A serious ARV related question for the mathematici

Gene_Smith

Administrator
Staff member
A serious ARV related question for the mathematicians and statisticians amongst us.

Here is the basis of my question. Greg K. in his recent interview in the chat room gave an interesting statistic. Long term he found himself to be correct in any given ARV session 55% of the time and was correct 77% of the time in his actual decision making. His ability to get the higher actual decision-making came from doing multiple sessions on a given yes/no type question.

So from a pure mathematical basis can the following question be answered? Assuming that one would view the correct target 55% of the time, how many sessions would you need to do to get a 75% hit ratio? As an example lets say a person did 10 sessions on a given question and had 6 that said yes and 4 that said no, again going in with the knowledge that over time one could count on hitting 55% constantly, one should be able to say that with the ten sessions done the chances of a correct decision is X %. And to perhaps make the point a bit clearer; if one did 100 sessions and had 55 of them that said yes and 45 said no; then I would assume that the chances of being right increase because you did 100 sessions verses 10. I think this has something to do with a “Z score”, but I will admit that my looking at Z scores is akin to my dog watching TV, it fascinates him but he doesn’t understand it in the least.

So assuming a 55% hit rate how many sessions need to be done to statistically guarentee a 75% correct choice result.

If for some reason you prefer to communicate privately please feel free to do so I’m cautious2@wmconnect.com

Thank you,
Gene Smith
 

Entmu

New Member
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

I don't know too much about statistics, but there is no guarantee of 75%, it is all based on probability.

How many Yes/No -type questions do you need?
i.e. ten flips of a coin, stocks go up/down

I would guess for 10 flips of a coin, 6-7 trials for each flip of the coin would give a good percentage of correct guesses (75%?)
If that is the case, with proper confidence and betting strategies, one could make a bit of money playing Baccarat at the casinos.
 

Gene_Smith

Administrator
Staff member
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

I don't know too much about statistics, but there is no guarantee of 75%, it is all based on probability.

How many Yes/No -type questions do you need?
i.e. ten flips of a coin, stocks go up/down

I would guess for 10 flips of a coin, 6-7 trials for each flip of the coin would give a good percentage of correct guesses (75%?)
If that is the case, with proper confidence and betting strategies, one could make a bit of money playing Baccarat at the casinos.

Hi Entmu,

Probability yes, but I'm saying at a certain point, which I think can be identified mathmatically the probability reaches a point of certainty OVER TIME. As an example I believe casinos are certain over a period of time, that they will take an identifiable percentage of every dollar that crosses the table of every game they have in house. So while with any given player or for the house on any given hour or even day perhaps the statistical % will vary; at the end of a given month or year they will have collected the identified % of money that was put into play.

So I am saying that beginning with the assumed ability to hit 55% over time month in and month out (Which is the source of another thread but I know for a fact IS doable). Then one should be able to identify how many sessions one needs to do on ONE target question (Such as will the stock market rise on a particular date) to be statistically assured they will have a correct decision 75% of the time over a period of time.

Perhaps I can get PJ to ask Greg K. if he has ever addressed this particular question. OH PPPPPPPPP JJJJJJJJJJJJJ!!!!!!!

Gene Smith
 

larrywojo

New Member
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

Hi Gene...

Grab your no-doze... ;)

The "Z-score" (or "Standard Score") represents the number of standard deviations a given value x falls from the mean u. (... that's a lowercase Greek letter 'mu'... picture it with a cute little tail).

Still awake? Hope so, because here it is in English -

You get a bazillion Viewers to toss a bazillion nickles, and you'll come up with 50-50, heads vs. tails. (your "mean").

You get a group of real Viewers to toss 100 times, and you'll come up with a real number, say 52-48... close to 50-50, but no cigar. That's similar to a "Standard Deviation", which is a mathematically derived number via a credible formula, and is reliable. (Tells how close any given group will be "off" from 50-50).

A "Z-score" is any individual Viewer's tosses in relation to that "Standard Deviation" (in this case away from the expected 50-50). With a Standard deviation of 2 (tosses off), let's say for arguments sake, and a Viewer who tossed 54-46 :

z = [54-50] / 2 = 2 (z score=2). /// z= value-mean/std. deviation.

Now... all of that is absolutely meaningless, IMHO, because there are too many variables in Viewing to provide reliable data for such scoring.

Gotchya! ;D
larrywojo

Modified note: Oh, I got ya now... you can't. You could do a bazillion sessions, and you'll always end up around 55%. No way around it. (...unless you're Viewing itself improves, therefore driving up your success percentage).
 

Gene_Smith

Administrator
Staff member
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

Hi Gene...

Modified note: Oh, I got ya now... you can't. You could do a bazillion sessions, and you'll always end up around 55%. No way around it. (...unless you're Viewing itself improves, therefore driving up your success percentage).


Hi Larrywojo,

I really appreciate you taking the time to look this over and the Z score explaination. But on the 55% thing here is where I believe Greg K. has shown at least one way, the only one I'm aware of at the moment around the 55% ceiling.

