If random systems are influenced by consciousness, then the focused consciousness integral to a successful remote viewing session will correlate with departures from randomness in an intentionally-linked portable random event generator (REG).




2.1.  If non-random data patterns are observed in the REG stream, they will tend to correlate with those remote viewing session segments (CRV ‘Stages’) most likely to involve nonlocal mental access of the signal line.


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




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 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 hypotheses are borne out. 


At a future date, a control group of beginning drawing students will be individually asked to produce sketches and verbalize the sketching process to perform a cognitive task roughly equal in complexity to the remote viewing task, but without the nonlocal mental access that presumably the phenomenon involves




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 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 met the proximity condition; two met the “affordability” condition, which provided the desired subject roster of six.




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.




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.


7.1.  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.


 7.2. The responsibility of the IRB will be to review 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.


 7.3. 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.




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.




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.)




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 landforms, land/water features, 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 by another researcher (Stahler) to be used for the sessions Smith will execute.  The target pool selected by Smith will contain twenty

 discrete targets divided into five sets of four targets each, suitable for controlled remote viewing up to the Stage III level.  Four of these sets

 will be used, with two in reserve.  The sets will be prepared in the following way:


10.1. 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.] 


10.2. A copy of the feedback sheet will be generated for each of the viewers.


10.3. Target feedback sheets will be sorted into five groups of four sheets each.  Sheets are selected for inclusion in each of the five discrete

 four-target sets to be as heterogeneous as possible with the other three targets in each set. 


10.4. For each target set, each of the four target feedback sheets will be sealed inside its own individual, identical, opaque

 manila envelope size 5"X11.5". 


10.5. The resulting four identical envelopes will then be sealed inside an opaque 9"X11" manila envelope.


10.6. This will be done repeatedly with each succeeding target set until there are five externally indistinguishable target sets.


These five identical envelopes will be presented to a disinterested third party who will out of Smith’s presence shuffle the envelopes.

  The envelopes will then be presented to another third party who out of Smith’s presence may or may not shuffle the envelopes again,

 but will number the envelopes arbitrarily from one to five.


Since Smith will also participate as a viewer, a second set of targets will be prepared by another researcher (Stahler) to be used for the sessions

 Smith will execute.  In the interest of time and resources, Stahler will prepare one target pool of five target feedback sheets (four to use, one spare)

 distributed and sealed into seven identical 5"X11.5" opaque envelopes, which will be randomized and numbered as described above.

  All five target envelopes will then be placed inside a single 9"X12" opaque envelope until needed. This target pool, while still fully

 concealing the target, will thus be constructed differently, which will not affect the remote viewing process but only possible later blind judging.




Each new session rotation will be initiated by the random selection of the target set 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 pool 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 pool envelope not already chosen.)


The remaining envelopes will be returned to a safe location, and the selected envelope will be opened and the four target envelopes

 inside arranged on a table or desk.  The number of the target pool envelope will be written in ink on each of the four envelopes.

  (For example, if the selected target pool envelope is ‘5' then each individual target envelope will be labeled “Pool 5.”  The purpose

 for this is to prevent the target envelopes from getting mixed in with others and

contaminating any future judging process.)  Then, each of the four target envelopes will themselves be numbered from one to four.

  These numbers should be below and prefixed with the word 'Target.' (For example, if the target envelope is number 4 from pool

 number 5, the envelope would be labeled with "Pool 5" with "Target 4" labeled below.


A six-sided die will be rolled to determine which of the four target envelopes will represent the selected target.  Again, the upper-most

 face of the rolled die will represent the number of the target envelope that is selected.   In case a number greater than four is rolled, the

 die will be rolled again until a number four or under results.


Once the target has been selected, the remaining three envelopes will be returned to the target pool envelope, and that envelope together

 with its contents returned to a safe place.




Viewers will be tasked at the beginning of each session for each of the four 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 two more

 zeros 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 ‘08110700A’ when it is time for him or her to initiate the session.




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 been described as 'up' vs. 'down,'

 'heads' vs. 'tails,' or – if the graph were oriented vertically – ‘left’ vs. ‘right.’  No metaphysical significance should be derived from

 whether the effects stream moves into ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ territory.





It should first be stated that what an REG ‘measures’ (if measure is the right word) is unknown.  Speculatively, it has been suggested

 that it detects consciousness fields or the impact of mental processes on quantum systems.  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:


             14.1.  An excursion of positive cumulative deviations (more ones than zeros) Beyond the curve representing the positive 5%

probability space.



             15.2.  An excursion of negative cumulative deviations (more zeros than ones) beyond the curve representing the negative 5%

 probability space.


 15.3. 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.





Rotation sessions and subject/viewer performance will conform to the following schedule:


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







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 20 bit data sets at a rate of 3 data sets per second.




For purposes of synchronizing the remote viewer CRV transcript, viewer audio data and REG data the session the

 following techniques will be employed:


            18.1. Electronic audio recorder file time-stamping.


            18.2. Electronic REG data file time-stamping.


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


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





The following is a step-by-step outline of how it is expected each iteration of the experiment will procede:


19.1.  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.  


19.2.  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, and time.  The viewer indicates to the REG operator that he or she is ready to begin. 


19.3.  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 Psyerlon software.



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


19.5.  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.


19.6.  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



19.7.  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.


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


19.9.  The REG operator will allow the device to record 'baseline' data for 25 minutes after the completion of the remote

 viewing session.  Upon the end of this period, the operator will carefully save all results in a folder uniquely specified for

 that session.





An important part of the remote viewing protocol is that whenever possible, 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



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 the encrypted coordinate on it

 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 other target materials from

 other session rotations.




Blind judging of the remote viewing results against their respective target pools will not be conducted during this stage of the experiment.

  However, the remote viewing data will be preserved in a way that will not compromise or contaminate future double blind judging once

 suitable judges have been selected and the judging performed.




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 experimenter Melvin Morse.  If time allows, a further copy will be made and entrusted to experimenter John Stahler.




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 various and established statistical research tools.




24.1.    Local Sidereal Time (LST) Considerations.  Some statistical studies seem to indicate that performing remote viewing activities

24.2.     during certain times of day reckoned according to local sidereal time produced higher quality results, while at other times session

24.3.     accuracy declined.  The real impact of this apparent effect remains controversial.  A check of the LST for experiment working hours

24.4.     on 7-8 November shows that no sessions will be conducted during the least-optimal LST time periods.


24.5.    Geomagnetism.  Studies have shown a possible link between decreased remote viewing session quality and higher levels of background

24.6.     geomagnetic activity.  We are presently in the quietest period for geomagnetic activity in a half-century, so there is no impact expected

24.7.     on viewer performance.  Local geomagnetic levels will be checked and recorded for later analysis as a just-in-case measure.






REGs (3, 2 operational, 1 spare)

Laptops (3, 2 operational, 1 spare)

Digital audio recorders (3, 2 operational, 1 spare)


Paper, pens, folders

Videocamera & tripod

Digital camera

USB Memory Sticks and recordable CDs for data backup




Additional personnel







CRV_REG e-mail list




 – Viewer, Firefighter


 – Viewer, Firefighter


 - REG1 Operator


 - REG2 Operator


 - Gopher, Cat Herder