Remote Viewing the Elizabeth Smart Disappearance and the Dangers of Consensus Analysis (Archive 2002)

Remote Viewing the Elizabeth Smart Disappearance and the Dangers of Consensus Analysis (Archive 2002)

Remote Viewing the Elizabeth Smart Disappearance and the Dangers of Consensus Reporting

On June 5, 2002, Elizabeth Smart was abducted from her bedroom in her family’s house in Salt Lake City, Utah. A few days later, I was given a tasking by one of my remote viewing teachers and advised it was time sensitive. At this juncture I had received “intermediate” levels of professional, in person remote viewing instruction and had been actively doing training style targets for a few years. I was more than a dabbler, striving to be a professional – whatever that meant – but still had a lot to learn and experience. I was incredibly fortunate that my instructors took a personal interest in my eagerness and development.

I completed my session and sent over my data and a quick analysis. The next day I received my feedback, no further session data was needed or requested. The tasking was “Elizabeth Smart / Current Location”. My instructors had included me with the handful of advanced remote viewers that comprised their “professional” working team and who worked directly with law enforcement. I was elated and honored to have been considered of course! While the case itself was still obviously ongoing, I did receive preliminary feedback based on my session work.

“Your session mechanics and structure look pretty good, however it looks like you were off target”, my instructor advised. “All the other viewers have the primary life form as deceased, except you. The consensus analysis and report is the target is no longer alive.” Consensus reporting in remote viewing at that time meant if 9 remote viewers perceive red, and a single viewer perceived blue – well clearly the target must be red. Bummer, I thought. I had felt that I had good site contact. Ah well, that’s remote viewing really – sometimes you’re on, most of the time you’re off. Rack it up as a learning experience. And that’s why consensus analysis in remote viewing, as we knew it at that time in 2002, absolutely sucked balls. We know now that consensus analysis and reporting in remote viewing is not the full picture. You can have an oddball viewer, out in left field with seemingly different data, and we know now it may very well be accurate data.

Nine months later, things changed instantly. You see, in my session I had perceived a life form, still alive, outside in the mountains in some sort of enclosed, possibly partially underground enclosure. I received a phone call at work in March 2003 – Elizabeth Smart was found – alive! I was happy and relieved for her and her family, that’s the most important thing I initially felt. What ever faith, universal law or belief system you may or may not have, I was just thankful she was alive. Thank you. Then another reality started to sink in shortly thereafter, my session data, albeit very rudimentary, was pretty darn accurate.

For reasons I may or may not pontificate upon at a later time, I knew I had a calling to assist with missing persons cases. This one was one of the first big ones for me and also a validation that remote viewing could be used for something good; something tangible; something incredibly worthy that I’m so grateful and thankful for.

Archived session data 2002, TSI

Source articles and


Actual archived remote viewing session data, June 10th 2002.