The lady in this video says we are doing remote viewing wrong.  I don't know, I've never tried.
Seems like an interesting thing to try, if it's this simple. And as always, practice makes perfect.

For my first exercise, I chose to see Iowa's state capitol building. 
What I saw was a building with lots of grass surrounding it with pillars on the front. The left side of my brain questioned this because I figured it would be in the city, surrounded by concrete and other buildings.
Got that part right, however, the color I saw was white (probably brain conditioning from seeing other capitols), and it wasn't this big, nor did it have those domes on top. Looked more like only the very front of the building in this picture. 



Back for more practice...

Now I want to stress, I do believe that remote viewing is possible but I also believe that all sides should be looked at. The more info we have the better decisions we can make. So people dont be insulted by this post   im not doing this

The Truth About Remote Viewing

The psychic technique of remote viewing is consistent with simple, well known magic tricks.  
by Brian Dunning


Today we're going to sit in a quiet room and draw sketchy pictures of — well, of anything, really — and claim psychic powers, for we're demonstrating the amazing psychic ability known as "remote viewing."

Remote viewing was made popular beginning in the 1970's, when some in the US intelligence community grew concerned that the Soviets had better psychics than we did. $20 million was appropriated to test the skills of a group of psychics called remote viewers. Supposedly, you could ask them a question about some place, and they'd use psychic abilities to draw you a picture of whatever's going on there, and it was hoped that this would lead to useful intelligence. Project Stargate, and a few others like it, was canceled by the 1990's, due to a lack of reliable results. Proponents of Project Stargate say that the US government's investment in the project proves that it had merit. Critics point out that the funding was stopped, and say that if merit had been found, funding would have at least been continued, if not dramatically increased. We can be reasonably assured that the project did not move underground with renewed funding, since the participants have all long since gone public with full disclosure of what happened. Since none of them have turned up mysteriously disappeared, we can safely assume that the government is not too concerned about this supposedly "classified" information.
The most famous remote viewer to emerge from these projects is a man named Joseph McMoneagle. Today he offers his remote viewing services on a consulting basis, and in 1994 he went on the television show "Put to the Test" to show just what he could do. There is a clip from the show on the Skeptoid.com website, and if you want, stop your iPod now, go and watch it, form your own opinion, and then come back to hear my comments. What you'll find is that the show's unabashed endorsement of his abilities contributes largely to the perception of his success, but if you really listen to the statements he makes, and look at the drawings he produces, you'll find little similarity to what he was supposed to identify. They took him to Houston, Texas and sent a target person to one of four chosen locations. McMoneagle's task was to draw what she saw, thus determining where she was. They edited the 15 minute session down to just a couple of minutes for the show, so you've got to figure that they probably left in only the most significant hits and edited out all of the misses.
The four locations were a life size treehouse in a giant tree, a tall metal waterslide at an amusement park, a dock along the river, and the Water Wall, a huge cement fountain structure. Here is what McMoneagle said:

1. There's a river or something riverlike nearby, with manmade improvements. Houston is a famous river town, so this was a pretty good bet. It applies equally well to the waterslide and to the dock.
   
   
2. There are perpendicular lines. I challenge anyone to find any location anywhere without perpendicular lines.
   
   
3. She's standing on an incline. She was not standing on an incline, and there were no apparent inclines at any of the four locations. Remember, they edited it down to just the most impressive two minutes.
   
   
4. She's looking up at it. This would apply best to the treehouse, the waterslide, or the Water Wall. There was really nothing to look up at at the dock.
   
   
5. There's a pedestrian bridge nearby. Sounds like a close match for the treehouse or the walkways on the waterslide.
   
   
6. There is a lot of metallic noise. Probably the big metal waterslide structure is the best match for this.
   
   
7. There's something big and tall nearby that's not a building. This applies equally well to all four locations.
   
   
8. There's a platform with a black stripe. Not a clear match for any of the locations.
   

That's it - those were the only statements of Joe's that they broadcast. Strangely, at no point did they ask McMoneagle to identify the location; they did not even ask him to choose from the four possibilities. Instead, they simply took him to the actual destination where the target person was, which turned out to be the dock, and then set about finding matches to Joe's statements. Suddenly, nearly all of Joe's statements made perfect sense! Certainly there's a river nearby. There was a traffic bridge in the distance: traffic, pedestrians, near, far, no big difference. Metallic noise and something big: there was a ship at the dock, but if you ask me what kind of noise a ship makes, metallic is not the word I'd use. And that platform with a black stripe? Could be a ship.
I argue that the target person could have been at any one of the four locations, and Joe's psychic predictions would have seemed equally impressive. Joe made numerous sketches, but the only two that they showed were a sketch of a squiggly river (the river at the dock is between straight cement seawalls) and a vague triangular shape, which they interpreted as similar to a crane on a barge when seen from a certain angle.
Bottom line: The only thing I found impressive about McMoneagle's demonstration was their editing and narration job to make it look like the most amazing and miraculous psychic feat in history. Maybe he failed this time because he was not in complete control of the test conditions, as he was in Project Stargate. Maybe the rest of time, McMoneagle is able to display spectacular unambiguous results. McMoneagle claims a decent hit rate, but not perfect. If I were a professional remote viewer, I too would claim a less-than-perfect success rate: High enough to sound impressive; but low enough to allow for potential failures in cases where protocols were imposed that I couldn't control.
I'm not a magician myself — it's really sad to even watch me try to shuffle a deck of cards — but I do know how a lot of the tricks are done. And I can assure you (more importantly, any professional magician can assure you) that the abilities claimed by remote viewers are well within the magician's bag of parlor tricks. This doesn't prove that remote viewers are just putting us on with simple tricks, but their claims and their results are consistent with that. Which of these two possible explanations is most likely true: That remote viewers are using well-proven techniques demonstrated by professional and amateur magicians every day; or that they are accomplishing a feat of true paranormal abilities, which has never been demonstrated under controlled conditions, cannot be duplicated by anyone else, and has no proposed mechanism by which it might be possible?
Now I'll be the devil's advocate, and give the reply that most believers in remote viewing are probably thinking right now: That my characterization is untrue, and that these feats of knowing the unknowable are performed under controlled conditions, and that magicians cannot duplicate these feats. I'll answer that now, and while I do, keep one thing in mind: that the "controlled conditions" under which Joe McMoneagle performed at Stargate were, according to him, defined and set up by Joe McMoneagle himself — literally putting the fox in charge of the chickens.
In 1979, Washington University in Missouri received a $500,000 grant from James McDonnell, of McDonnell-Douglas, to investigate psychic abilities. Noted professional magician James Randi secretly recruited two teenagers, Steve Shaw and Mike Edwards, and gave them a basic training in stage magic and the art of deception. [Correction: I am informed by a participant that Randi did not train them; all the techniques they used were of their own invention.] To flatten the playing field, Randi also contacted the McDonnell researchers and suggested a set of protocols that would detect any such trickery as that with which he instructed his so-called Alpha Kids. He also suggested that they have an experienced magician present during their experiments to look for such techniques. Neither suggestion was followed. As a result, out of 300 applicants claiming to have psychic abilities, only Shaw and Edwards passed the preliminary examinations and were accepted into the program. For the next four years, Shaw and Edwards consistently amazed the researchers, and the parapsychology community at large, with their psychic abilities. Like McMoneagle, Shaw and Edwards were often allowed some amount of control over the conditions. Randi tried to confess the hoax by performing all the same tricks and explaining exactly how Shaw and Edwards were doing it, but the researchers didn't believe him. Randi finally laid it all out in Discover magazine, the research came to a stop, and there were widespread shockwaves throughout the parapsychology community.
After the conclusion of Project Alpha, Randi said:

Quote:If Project Alpha resulted in parapsychologists awakening to the fact that they are able to be deceived, either by subjects or themselves, as a result of their convictions and their lack of expertise in the arts of deception, then it has served its purpose.

The lack of expertise in the arts of deception. Unfortunately, nearly all of us outside the world of professional magic lack such expertise. The inevitable conclusion to be drawn from Project Alpha is that magicians, even relative novices like Shaw and Edwards, can fool very serious researchers under controlled conditions, even when those scientists are serious about finding flaws in the methodology and looking for hoaxes, and even after having been briefed by Randi himself on what to look for. It is not hard to reach the corollary conclusion: That non-investigative, non-scientific, non-critical minds, like Joe McMoneagle's audiences and the people he worked with in the CIA, could also be duped by similar skills, and be firmly convinced of their reality. You want remote viewing? Steve Shaw, who now performs under the stage name Banachek, can read the ID numbers off a card in your pocket, and he can do it on stage every time, without any mistakes, without any outside assistance, no cameras, microphones, or other trickery involved.
When you see something that seems impossible, approach it skeptically. Before you accept that it's something outside of our world, first check to be certain that it's not already inside our world. The tricks used by remote viewers and the magicians who emulate them are definitely inside our natural, fascinating, amazing world. 

Usually use sniperscope for that ....  far more easier and efficient ......

