Greg Kolodziejzyk on ARV and thought power

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

[katzenhai2]

I'm sure he is honest in what he says but I'm interested what he has to say to my questions.
I wrote him the following email but got no answer yet. Several years ago there was also no answer to my email. So I don't think there will be one ever.

******
Hello Greg,

I've read your website remote-viewing.com, your trading statements at time-machine.com and your blog article on adventuresofgreg.com about "did I open a can of worms?" with your experience in associative remote viewing.

I found some inconsistent statements about your success rate.
On your blog you describe it as 75% of 100 trades (projects). You do 50-80 trials for each ARV outcome (trade; or project) whereas each trial has a success rate of about 54%.
On your website you have the same statements but with 52.95 % success rate for each trial - which is nearly the same.
So far so good. But on your time-maschine.com website the cumulative success rate was only 57.80 % which is far away from your 75%.

On a video posted by you in October 2011 (which is now gone) you talked about a 90% consensus success rate for 50 trials.
Do you have some explanation? Did I missed something?

Secondly I have some questions about your protocol:
- How long takes a trial?
- At feedback time are there any pauses between looking at each feedback-photo for a trial?
- Do you look at all feedback photos for the entire project (50-80 trials) at one day or do you split that feedback process over a period of several days?
- Have you noticed any difference in the success rate between the prediction of market movements and sport events?

Thank you in advance for your time.

Best regards
Karsten
******

[Red_Star]

Hmm... depends on your definition of experienced viewers, I guess. I was thinking "experienced and professional" rather than just "experienced".

Ah ok I see what you mean. I was refering to experienced viewers
right here in TKR Not necessarily professionals you have to hire.
There are hardly any of those anyway. Joe is semi retired the other RV
schools or companies appear to have dried up or disappeared off the face of
the earth. So its down to the folks right here.

T

Well, I imagine if these results are accurate it would make Stock traders seem foolish. I mean most of the people doing major trades on the market have gone to Business school, an degree perhaps even an master's degree in Business. Now if these professionals with years of schooling under their belt were to receive an lesser success rate than an remote viewer....well that's just humiliating. With all the resources and an entire team of analysis and up to the second update on stock movements, and their professional opinion. All that and an remote viewer with no knowledge of the stock trading or even latest market trend, yield better results than an Ivy league graduate! 
This is why I am going to experiment and do some MUTUAL FUNDS, naturally I can take my time as it's on a 5-10 year term  
Should I predict the proper mutual funds, I even got a song picked out for bragging rights, Pink Floyd "We don't need no education". 

[RedCairo]

Gene, I don't believe that the multiple sessions Greg did on his own, and his stats based on this, could be distributed equally among 10 or 50 viewers instead of 1. Not that it's impossible, I just think it brings in several levels of variables that send it back into the land of astronomically complicated to predict "for very long" which is pretty much ARV encapsulated. It always WORKS because RV works. We just don't seem to be able to predict how LONG it works for. And it always seems to me that larger but more subtle issues related to belief systems, quantity of people informed about it, and that kind of thing may be throwing a jungian wrench into it all.

It would be interesting to set something up where (privately) a few viewers did a session on X and then other people (who are not the viewers and who only get one session per-same-target to judge) choose from 2+null/pass option, and do a long series of that and see if the stats proved out his stats either for individual viewers or for multiple.

[Jon K]

Katz wrote:
>>Greg K. results show 53% in single trials without scoring. With scoring (and passes) he got 62%. Thats quite the same like the 1ARV group.

And there is a third (team) effort in accord with Greg K's methods which has results around 62% for the past year with an N of c. 100.

>>Anyone who does ARV will come to the conclusion that he needs to score (and pass some) session results. Thats a natural behaviour and as we can see it seems successful. So maybe this is the source of the 60-65% number because most people acting the same way after some experiences with ARV.

>>People then want more and begin to compare their sessions with others on the the same ARV goal (sport bet or trade) in a group effort. Thats also natural. But doesn't raise the number higher than 60-65%.

You mean like no one could break the 4-minute mile till one guy did it? Or that 65% is "catching" in the 100th monkey kind of way or that c. 65% is an "attractor" because that is where some/most ARV efforts end up and others gravitate toward the same basin. It is odd that three major efforts are within 2 points of each other.  If a low 60's figure persists across many individual and/or team extended trials, then maybe there's something to it.  'Three swallows does not a summer make.'

>>But Greg K. never compared his sessions with others(!). Instead he did several sessions (30-50) on each ARV goal, getting 70%. As he applied a scoring scheme as with his single trials on his grouped sessions... means several sessions by one person... he got 75%.

But through 2011 he had 63.5% (not the earlier figure of 75%) success with projects that were actually completed (181 out of 285 project questions led to successful trades).

>My suggestion: Each viewer should do more than one session per ARV goal (maybe quite more than only 5 - see how man Greg K. did). Score them like single trials and group them together with one suggested outcome (Up or Down, Win or Lose). Then group the grouped-session-results of all viewers and get one suggested outcome. I don't know of anyone who've done that in a statistical way.

The third team effort noted above did some like these but there were not enough trials to come to any conclusions.

The low 60's percentage rates achieved have been done with different methods: Greg K - binary ARV with many trials per outcome; 1ARV - two unitary targets with one session per viewer per outcome; a variant of binary ARV with multiple sessions per viewer per outcome. The low 60's level is nondiscriminatory as to method. But IMO probably not a genuine barrier. (Asking: has anyone else experienced long-term success rates, individual or team effort, as high as 62-65%?)

>>Next idea is to implement novelty into the process. Each viewer views only two ARV goals and then quit ARV for maybe one or two months and do regular RV in between. That way you would need masses of viewers ready to RV... Huh

I agree about novelty/variety of targets and limited trial periods. They are critical but mostly not implemented variables, from what I've seen. For example, it's unclear to me why the great bulk of targets have been photos/photosites. They are convenient to set up but there are plenty of other ways to go (short videos, emotions, tastes, etc.) (Lyn B and recently Lori W have claimed success with tastes.) In addition, another important variable - Greg K notes that viewing during solar wind speeds of less than 450 km/sec improved results significantly in his trials and he's done more trials than anyone else.

Jon

[katzenhai2]

Here is a site with easy to read solar wind speed data back to 2011-12 in a hourly format and back to 2012-12-13 in a 1-minute format. Maybe Martys ARV teams could see if the Solar Wind Speeds influenced their past results.

Hourly data: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpmenu/lists/ace2.html (click xxxxxx_ace_swepam_1h.txt to get the Solar Wind Speed data)
1-minute data: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpmenu/lists/ace.html (click xxxxxxxx_ace_swepam_1m.txt to the Solar Wind Speed data)

[katzenhai2]

[...] or that c. 65% is an "attractor" because that is where some/most ARV efforts end up and others gravitate toward the same basin.

In my opinion the number ~60% is because it is a natural behaviour how humans act (or think) when researching ARV and then ending up on the same plateau. It doesn't mean it is a limit.

For example, it's unclear to me why the great bulk of targets have been photos/photosites. They are convenient to set up but there are plenty of other ways to go (short videos, emotions, tastes, etc.) (Lyn B and recently Lori W have claimed success with tastes.)

But tastes are forced choice because there are not enough variances available IMO. But you are correct that most people only use photosites. Anyone tried with real world problem sets for example?

[Liam]

 

Tunde,

Where get I access that link to the Grek K talk on ARV and Thought Power?

Cheers.

Username:
Password: