What is your accuracy rate (hit rate?)

RV Protocol

GO VIEW! @TKR's dojo

Project Home Page

RV webForum (here!)

Email: @Yahoo|@Google

Help make it possible for everyone!

TKR is Funded by:
PJ of Dojo Psi

Simple Session

CS Labs
Ingo Swann
Joe McMoneagle

Baylands Nature Preserve
Pete's Harbor Restaurant
Lucid Dream Example
Radio Listening Post
Test-Bed Trials
Video ABC Put to the Test

P.I.A.

Greg K's ARV Trials

RV Roast (alt)

RV Library

[Mulva]

What is your accuracy rate for predictions in RV? Have you improved over time or pretty much stayed the same?

[Mycroft]

I can't answer that straight up. Seems there are so many variables that tend to influence the outcome.

1. Time from prediction to event.
2. The proximity to 2012-12-22
3. We really can't tell about things we've forecasted in the future beyond the present, meaning I've made hundreds of predictions I am waiting to come true
4. Global events or local events

Lastly, off the top of my head I'd say way better, but then it could just be the recording practices are better and the ability to prognosticate hasn't improved.

Mycroft

[Mulva]

Thanks for the response.

[Red_Star]

It's about 60-70%, my calligraphy description is still undetermined but looking good though, I am aiming for 70%-80%.
Is that decent?

[PJ]

Remote viewing when evaluated over time tends to have two separate areas of accurate to consider:

a) That of "clearly on-target" vs. not (and in a perfect world, people understand that about 30% of data is going to be correct about 30% of the targets [this is a science number, not mine] no matter what, just as a matter of the way english can be interpreted and the common elements in our reality, so on-target has some critical demands). And, of course as a given, very clean protocol.

b) For those targets in which one did appear to be "very clearly on-target," the % of data reported which is able to be evaluated against hard or firmly-implied feedback for accuracy. So, if there is no feedback on many things in the session those are simply not counted either way.

Generally, if the evaluation of this is very stringent (very demanding of a sufficient amount of _specific_ data -- not generalized, not poetic, and not just basic -- to be sure of), the a) number is quite low (40-60% with unpredictable fluctuations) while the b) number depends on the viewer but can be quite high. Generally, viewers with more data much of which is inaccurate crash and burn on the b) number, while those who are very careful about what they report and may often pull data from the presentation (or leave it in their head) if they feel less clear/sure about it, will end up with much higher accuracy stats on the b) element. Also, generally, viewers subjectively will feel their a) number is vastly higher than a science lab would evaluate it.

Of course it might all just be about the position of the stars.  

Best,
PJ

[Red_Star]

Remote viewing when evaluated over time tends to have two separate areas of accurate to consider:

a) That of "clearly on-target" vs. not (and in a perfect world, people understand that about 30% of data is going to be correct about 30% of the targets [this is a science number, not mine] no matter what, just as a matter of the way english can be interpreted and the common elements in our reality, so on-target has some critical demands). And, of course as a given, very clean protocol.

b) For those targets in which one did appear to be "very clearly on-target," the % of data reported which is able to be evaluated against hard or firmly-implied feedback for accuracy. So, if there is no feedback on many things in the session those are simply not counted either way.

Generally, if the evaluation of this is very stringent (very demanding of a sufficient amount of _specific_ data -- not generalized, not poetic, and not just basic -- to be sure of), the a) number is quite low (40-60% with unpredictable fluctuations) while the b) number depends on the viewer but can be quite high. Generally, viewers with more data much of which is inaccurate crash and burn on the b) number, while those who are very careful about what they report and may often pull data from the presentation (or leave it in their head) if they feel less clear/sure about it, will end up with much higher accuracy stats on the b) element. Also, generally, viewers subjectively will feel their a) number is vastly higher than a science lab would evaluate it.

Of course it might all just be about the position of the stars.  

Best,
PJ

Well, I know if I consistently do several repeats of the session, I can filter out the constants. However I am not as fast as some of the other viewers here, it takes me longer to connect to the target, but once I do and start digging deep I come up with some pretty interesting stuff sometimes. I am working on the Character aspect of it now, takes a while but it's well worth it.
Yeah poetic stuff isn't relevant to target data objective, I usually omit "emotional" stuff or tag it as aol. I would much prefer to have quality over quantity. Would you believe that I was never taught about "aol" and it's purpose, I would just simply not write down useless data and avoid it all together.

Username:
Password: