Learning the HRVG Methodology

My Experience with the Guild’s Remote Viewing Methodology

by Coen Naninck
January 12, 2012

The article you are about read was written to give people both new to Remote Viewing and experienced viewers an idea of the learning experience with HRVG Remote Viewing methodology.

While I have taken great care to include as many concepts and details of each as possible, I have also attempted to write an article that doesn’t bore and is engaging and fun to read.


Remote Viewing to me has been both easy as well as the most difficult thing I have ever done in my life. And probably also the most frustrating thing at that. Its protocols for obtaining information, or ‘data’ as it is referred to, are relatively easy to grasp and memorize; that’s the easy part. It is letting go of preconceived ideas and trusting the protocols, as well as oneself, which makes it difficult. Later in this article I will elaborate more on these things.

When I started out with S1 – the first protocol in HRVG methodology – all I had to do was draw simple shapes, or ‘Gestalts’ as HRVG refers to them, on paper. A gestalt is a German term used in psychology referring visual perception. It was developed by German psychologists in the 1920s in an attempt to describe how people organize visual elements when certain principles are applied. HRVG uses principles too, but they are called ‘protocols’ and together they form the ‘methodology’.

After sending my session, my HRVG instructor, Dick Allgire, would provide feedback (via email) and show me how my drawings – the gestalts – would match geometry of the particular target I had done. – Doing a session is called “Working a session.”, or “Working a target.”. – Often I would take Dick’s feedback for what it was, or what I thought it was – ‘encouraging words meant to motivate, not confirm success’. I will honestly say, that – especially in the beginning – I couldn’t bring myself to believe I could really do this.

So the first thing I had to do in learning Remote Viewing is to accept the feedback. Dick would convey this to me often, but it wasn’t until much later that I fully understood why. I once did a session where I drew palm trees, but they turned out to be street lights. When looking from afar, or looking only at the outline, certain streetlights, especially the highway lights with multiple bulbs on them, can indeed look like trees. When I drew trees and saw the feedback as lights, I thought “But I drew trees.”. Now I know that it is not up to the mind to label ‘what it is’, but to simply accept what I perceive and draw it.

Part of learning how to remote view, is not only to accept what comes to mind if you will, but also to follow the protocols, because it is the protocols that keep the conscious mind busy, while the subconscious relays information about the target. That information comes in very small chunks and usually are the first thing you think about or otherwise perceive. And perceiving can be a number of things, not just seeing a blob as visual imagery, but smelling, tasting, feeling, or just about any of the five senses human beings have (six according to some of us).

The Rock Concert

One of my early targets was a rock concert:

I had drawn shapes that resembled trees. Actually, I should say that I drew trees, because at the time I was still labeling things, as I explain elsewhere in this article. When Dick gave feedback, juxtaposing the target with my session, I wasn’t happy with it, because I was insisting that I saw trees, not fireworks. It wasn’t until I saw the following superimposed image, that it actually made sense what he said.

Now one can argue that I didn’t draw other features, or that I drew only three instead of four fireworks fountains. What matters and what made the difference, was that I had drawn a shape that my subconscious had given me. That I subsequently turned that image into a couple of trees, is the habitual factor of trying to label things by default (more about that later). At the time I was still very much occupied with the protocols themselves, as opposed to actually perceiving things. But, as I learned from that particular session, I had actually drawn part of the target’s scene.


Listening to those that teach Remote Viewing is what has been most helpful for me to grasp the skill, and Dick in my opinion is a teacher with no equal. Dick would often sent me tidbits of information in emails, or sometimes entire emails devoted to specific subjects about Remote Viewing, or HRVG-related subjects in particular. One time I watched a video from one of HRVG’s Founders, Glenn Wheaton, where he said something along the lines of “Whatever your data is, I don’t care what it is, just draw what you perceive.”, which, when I saw it, really made sense.

Regardless of figuring out what the target is, the three, four, five, ten and more sessions one does that are totally off, are providing more experience, more of how not to remote view, and practice executing of the protocols according to the HRVG methodology. I didn’t think of these things at first, but later I realized just how important all of my sessions have been, regardless of their results. An often used anecdote at HRVG is about a group of clowns packed in a Volkswagen. I believe it is used to explain that whatever one thinks is the target, it doesn’t actually matter. What matters is putting down what one perceives without applying any of the mind’s filters to interpret the data. Interpretation is a task left to the Analyst, not the viewer.