For what it's worth, I used to freak people out by drawing their houses... moments after I'd just met them for the first time. It just seemed like a neat trick to me, but know I scared at least one person. Long story short, I had drawn three huge bushes in front of her porch. She said the people they bought the house from had come back and taken up the three bushes, and now they had three holes.  She looked scared to death, staring at the little sketch I'd done on the back of an envelope or something, so I never did it much after that. I was in my teens at the time.

(09-29-2017, 05:42 AM)Spirit Scribe Wrote: For what it's worth, I used to freak people out by drawing their houses...

In a similar way, I used to tell peoples fortunes with playing cards!
My sister-in-law visited from France one Christmas and my wife urged me to tell her sister's future.
I did and one thing I always struggle with is the chap who thinks it's all baloney... namely me!

My late-mother came from Romany stock and she perceived the world as a raging ocean of ghosts, speeding
currents of time that held the future and past, and that the body we wear is only a vehicle for temporary
use.

I loved her, but those nights when she would awake shouting and screaming at unseen entities staring
in through the bedroom window mouthing silent warnings or invisible souls watching from above as they
crawled around on the ceiling... I'll tell yer', it could seriously hamper the chances of a young man's
dalliances with a girl sneaked into the house after everyone had retired for the night!

Anyway, I told my sister-in-law that she was going to become pregnant in the new year and have a daughter.
She already had a son and even in her late thirties -with her husband having 'the snip' I guess her reticence
to tell me that I was way-off the mark, was just politeness over eggnog.

By the way... and I know I'm just some stranger on the internet, I didn't know her husband had undertaken
the operation until a few years later.
But the cards said so, so even as an unbeliever sitting at my kitchen table on Christmas Eve with what my old
Ma would say was 'the Tendrils of Time' looping above my head, who am I to throw negativity on someone's
assumed hopes?

My sister-in-law's daughter married earlier this year and her and her husband are setting out on a future of...
well, how the hell would I know?!

But what I do know is that there's an old crazy woman somewhere laughing her ass off at her son who believes
that chance, forced assumptions and practical hope, are better hand-holds than some mystical broadcast via
playing-cards.

(09-29-2017, 10:37 AM)BIAD Wrote:

(09-29-2017, 05:42 AM)Spirit Scribe Wrote: For what it's worth, I used to freak people out by drawing their houses...

In a similar way, I used to tell peoples fortunes with playing cards!
My sister-in-law visited from France one Christmas and my wife urged me to tell her sister's future.
I did and one thing I always struggle with is the chap who thinks it's all baloney... namely me!

My late-mother came from Romany stock and she perceived the world as a raging ocean of ghosts, speeding
currents of time that held the future and past, and that the body we wear is only a vehicle for temporary
use.

I loved her, but those nights when she would awake shouting and screaming at unseen entities staring
in through the bedroom window mouthing silent warnings or invisible souls watching from above as they
crawled around on the ceiling... I'll tell yer', it could seriously hamper the chances of a young man's
dalliances with a girl sneaked into the house after everyone had retired for the night!

Anyway, I told my sister-in-law that she was going to become pregnant in the new year and have a daughter.
She already had a son and even in her late thirties -with her husband having 'the snip' I guess her reticence
to tell me that I was way-off the mark, was just politeness over eggnog.

By the way... and I know I'm just some stranger on the internet, I didn't know her husband had undertaken
the operation until a few years later.
But the cards said so, so even as an unbeliever sitting at my kitchen table on Christmas Eve with what my old
Ma would say was 'the Tendrils of Time' looping above my head, who am I to throw negativity on someone's
assumed hopes?

My sister-in-law's daughter married earlier this year and her and her husband are setting out on a future of...
well, how the hell would I know?!

But what I do know is that there's an old crazy woman somewhere laughing her ass off at her son who believes
that chance, forced assumptions and practical hope, are better hand-holds than some mystical broadcast via
playing-cards.

I remembered I looked into this a few years ago ( no pun intended) it took me a wile to find the web page again,I should sort out my book marks some time. Any way hope this helps

What is ARV?
1. Introduction
2. How does it work?
3. Leveraging "Effect Size"
4. Stopping thinking (Free Response)
5. Associative outcomes
6. Step by Step example of an ARV trial
7. Gaining consensus by using many nested ARV trials
8. Target practice page

Resulting from my research over the last 15 years, I have discovered a way to use your intuition to predict the outcome of future events. Even random future events.
Before I get into explaining how it's done, let me start with a simple analogy about leverage:
You probably have the ability to deposit $1 into your bank account every day, but you may not think you have the ability to earn a quarter million dollars.
If starting at the age of 10, you deposited $1 into an interest bearing account every day, by the time you retired at 60, your account would have swelled to $237,000. What I'm getting at here has nothing to do with saving your money, or the effects of compounding interest. What I'm talking about is ABILITY and leverage over time. It takes a very SMALL amount of ability to produce a LARGE effect over time.
If you have ever sensed correctly that the phone was about to ring, or thought of an old friend the day BEFORE you bumped into him at the mall, then you probably have a small amount of true intuitive ability.
This is about LEVERAGING that tiny little bit of strange and mysterious mental ability to make USE of it in our daily lives. Like gaining some insight into an important decision you need to make, discovering the meaning of the universe or finding a parking spot.
return to top

How does this work?
A mass of credible research from institutions such as Stanford Research institute, Princeton university, the US government, the Russian government and dozens if not hundreds more research institutions, governments and scientists over the last 100 years or so have shown statistically that the human mind has the ability to predict the outcome of any random event slightly more often than chance alone would permit.
I'm not going to go into the statistics math here, but the average effect size from meta studies is very significant that this effect is not due to chance. Generally, we know that it is true, and that it happens, but we have absolutely no idea HOW it works, WHY it works, or even how it might fit in with our current physics models, which obviously does NOT allow for such a thing to be possible.
But then again, 95% of the general North American population believes in God or a higher power and THAT certainly does NOT fit into any current physics model!
Knowing this, you might be inclined to wonder why your lottery tickets don't win, or why you didn't walk away from that Vegas casino with a fortune in your pocket the last time you were there. There are Two reasons:
1. The 'effect size' in these experiments was VERY small. That means that participants in these experiments had to correctly guess the outcome of a coin toss thousands of times before the scientist could measure that this ability was not due to chance. You probably haven't been to the casino a thousand times, nor would I recommend that as a way to test this theory.
2. The experimenters found that participants performed much better if the subject of the intuitive guessing game was a 'free response' and not a 'forced choice' answer. A "forced choice" answer is where the participant chooses his answer from a list of choices. Forced choice is like guessing a coin toss - you choose either heads or tails (a forced choice). A "Free Response" answer is where the participant can invent any answer at all. Example of a Free Response answer would be to guess what object I was holding behind my back. It could be anything at all, therefore eliciting a 'free response' answer.
The reason 'free response' works and forced choice doesn't is due to involving the analysis and logic processes of the human brain where it does NOT belong. Pure and true intuition - like guessing the outcome of a completely RANDOM event should NOT involve THINKING. Unfortunately, our brains are used to being exercised and even if it's obvious that the brain can't 'think' out an answer to a random choice, it still does - or at least tries to. Like considering the previous coin tosses - you think: "Oh, the last 3 have been heads, so this one has GOT to be tails". The coin you are tossing does NOT know about the result from the previous coin flips.
So does this must mean that if I stop using my brain to predict the outcome of random events, and if I realize that it only works very slightly more than 50% of the time, I will eventually win the lottery? Well, essentially, YES. Although probably not the lottery because the odds are heavily weighed against you due to the cut that your government enjoys.
The secret to APPLYING your intuitive ability - that is, to correctly guess the outcome of REAL questions that you want the answers to, is all about considering these two rules:
1. That the 'effect size' will be very small - slightly better than 50% and,
2. That you can't use your BRAIN to figure out the answer even though it will try.
I have found a way to use your intuition to predict the outcome of ANY event you want to know about, while considering our two rules: BLOCKING your brain from interfering AND taking advantage of multiple attempts to leverage the small effect size.
return to top

Leveraging "Effect Size"
Remember what I said before about ABILITY? Even a very minuscule small amount of ability properly leveraged can produce some amazing results. Like my previous example about simply depositing a $dollar into your bank account every day until you are 60.
That's essentially how I've been able to earn over $150,000 by trading futures using only my intuitive abilities. It wasn't ONE trade. Believe it or not, it took many years, hundreds of trades, and THOUSANDS of attempts to apply my intuition using this system. It takes a LOT of work!
So how does one actually do this?
A quick review:
1. Science has measured that the human mind has the ability to predict the outcome of a random future event more often than chance would permit
2. The 'effect size' or the 'amount' that the average human person can predict is VERY small
3. Use of the brain to 'think' an intuitive prediction lessens the effect. In order to produce an effect at all, the brains conventional 'thinking' or analysis must be suppressed. To accomplish this, the answer should be in the form of a free-response, and not a forced choice.
return to top

