VIEWING is a term coined by Harold Puthoff and Russell Targ to
describe a form of psychic functioning historically known as clairvoyance.1
Dr. Puthoff and Mr. Targ, both formerly with Stanford Research
Institute (SRI) International, have researched this phenomenon
since the early 1970s, and their results are published in several
books.2 Their research was concentrated on training
selected individuals to "see" or "view" a
scene or event that was occurring at a distant location. In addition,
the ability to "view" the scene at different times --
past, present and future -- was established.
particularly significant outcome of this research was the discovery
that viewers could reliably access remote information when they
were asked to describe a scene, but that they were not as reliable
when the target was a number or a letter. This discovery led to
the development of associative remote viewing (ARV) in which a
scene is associated with a particular message. A group of scenes
is chosen, each scene having a different message associated with
it. When the viewer's perception corresponds to one of the scenes,
the message corresponding to that scene is accepted.
natural extension of this idea is to use ARV to determine information
that will be known only in the future. Scenes can be associated
with possible outcomes of future events (such as stock market
advances or declines, or contracts won or lost). A remote viewer
is asked to look forward in time to the moment when the outcome
of the future event is revealed and to describe the scene he is
viewing precognitively. The description given by the viewer is
compared with a set of possible scenes. Then, the outcome associated
with the scene that most closely corresponds to the viewer's description
is chosen as the predicted outcome for that future event. An example
of this process is shown in Figure 1, in which remote viewing
is used to predict whether the stock market will go up or down
in some selected period of time. The details of Figure 1 will
be discussed later in this paper.
In 1983, Russell Targ and Keith Harary decided to apply the ARV
technique to predicting the prices of silver futures. The idea
was to generate capital for their research on paranormal phenomena.
Since funding for this sort of research is very hard to obtain,
they reasoned, why not generate their own? They also felt that
if this technique could be shown to work, then others would apply
it and more understanding would result. Their first attempt was
very successful.3 Their second attempt, however, was
least two other teams of researchers decided to apply the ARV
technique to fund‑raising after the initial success of the
Targ/Harary team. Harold Puthoff ran a very successful experiment
to raise money for a children's school.5 Stephan Schwartz
and Rand De Mattei of the Mobius Society also ran an experiment
with the intention of raising money for their research on paranormal
phenomena.6 Their efforts were not financially successful.
pioneers have found, through trial and error, what does and does
not work when one is conducting an ARV experiment. I have had
the privilege of studying these experiments, as well as participating
directly in the Schwartz/De Mattei experiment. My conceptual model
of paranormal phenomena7 provided me with some ideas
about how to improve the ARV process, and in January 1985, I decided
to implement these improvements in the form of a computer program
and improved ARV protocol and to run my own ARV experiment. This
paper documents those ideas and the ARV protocol and gives the
results of the ARV experiment to date.
my conceptual model of how the human brain/mind functions, the
brain is constantly transmitting information into and receiving
information from a central storage system, which I have called
the STU (Space Time Unit). The STU may be thought of as being
a multidimensional information repository completely encompassing
our normal three‑dimensional world. The "mind"
provides channels for all sensory information to be transferred
between the human brain and the STU. All information on events
that have occurred is stored in the STU. It is constantly receiving
information from the present. It also contains the information
about possible future events. Associated with the stored data
is information related to the emotion surrounding the event. The
greater the emotion related to the event, the more likely it is
that the mind will lock onto the time of the emotional event,
either a past, a present, or a future event. The original idea
behind the PK Party was to create a peak emotional event at the
current time so as to achieve a paranormal result: metal‑bending.8
For an ARV experiment, the greater the emotion generated at the
time of the "feedback" (when the correct target scene
associated with the outcome of the event is shown to the remote
viewer), the more likely it is that the viewer's mind will go
forward in time, from the time when he does the viewing, and lock
onto the time of the feedback event. The viewer will then be able
to "see" the target scene being displayed at that time
-- the scene associated with the actual outcome of the event for
which the outcome is to be predicted. (Two target scenes are always
chosen; the one associated with the wrong outcome is never shown.)
to my model, memory is stored in the STU and it forms a complete
record of the space‑time history of the individual, his
"world line." Most people easily access information
along their own world line; they do it all the time. It is easier
for a person to "see" events along his own world line
than to access information along someone else's world line. Events
in a person's future can also be observed, especially if the person
makes a deliberate attempt to have them occur. In the ARV procedure,
one or more remote viewers agree on the specific place where they
will meet to be shown the correct scene, and all agree to create
a peak emotional event at that feedback place and time. The only
thing that is not known about that feedback event is which target
scene will be displayed. This procedure makes it relatively easy
for the viewers to visualize the feedback event, and once "tuned
into" (observing) that event, to look at the target scene
being shown. The feedback event is never held at the same place.