Nowadays I just trust the feedback, including revisiting my sessions myself and accepting what I drew or noted is what it is, even though at the time my mind (read: left brain) interpreted it as something else. For example, an object that appears to be the Sun, might just as well be a large explosion of some type of demolition. In such a case, instead of naming the data, nowadays I describe its features, such as large, wide, massive, intense, thin, thick, voluminous, etc. To learn Remote Viewing, it is of utmost importance to not let the mind wander and interpret the data, and never, never guess the target prematurely. In fact, it is best not to make guesses at all, especially if follow-up sessions are required after receiving positive feedback. Labeling things is very much habitual for human beings, but it is one that needs to be ignored when remote viewing.

In the beginning, I would label pieces of data, much like the aforementioned fireworks as a tree. Then upon receiving feedback I would say “But that’s not what I saw.” Regardless of my feedback being positive or negative, what I should do instead, is accept the feedback and forget about what my left-brain (interpreter) is saying. I have found that the actual object is not important, whereas its characteristics and features are. The trap I have fallen into time and again (and still do from time to time), is that the left-brain wants to resolve the data, or the target in its entirety. But it is this resolving that breaks the remote viewing process altogether.


Some time into my training, Dick mentioned that me and him were “building a communication pathway”. He explained that with each target he would cue (cuing a target means creating the link in the universal consciousness) and that I would subsequently work, the stronger that pathway became; a synergy, or entrainment if you will, building between instructor and student. This email proved to be more important than I realized at the time, not only because entrainment is a big part of HRVG’s methodology (in multiple ways at that), but also because I witnessed Dick get me back on my feet numerous times when I would say “I just can not do this!”. I believe a good Remote Viewing instructor knows not only how to motivate, but also how to captivate, knowing how to make a student come back for more with each consecutive validation target. And that is easier said than done, considering the amount of people who give up after a few ‘misses’, because they think they can “just not do it”, or, as I wrote earlier, are too much occupied with guesswork.

“There will be days when you amaze yourself, and days when you kick yourself.” ~ Dick Allgire

As I said, entrainment is a big part of HRVG’s methodology. Advanced Remote Viewing skills contain ways to not only ‘view’, but also ‘influence’. This influencing may loosely be referred to as entrainment. If you Google “hrvg las vegas” (without quotes) there are some nice stories to be read about entraining environments. Not only can and does it happen between people, it can and does happen to anything where consciousness is a part of.


Accurately perceiving target data is a skill obtained only with practice. But even so,sometimes things just don’t go your way. Dick once told me in one of his many teachings, that remote viewers have what is called ‘cycles of contact’. As I wrote earlier, in my training there have been many moments where I wanted to give up. Either because I was making it all up, didn’t believe in myself, or simply wasn’t in my cycle of contact. This can be described as a period when one is very successful with remote viewing and time after time good data is collected, while at other times it seems as though it is one miss after the other. I was told about this phenomenon early on, and for good reason too.


Contact strength also heavily depends on the target itself. As Dick once explained to me, if you take a photo from the Internet and cue it, the “link in consciousness can be weak, therefore harder to view”. If an experienced viewer works such a target, it may be difficult to collect good data, let alone an inexperienced viewer working it. But, if the target is something strong, say an experience of the person cuing the target having been physically at a certain location “smelled the smells, experienced the heat and humidity, walked around the site”, it is an entirely different thing. This strength of signal, is often referred to by other Remote Viewing methodologies as “the signal line”. It is a concept that becomes more apparent as the student progresses in their learning of the methodology and practicing validation (practice) targets.

These quotes by the way, are from the many emails Dick and I exchanged about Remote Viewing, and HRVG’s methodology in particular. I have most of them still on my computer and they are a treasure trove in themselves.


While certain targets I worked had stronger signal lines than others, sometimes Dick would give out a so-called ‘beacon target’. A target similar to the one I described earlier in this article, about having been physically at a location, is a good example of a beacon target. Another example (and in fact where I think the term comes from) is of a live event, or something taking place at the time the target is worked by a remote viewer. An example of this could be the BP oil spill disaster, as it was unfolding. While the targeteer (that is the person cuing the target and in this particular case that as Dick) was not physically at the location, the target was live and ongoing. It is well-known that events (targets) that have a very strong emotional connection to them, create strong signal lines. Unfortunately most of these types of events are of negative nature, such as natural disasters and wars. As was the case with the BP oil spill, wherein several people lost their lives and millions more were affected by its effects on the environment, let alone the animal life. Dick had given me this particular event as a target and I recall to this day the sessions following that one where I often picked up on fumes and high energy movements, indicating the immense effect this event had on the universal consciousness that remote viewers tap into when they remote view.


I remember I worked a target that was a scene of the Pope carrying a big cross. I did well with this target, but not with visual imagery. In fact, it was the first time that I really perceived a ‘sound’. And I thought I was making it up, because it seemed so clear when I ‘heard’ it. It was the sound of a bell, a church bell. I remember Dick’s response well, where he said that out of all the sounds I could’ve come up with, I noted ‘church bell’. Not a stone falling on the floor, or a car whooshing by, or a dog barking. Not even a bell, but a “church bell”. Not to toot my horn, but it was great fun to see his feedback. And it built my confidence greatly at the time.


With enough practice, at some point in time a student is given an ‘operational target’. I can best describe this as a ‘this is not a drill’ target. When you get a target like that, it is for real, and the data you collect is as valuable as it can get! An ‘op target’ can be anything from a stolen object or a missing person, to the reason why a certain event has transpired or even the cause of a homicide. And, like validation targets, they can be set in the past, present and the future.

The latter scenario was actually one of the last targets I have worked, I think about a year or so ago. Thinking about it again sends chills up my spine even after all this time.

The target I had been given was of a homicide case involving a young woman, an event that – much like many of the other targets I had worked before – transpired literally half a world away from me. It was about 20 minutes into my session, that I started to perceive visual imagery of a somewhat densely grown area, like a park of sorts, and a woman lying in water, inanimate.

While I couldn’t make out any details as the image only very briefly passed my vision, I thought I was making it up. But I drew it anyway. After I received feedback where it was noted that several other viewers had seen the same image, I nearly wet my pants. It was probably the first time I thought to myself that I could really remote view, apart from the sheer horror of the target itself, which has given me a few nightmares in the weeks and months after that. Not to mention the nights after I got my feedback that I felt sorry for the young woman’s parents.

Regardless, I am content that I have had this opportunity to help HRVG along with the investigative team to determine the events that transpired. Even though at the time when I worked that particular session, I had no idea what I was to expect.


Ego, and letting go of it, I believe is more a part of the Remote Viewing learning curve than most people realize. When we are young and our egos are fragile, success brings about confidence. Later in life though, that confidence can become overpowering. When I worked my first few targets, I would gain trust in myself when receiving confirmatory feedback. As I worked more targets, also my ‘Remote Viewing ego’ – if you will – grew. But then things would sometimes not be as good, and my ego would suffer as a result. In the end, I learned – again– it is about letting go (not labeling), and letting go of the ego altogether. It is not important for and during remote viewing. We all need to know we can be good at a particular skill, but if the ego has grown beyond itself it is no longer a means to get somewhere (self-esteem), but now sees itself as the destination (ego-centric). Too big an ego can be devastating to Remote Viewing, because it is directly tied to success and – again – guesswork, the latter being the one thing that Remote Viewing is not about. Remote Viewing is about letting go, trusting the methodology, putting the human senses to use and putting it all down on paper.

There is so much more about HRVG Remote Viewing that I haven’t covered in this article, I could really go on for a while, from viewing parts of a target that are not part of the actual target photo, to going into more detail about the different protocols such as NIMO and Edging, but it is really beyond the scope of this article. I hope that in reading this article, you will have gotten a glimpse of what it’s like to learn HRVG’s Remote Viewing, and, if you are not yet into Remote Viewing, that it may provide you with a good starting point.

And with that I would like to thank you and, as Glenn Wheaton always says “Keep your wits about you.”

Scroll to Top