Stopping Your Brain From thinking (Free Response)
If you asked me to use my intuition to predict the outcome of the hockey game tonight, I might have some difficulty. Why? Because the task is in the form of a 'Forced Choice' question. There are only two possible answers and I would be FORCED to pick one. My brain would start overriding any true intuitive thoughts about the answer because it knows what teams are playing and I probably have some opinions, or hopes or fears about the outcome. Those opinions would most certainly interfere with any delicate, background intuitive perceptions I might have about the outcome.
If you wrote the question down on a piece of paper, and without telling me anything about the nature of your question, asked me to predict the answer, I would have much better luck at correctly predicting the outcome. Why? Because I would have NO IDEA what the question was, and my answer would be in the form of a FREE RESPONSE answer - i.e.; my brain can't 'think' about what the answer might be because I know the question could be any question at all. It cannot consider the choice of answers because I do not know the question.
The obvious problem with only applying intuition with hidden questions, is we can only use it when we don't know the nature of the question. What if it was your intention to predict the outcome of the stock market for tomorrow? You couldn't use YOUR intuition because you KNOW the question - This problem is not solved simply by asking someone else because you don't know for sure that they won't make assumptions about the kind of question you might be likely to ask. All of this will involve some form of thinking and that will definitely interfere with the intuitive process.
True intuition is produced from a THOUGHTLESS mind. There is an old Zen analogy that the way to calm the mind and stop thinking is similar to how to clear a muddy pool. Not by action, by doing, or by stirring it up, but by stillness, by letting it be, and by letting it settle itself. And therein lies the secret to the Universe (or predicting the stock market).
Before continuing, lets review:
1. Science has measured that the human mind has the ability to predict the outcome of a random future event more often than chance would permit
2. The 'effect size' or the 'amount' that the average human person can predict is VERY small . To take advantage of this 'small' effect, we need to leverage our abilities. Just like how a marathon runner trains to get faster, or how you grow wiser, or wealthier through the years. You progress toward your goal by LEVERAGING YOUR ABILITY and taking small steps, one at a time.
3. Use of the brain to 'think' an intuitive prediction lessens the effect. In order to produce an effect at all, the brains conventional 'thinking' or analysis must be suppressed. To accomplish this, the answer should be in the form of a free-response, and not a forced choice. True intuition is produced from a thoughtless mind.
The big question (we're getting there..): How can we predict what the stock market is going to do a week ahead of time by using Leverage and Free-response?
return to top

Associative outcomes
When we observe the outcome of an event, what exactly are we observing that "IS" the outcome? The answer isn't as obvious and absolute as you might think. Consider the observation of the current temperature:

• Is the observation of the temperature a feeling on your skin?
  
• Is it observing where a column of mercury rises to on a thermometer?
  
• Is it the most current data from weather.com?
  
• Is it what you hear from the weather report on the radio?
  

Of course, all of these forms of observing the current temperature are valid observations - no single method is the 'real' temperature because the 'real' temperature probably doesn't exist. The 'real' temperature is just a large causal chain, possibly starting from some gasses burning on our sun causing our atmosphere to warm causing mercury in a glass column to expand which causes an instrument to emit a digital signal to a computer which causes some numbers to be displayed on a computer screen causing the weather man to 'say' something about that number into a transmitter which causes a radio signal to get sent, etc, etc...
There are an infinite number of ways to observe the outcome of an event. Every single one of these observed outcomes is 'ASSOCIATED' to what the temperature is, and NONE of them 'IS' the temperature.
What I am getting at here, and I hope it's becoming a bit obvious to you by now, is that there are ways to 'DISGUISE' the outcome of an event you are trying to predict in order to first "Hide" it from your thinking brain, and second, to gain consensus by answering the same question dozens of times by CHANGING the ASSOCIATIONS each time.
We do this by predicting the answer to an event that is "ASSOCIATED" to the event we are really trying to predict. That's EXACTLY like observing the temperature by reading a thermometer. The thermometer is NOT the temperature, but it's ASSOCIATED to the temperature.
If we want to predict the outcome of the stock market tomorrow, why not instead predict the outcome of some other event that is closely ASSOCIATED to the stock market outcome? That's not really as 'out-there' as it sounds - you do it all the time. The observation of the stock market close on CNBC is NOT the outcome of the stock market. It's only a bunch of pixels on your TV or computer monitor that are 'ASSOCIATED' to the outcome of the stock market.
Here is an example of how this works: If the stock market goes UP tomorrow, I'm going to dump a pail of steaming hot miscellaneous fish entrails mixed with sour milk over your head. If the stock market goes down tomorrow, I'm going to force you to listen to 5 straight hours of a baby crying. But I don't tell you before hand. It's my little secret.
If I ask you to intuitively predict what will happen to you tomorrow, I'm really asking you to predict the outcome of the stock market because the two potential forms of torture are both 'ASSOCIATED' to the outcome of the market. Plus, It would be a whole lot more fun for ME than watching the ASSOCIATED pixels fluctuate around on my TV screen.
If I wanted to take advantage of LEVERAGING your intuitive abilities, I could repeat this process as many times as required to gain consensus. Each time, I could change the ASSOCIATED form of torture, keeping you blind to what you were attempting to predict.
It would work like this:

• 1. If the stock market goes UP on Monday I will:
  a. Dump a pail of fish over your head on Tuesday,
  b. Paint your face with lipstick on Wednesday,
  c. Eat crackers in your bed on Thursday.
  
  
• 2. If the stock market goes DOWN on Monday I will:
  a. Make you listen to 5 hours of Backstreet Boys on Tuesday,
  b. Spill sticky Coke on your keyboard on Wednesday,
  c. Call you silly names on Thursday.
  

Then I would ask you to make 3 predictions using your intuition:

• 1. What is going to happen to you on Tuesday?
  2. What is going to happen to you on Wednesday?
  3. What is going to happen to you on Thursday?
  

I could then consider all three of your intuitive predictions and attempt to envisage what goofy things I might have to inflict upon you on those 3 days. Since I already know how each form of torture is 'ASSOCIATED' to the stock market outcome, I can use your intuitive predictions as a proxy to the stock market outcome.
We have just solved our TWO conditions to making intuition work with a known question:
1. Your intuitive prediction is in the form of a Free-Response answer due to the fact that your brain can't interfere with the intuitive process because it doesn't know what it's trying to predict.
2. I can LEVERAGE your intuitive abilities by making you predict 3 different events (Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday) that are each ASSOCIATED to the outcome of ONE SINGLE event (The stock market).
This is basically how it's done. And no, I'm not sitting here with fish in my hair. Specific details on how I use random photographs (not smelly fish) as the associations for the two possible outcomes of the stock market will be the next topic.
return to top

Here is a step by step example of the Associative Remote Viewing protocol:


OBJECTIVE - Fred and Mary want to predict the outcome of the stock market for Thursday. They will ENTER a trade on Thursday morning and EXIT the trade on Thursday evening hopefully making a profit. A long position means that they will be 'buying' the market, and will make a profit if the market closes UP on Thursday, and a short position means that they will be 'selling' the market and they will make a profit if the market goes DOWN on Thursday.
1. MONDAY - Mary approaches Fred, our distinguished 'remote viewer', and requests that he use his intuitive abilities to identify a photograph that she will present to him on FRIDAY. The photo will be random, and has not yet been selected. Neither Fred nor Mary have any knowledge of what that photo might be of.
Fred intuitively imagines the photo he will be presented with on Friday and sketches some ideas on a piece of paper. As you can see in our illustration, Fred perceives a half-round, dome-like shape. At this point, Fred does NOT share his thoughts about the photo with Mary.
2. TUESDAY - Mary randomly picks out two photos from a box of random magazine images. Without looking at the photos that she has selected, she secures each one in a sealed envelope and writes "DOWN" on one of the envelopes and "UP" on the other envelope.
It is Marys intention to show Fred one of these two photos on Friday. She will show Fred the photo in the envelope marked "UP" if the markets close UP on THURSDAY, and she'll show him the photo secured in the envelope market "DOWN" if the stock market closes DOWN on Thursday.
3. WEDNESDAY - Fred provides to Mary his drawing of the photo he will be shown on Friday. Then Mary opens both envelopes and looks at the random magazine photos for the first time - an image of an observatory, and an image of a starfish. WITHOUT looking at what she wrote on each envelope (UP or DOWN), Mary compares Freds remote viewing drawing to each photo and tries to predict which one Fred will be shown on Friday.
Mary thinks that it's pretty obvious that Fred will see the photo of the observatory on Friday because it matches Freds dome shape drawing more so than the star fish. This has to mean that the market will go UP on Thursday in order for Fred to see the photo of the observatory. If the market was to go DOWN on Thursday, then Mary would show Fred the photo of the starfish.
4. THURSDAY - On Thursday morning Mary takes a long position in the market - That is, she is betting that the market will go up that day, thereby forcing the photo of the observatory to be shown to Fred on Friday. On Thursday evening, Mary closes her position.
5. FRIDAY - Mary will now show one of the two photos to Fred. She checks the markets activity for Thursday and finds that the market closed higher at the end of the day - therefore, it went UP, so she shows Fred the photo that was associated with an UP market - the observatory. It is important to stress here that regardless of what position Mary took on Thursday, Fred will ALWAYS see ONLY the photograph associated with what the market ACTUALLY did on Thursday - not necessarily what Mary predicted it should do.
And that is essentially what I define as ONE trial in the ARV process. Fred is the one who predicted the outcome of the stock market for Thursday, but was not even aware of that fact. All he knew, was that he was supposed to predict the contents of some random photo he would be shown on Friday. This ARV "trial" satisfies condition #1 - to form the task as a 'free response' question rather than a forced choice. To ask Fred to intuitively predict the outcome of the stock market, we would be asking him to perform a forced choice task because he would have to choose between the two possible answers - UP or DOWN. By ASSOCIATING the UP and DOWN outcomes to random photographs, we have restructured the task to resemble a free-response question. Since Fred has no idea what could be in the photographs, his thinking brain cannot interfere with the intuitive process.
But in order for true intuition to work, we also need to satisfy condition #2 which is to maximize the very small effect size possible by using leverage. If Fred has a very small amount of ability to correctly perceive the photo that he will be shown on Friday, then Mary would be correct in her stock market prediction using Freds remote viewing information only slightly better than 50% of the time. And that's just not good enough.
return to top

Following is a step by step procedure for nesting many ARV trials together to use consensus to predict the outcome of ONE single event:
STEP 1 - TASKING: Mary, who is the organizer of the ARV prediction project, is planning a vacation to LasVegas and would like to put a sizeable amount of money down on either the "RED" or "BLACK" color on a roulette wheel where she would stand a 50% chance of doubling her money (actually, it's slightly LESS than 50% due to the built-in house odds, but for simplicity sake, we'll assume that this casino is in business for the good of all man kind and does not make a profit).
So, she posts the question: "What color will the roulette wheel result in?" With the two possible answers: "RED" or "BLACK"
STEP 2 - PLANNING FEEDBACK SCHEDULE: Mary is going to use her faithful remote viewer FRED to perform the intuitive prediction for this project. Since FRED is NOT going to predict the outcome of the roulette wheel, but is actually predicting a random photo ASSOCIATED to the outcome of the wheel spin, Mary needs to decide exactly when (date and time) she will show the photo to Fred. And since we are taking advantage of leverage with this project by nesting many ARV trials together, Fred will be observing many different photos at different times. These times are called FEEDBACK times.
Since Mary is planning the Vegas trip for this weekend, she plans for Fred to view the photographs (view FEEDBACK) on Monday when she returns. She is also concerned about leaving Vegas with a profit, and so wants to be certain that Fred provides her with a correct prediction, so Mary will plan on having Fred complete 12 ARV trials. Mary will now specify a feedback time for every single one of the 12 trials. Again, a feedback time is the exact time Fred will observe each one of the 12 photographs that corresponded to the actual outcome of the roulette wheel spin. The feedback schedule would look like this:
Monday, Nov 4, 2002
Trial 1 - 10:00 am
Trial 2 - 10:01 am
Trial 3 - 10:02 am
Trial 4 - 10:03 am
Trial 5 - 10:04 am
Trial 6 - 10:05 am
-----Break----
Trial 7 - 10:10 am
Trial 8 - 10:11 am
Trial 9 - 10:12 am
Trial 10 - 10:13 am
Trial 11 - 10:14 am
Trial 12 - 10:15 am
example: On Monday, Nov 4 at exactly 10:00, Fred will be observing a photograph. Then he will be observing a different photograph at 10:02, and another one at 10:03, etc.
STEP 3 - TARGET ASSEMBLY Each of the twelve ARV trials requires two random photographs which are called targets. Each target in each set will be associated with either a "BLACK" outcome or a "RED" outcome. There are many ways to facilitate this, including using a computer and digital images. For the sake of simplicity, Mary is going to organize this the old fashioned way - using actual magazine photos and envelopes.
Mary has 24 envelopes - 2 for each of the twelve trials. On each envelope she's writes the trial #, feedback time and one of the two possible associations (outcomes RED or BLACK). It would look like this:
Envelope 1 "Trial 1, 10:00 am, RED"
Envelope 2 "Trial 1, 10:00 am, BLACK"
Envelope 3 "Trial 2, 10:01 am, RED"
Envelope 4 "Trial 2, 10:01 am, BLACK"
etc.... for all 12 trials (24 envelopes)
Now Mary digs into a huge box of random magazine photos and places one random photo into each of the twelve envelope. Mary does NOT look at the photos as she places them into the envelopes, nor does she look at what she wrote on the envelope. This keeps the entire process 'clean' and eliminates any possibility of Mary inadvertently 'leaking' information about the targets and associations to Fred.
STEP 4 - TASKING THE REMOTE VIEWER
Mary provides the feedback schedule to Fred and instructs Fred to intuitively predict (remote view) the single target he will be shown at each of the TWELVE feedback times starting at 10:00 am on Monday and finishing at 10:15 am that same morning. She also informs Fred that her plane leaves on Friday afternoon, and she would like all twelve remote viewing session transcripts by Thursday morning so she can figure out what the final prediction will be.
STEP 5 - REMOTE VIEWING
Fred will have approximately 5 days to remote view each of the twelve targets and submit his remote viewing session transcripts to Mary for analysis.
On day 1, Fred relaxes in his favorite chair, closes his eyes and tries to calm his thinking mind and reach a meditative state. After 5 minutes of 'cool down' Fred mentally asks the following question: "I will be shown a photograph at exactly 10:00 am on Monday. What will the photo look like?" He then jots down on a piece of paper any random thoughts about the nature of the image that occurs to him, along with Mondays date and the feedback time (Monday, Nov 4, 2002 10:00). After writing down a few ideas - maybe a rough drawing, some words and some feelings, he is ready to remote view the second feedback time (10:01).
After a minute or two of further cool-down, Fred mentally asks himself this question: "I will be shown a photograph at exactly 10:01 am on Monday. What will the photo look like?". On a new piece of paper, Fred will write the feedback date and time down (Monday, Nov 4, 2002 10:01), and proceed to record his thoughts and perceptions about what he will see at 10:01 am on Monday. We'll call that piece of paper the remote viewing transcript.
This entire process is called a 'remote viewing session' and may last from 15 to 30 minutes - or until Fred gets tired.
On day 2, Fred will repeat this basic process, but he will continue to make his way down the feedback schedule, producing a separate remote viewing transcript for each of the twelve feedback times. If Fred remote viewed 3 feedback times per day, he would be finished remote viewing all twelve feedback times in 4 days.
When Fred is finished remote viewing all twelve feedback times, he submits his 12 remote viewing session transcripts to Mary.
STEP 6 - JUDGING
Mary will now attempt to predict what photo from each set Fred will be presented with by comparing Fred's Remote Viewing transcript notes to each feedback time.
For example, for the feedback time: 10:00, Mary will look at BOTH photos from the envelopes that are marked "10:00" and compare each of the images with Freds corresponding remote viewing drawing that is also titled "10:00". Mary knows that Fred will be observing ONE of these two photographs - probably the one that most resembles his remote viewing transcript for that time.
It is important to stress that although Mary is looking at both targets for the first time, she CANNOT look at the associations (RED or BLACK) that she wrote on the reverse side of each envelope until AFTER she has completed judging ALL of the trials.
After Mary makes a decision as to which target Fred will probably be shown on Monday, she indicates that choice by marking the corresponding envelope with a check mark.
When Mary has completed judging ALL twelve feedback times - that is, comparing ALL twelve of Freds remote viewing transcripts to the two photos in their corresponding target sets, she is ready to look at the outcome that each chosen target in each set was associated with. Mary will simply add up the number of targets she picked that were associated with "RED" and all those associated with "BLACK". Which ever association has the most 'votes' will be the color she risks her money on in Vegas.
STEP 7 - VIEWING FEEDBACK
To complete the loop, Fred will now have to observe 12 targets starting at 10:00 on Monday morning - one each minute for 6 minutes, a minute rest, then 6 more minute EXACTLY as per the feedback schedule that was originally created. The photo from each pair that Fred will observe is the one that was associated to the outcome of the roulette wheel spin. If everything went as planned in Vegas, and the majority of Freds RV sessions pointed to a "red" outcome, and indeed a "red" outcome was bet upon and actualized, then Fred would be observing all of the targets that had the word "RED" printed on the back of the respective envelope. If the ARV outcome was a prediction of "RED" and the actual outcome was "BLACK", then Fred and Mary would been wrong and Fred would still have to look at all of the "BLACK" associated targets.
Here is a graphical representation of this multiple trial process:

















































































































































































































































http://www.remote-viewing.com/whatisARV.html

Thank you @"Wallfire". 

That's a lot of material to go through, but it's nice to know it's here when I get time to read through it. 

I only got about halfway so far.