This precludes the possibility of some future feedback event having
greater emotional impact and thereby causing the viewers' minds
to be diverted to the wrong time and to view the wrong target
applying the ARV technique to predicting the behavior of the stock
market, it is very important that no one at the feedback event
know what target scene has been associated with the possible outcome
(e.g., the market could go up or it could go down). It is speculated
that if anyone is at the feedback event who has seen both possible
targets, a remote viewer's mind can go to the feedback event and
travel back along the world line of that individual, accessing
information about both target scenes, then reporting on the wrong
one. For the same reason, someone whose world line has crossed
or come in contact with that of anyone who has seen both targets
should not be at the feedback event. (A husband who has selected
the targets should not have his wife orchestrate the feedback
IS IMPORTANT that all the participants in an ARV experiment limit
their emotional experiences during the period between viewing
the feedback event and taking part in it so that their minds do
not become diverted to the wrong time and event. (Since it is
unlikely that a bedroom scene is one of the possible target scenes,
having a sexual peak experience is permissible) On one occasion,
some researchers in one of the early ARV experiments were judging
the data provided by the viewers and they saw that it all pointed
clearly toward one of the target scenes. The judges all became
very excited because they were sure that they would be successful
in their investment based on this information. When the report
came back from the market the next day, however, they found that
they were wrong. This phenomenon has been called "displacement."
It was probably caused by the diversion of the viewers' minds
to the time of judging rather than to the time of the feedback
event. The excitement at the time of judging was probably much
greater than the emotion felt at the feedback event. This problem
was compounded by the fact that the judging occurred at the same
place as the feedback location and that one of the judges provided
the feedback to the remote viewers. When a computer is used to
perform the target selection and to carry out the judging functions,
and it provides information only about the correct target scene,
many of the potential problems in ARV experiments that could lead
to displacement are eliminated.
targets to be viewed can be real objects (as used by Targ and
Puthoff), real physical places (as I originally proposed), or
pictures (slides and photographs of scenes, as used by Schwartz).
The difficulty of generating a target pool of real places and
the logistical problems of getting the remote viewers to those
places at the time of the feedback event, in all weather conditions,
made the use of real places impractical. The Mobius Society had
been using 72 pictures of scenes as targets for a number of experiments,
and they agreed to sell sets of these pictures to participants
in my ARV experiment. They also helped encode the answers to their
31‑question questionnaire for each of the 72 target scenes.
(After a remote viewer looks at the feedback event and describes
the target scene, he fills out this questionnaire answering all
31 questions, yes or no, about the target scene he has viewed.
These include questions like: "Are agricultural features
prominent in the scene, e.g., farmlands?" "Is any significant
part of the scene notably complex, hectic, chaotic or cluttered?"
"Does any significant part of the scene involve perception
of height or depth, e.g., looking up at a tall structure, mountain,
unusually tall trees, etc., or looking down from any elevated
data is typed into a computer. The computer randomly selects a
target pair (two target scenes out of the pool of 72 scenes which
are guaranteed to be quite different from one another).9
The computer then compares the answers to the questions provided
by the viewers with the target encodings provided as the masters
for both the target scenes. The computer also randomly assigns
one of the selected targets to an up market outcome and one to
a down market outcome. It then uses some discrimination logic
to select which predicted outcome it recommends. The details of
the computer program, the logic rationale, and the questionnaire
are provided in the program documentation10
the predicted market outcome is known, someone involved in the
ARV experiment calls his (emotionally detached) stockbroker and
invests in whatever market this group was planning to use for
their investment. The choice of the market depends on many factors
such as volatility, volume, simplicity of transaction, duration
of investment, and insensitivity to a single investor. In my ARV
experiment we have used both the Standard & Pore (S&P)
100 Index and the S&P 500 Index.
"CONVENTIONAL" KNOWLEDGE about the stock market was
used in these investments. For my experiment I wanted to be able
to get in and out of the market in a single day and have the market
be very volatile with much volume so that it would appear to the
small investor to behave randomly. The investment would go in
at the beginning of the day. The market would go either up or
down, and at the end of the day the money would be taken out of
the market. Money would have been either made or lost, depending
on whether or not the prediction of the day's market movement
was correct. At the end of the day the stockbroker would call
and indicate the results. In such an experiment, once the results
are known, the information about the market transaction is put
into the computer that then indicates the correct target scene.
It does not divulge the incorrect target scene, so that no one
at the feedback event will know the scene associated with the
other target which one of the remote viewersÕ minds might pick
up. The computer displays only the number of the correct target
scene, not the name of the place in the scene. This is to keep
the person using the computer from having an emotional experience
when at the computer terminal. That person then retrieves the
correct picture from the stack of 72 pictures and takes it to
the place designated for the feedback event without looking at
the picture. Then when all the participating viewers arrive at
the feedback place, they all look at the correct picture and attempt
to create a peak emotional event. This can be difficult if money
has been lost. In an event, the group,. which is presumably celebrating,
should display the picture prominently so that they could "see"
it better when they were viewing it and mentally send the information
about the target scene about the target scene back in time to
themselves when they were doing the remote viewing.
1 and 2 attempt to illustrate and summarize the ARV process. Figure
1 emphasizes the management of the participants' world lines and
illustrates thinking in emotional space‑time, using the
peak emotional event at the feedback time to help lock the viewers'
minds onto that time. Along the emotional intensity axis there
can be many different emotions (joy, anger, love, fear). From
my experience with the PK Parties, I have learned that it does
not seem to matter which type of emotion a person calls up, as
long as it is intense. The ARV experiment has shown me that when
the feedback events have been very exciting, they are associated
with a successful outcome.
ARV procedure is summarized in Figure 2, which shows three viewers
submitting their questionnaires to the computer.
3 illustrates the steps taken before the ARV experiment and during
a typical ARV experimental trial.
of the benefits of having the computer "manage" each
of the ARV experimental trials is that a permanent record is kept
on the computer disk. All the ARV groups participating in my experiment
have agreed to send their data files back to me for analysis.
This has provided a large data base for analysis of this process,
which will lead to additional improvements.
are 15 groups of people doing the ARV experiment according to
my protocol and using my ARV computer program,* with a total of
72 different remote viewers participating. Because the experiment
is ongoing and the analysis of the results to date is incomplete,
only general comments will be made at this time. Each group consists
of from one to twelve viewers. It was learned very early in the
experiment that the groups with large numbers of viewers were
having trouble getting everyone to the feedback event (because
of scheduling conflicts, sickness, or other imponderables). Originally,
I had suggested that a group should have six viewers, thinking
that the probability of group success would be improved if one
could treat the success of individual viewers as an independent
statistic. It now appears that this is not true, and -- what with
the problem of getting these large groups together at the feedback
event -- it was decided to reduce the group size to about three
viewers per group. The groups with only one viewer, with no one
else around to make the feedback event exciting, simply could
not generate enough excitement to cause the necessary tuning-in
of the mind to the feedback event. Groups with two and three viewers
seem to have the best success to date. Overall, the groups have
a 50 percent success rate out of 687 ARV trials as of March 1986.
Some of their ARV trials have been done without an actual investment
(for example, when they were waiting for their account to open).
It is noteworthy that there has not been any difference in their
success rate whether or not money was being invested during that
trial. There did seem to be a pattern developing in that most
groups were successful in their early attempts, and that this
success rate fell off as they continued. This is a familiar phenomenon
noted in parapsychology laboratories. In my experiment, however,
most of the groups began in November and December 1985. I have
not yet correlated the individual group "slump" with
an overall slump, shared by all the groups, that occurred during
December 1985 and January 1986. The good news is that those continuing
the experiment are no longer in a slump. In summary, the success
rate of this ARV experiment has not been as high as I would have
liked it to be. I am convinced that the ARV process works, however,
and that the computer program plays an important role in the process.
MOST IMMEDIATE AREAS for improvement are the questionnaire and
the target scenes. People simply do not answer the questions about
the same scene in the same way. Either we will have to tailor
the questionnaire to the type of individual doing the perceiving,
or we will have to make the questionnaire/target scene combination
less sensitive to individual interpretation. Furthermore, many
people are getting a good remote perception of the form or shape
of objects in the target scene, but their interpretation may ascribe
incorrect meanings or images to the forms, thus describing an
incorrect scene. Someday the computer equipment to do pattern
recognition from the remote viewer's drawings may become available
to the home personal computer user. That technology will probably
make a dramatic improvement in successful ARV applications.
is being learned and can be learned in the future by continued
experimentation and application of the ARV process. The future
of these experiments is very promising. Having the data computerized
will allow us to analyze it very thoroughly. The learning that
results from that analysis, plus the ideas for improvement already
being formulated, will provide the direction for future improvements.
ARV is more difficult than it may seem, and those groups continuing
to participate in this experiment are very dedicated. It is unlikely
that everyone will begin to apply the ARV technique to the stock
market, even if it is vastly improved, so those using conventional
techniques for investment need not worry. However, I will continue
to improve the ARV experimental process and to find remote viewers
who enjoy participating.
The computer program is available for Macintosh and IBM personal
computers. I have changed the software to use the 30 question
questionnaire developed by Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunn.
Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ, "A Perceptual Channel
for Information Transfer Over Kilometer Distances: Historical
Perspective and Recent Research," Proceedings of IEEE
64 (March 1976).
Targ and Puthoff, Mind‑Reach: Scientists Look at Psychic
Ability (New York: Delacorte Press, 1977),
and Targ, Mind at Large, ed. Charles T. Tart (New York:
Praeger, 1979); and Targ and Keith Harary, The Mind Race: Understanding
and Using Psychic Abilities (New York: Villard Books, 1984).
Erik Arson, "Did Psychic Powers Give Firm a Killing in the
Silver Market?" The Wall Street Journal, October 22,
From personal communication with Targ and Harary.
Puthoff, "Associative Remote Viewing Experiment," Proceedings,
1984 Parapsychology Association Conference, Dallas, Texas.
Stephan Schwartz, "Associative Remote Viewing Experiment,"
Jack Houck, "Conceptual Model of Paranormal Phenomena,"
ARCHAEUS 1, 1 (Winter 1983).
See Houck, "PK Party History," Psi Research 3, 1 (March
Technique developed by James Spottiswoode and Rand De Mattei and
documented in No. 10.
Houck, "Use of the Associative Remote Viewing Computer Program"
(December 1985). To obtain a copy of this paper, write: Jack Houck
5821 Woodboro Dr., Huntington Beach, CA 92649.