Remote viewer Joe McMoneagle first raised the issue shortly after remote viewing was declassified in the mid 1990s. Joe insists on a rigid distinction between “protocol” and “method” that actually seems to be much more fluid in general science. In fact, the term “the scientific method” is used almost universally to describe what science does, yet when the details of what “scientific method” means are spelled out, it matches what Joe insists is a protocol.
The truth is, in the Star Gate program we described how we actually did remote viewing as a “protocol.” We never used the word “method.” There were, after all, only two formats for doing remote viewing back then, ERV (for “extended remote viewing”) and CRV (for what was then called “coordinate remote viewing” and now called “controlled remote viewing”). (This doesn’t count what I call “generic” remote viewing, by which I mean whatever approach a viewer might invent for how he or she does remote viewing.)
Since we had so few approaches to the remote viewing discipline in Star Gate, it never occurred to us to ask which “method” one was using. It was always “Are you going to use ERV or CRV?” Even the documentation from SRI and the briefings we gave to senior officers and government officials used the word “protocol” when referring to what Joe thinks of as a”method” today.
Only after Joe left the program, and only after types of remote viewing practice proliferated like rabbits on Viagra, did the question of protocol vs. method arise. In principle, there is barely a space between the two.
However, today for certain reasons I tend to adopt the distinction Joe initiated, which I have made more explicit than either I or Joe technically have the lexical right to do. I’ve done this because it does help folks sort out some nuances and educate themselves in the process.