I mean yes I know of at least one person who is able to get a bit higher than 55% ranging up to mid 60's % consistanly. But 55% is doable by most everyone, again over time. But Greg K. who is apparently a meticulous record keeper has been able to leverage his 55% individual session hit ratio to a 77% correct decision making ratio by doing multiple sessions on the same target. Now yes you are correct that if one is only right 55% of the time then doing a hundred sessions on the same question will theoretically produce 55 sessions that say one thing and 45 that say another. But it appears that doing multiple sessions to make the decision itself, does increase the statistical odds of being correct. And what I'm saying that I suspect is that having 2 of 3 sessions that say one thing has a significantly lesser value than having 55 out of 100 sessions that says something else. The question is can this be quantified or statistically identified how many sessions are needed to achieve a 75% decision hit ratio.

So if I do one session on a yes/no type of question I have a 55% chance of being right, but it would appear that if I do a hundred sessions on the same question, while my percentage of yes/no answers may stay at about 55% using the larger number of sessions does increase the odds and in Greg's case to the point of reaching 77% over time.

So lets say using a Z score where the standard would be assumed to be 55 to 45 in the case of 100 trys or sessions, is there a way to use this to identify the point at which using the majority of yes or no answers to statistically guarantee one a 75% probablity of being correct.

If I seem a bit obsessed with this, I am.

Gene
 

Rocheleh

New Member
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

I'll jump in a bit later, after I've gotten enough sleep, because in my present state I am so sleep deprived I might end up face down on my keyboard; therefore I'm not sure explaining statistics is a good idea. I just want to let you know that I have read your question, I have studied statistics, and I will try to give an educated answer... when I am coherent enough. :-X Prob'ly tomorrow but if not then the day after, definitely. (it's not hard but I'd rather not attempt anything right now that's more complicated than 2 + 2)

Till then I'll stick to short easy replies in other threads as well (I have just woken up after 1.5 hrs of sleep but that was SOOO not sufficient). I have had FIVE finals in seven days due to a database error. (I should have had two months to take them.) Sorry if I'm sounding too brash or rude in the other threads, too, in this state I am prone to jumping to conclusions. :eek:
 
X

xerophyte

Guest
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

Hello Gene,

>>Here is the basis of my question. Greg K. in his recent interview in the chat room gave an interesting statistic. Long term he found himself to be correct in any given ARV session 55% of the time and was correct 77% of the time in his actual decision making. His ability to get the higher actual decision-making came from doing multiple sessions on a given yes/no type question.

Yes that is my understanding and I'm sure there is no harm in saying that James Spottiswood has used Greg's results and in the process ratified them. The stats relating to LST described a statistically higher incidence at 13:30 and lower at 18:00 and there was some work done with correlating the Earths magnetic field and Solar wind into it.

I think so much is lost when trying to describe anything through e-mail that it can be difficult to make sense of the whole.

>>So from a pure mathematical basis can the following question be answered? Assuming that one would view the correct target 55% of the time, how many sessions would you need to do to get a 75% hit ratio?

This is a case in point; the statistics don't actually mean much because the individual trials are not independent. The displacement issue means that past success is not a guarantee of future success.

Greg believes that for him the past success IS a measure of future success so in other words he is saying that he is able to keep displacement under some kind of control.

>>So assuming a 55% hit rate how many sessions need to be done to statistically guarentee a 75% correct choice result.

This 55% statistic is just an across-the-board figure for RV sessions I think, I've exchanged a few hundred e-mails with Greg a long time ago, if you add up all his RV sessions then they weigh in at 55% in favour of success, but Greg doesn't seem to do that in an actual ARV prediction.

What he does is to give each session a score between 1- 4, the higher the score the highe rthe effect, it's the higher scores that provide the 75% degree of confidence. You have to remember that there is LESS likelihood of coincidence or displacement in the RV sessions that he scores with a 4

The number of sessions required to guarantee a 75% correct choice simply equates to the number of 4 scores that have accumulated. If I do 10 sessions I know I will have at least 1 session that I score with a 4, the problem is will that 4 give me a 75% prediction success? Another thing to consider is that a 4 for me is equivalent to a 2 or 3 for Greg, I know this because Greg has some fabulous session data on his web-site - but that's nothing to worry about it dependability of result that is important.
=========

A long time ago I did a bit of background checking into z-scores etc, and I'm including the following clip that is a reply to Angelas reply to my question where I asked her to define a z-score. Bear in mind that the z-score here is closely linked to percentage and that the really interesting figure is the p-score where .05 or better is generally accepted as significant i.e 95%.

> Angela: That would mean getting into statistics but here goes. A Z score computes
> the standard deviation that any given score is away from the mean. So the
> bigger the Z score the greater the effect. A Z score of .23 would be much
> smaller than one at 1.32.
>
> The p value estimates how significant that score is. The values generally
> used are .05, .01, . 001 etc. The smaller the p, the more significant it
> is. .05 is generally used in parapsychology research to indicate the
> beginning of significance. The probability of an event is the ratio of the
> number of outcomes including the event to the total number of possible
> outcomes. My score of .058 would have almost reached the first level of
> significance.

Hmm, maybe there is a better way of describing what the p values mean. When you flip a coin 100 times you would expect it to be approx. 50 times head and 50 times tail. When you get 40 times head and 60 times head you might wonder if something is wrong with your coin. Well the coin might be crooked but you also might have got this result by chance, and the coin is perfectly normal. It just happened this way.

The p score then tells you how likely it is that the coin is ok when it shows 40 times head and 60 times tails. If the p value is 0.3 then it tells you that the probability a good coin just did that by chance is 30%. The coin might still be crooked but you don’t know for sure. If p is smaller than 0.05 (or 5%) one might say that the coin is probably crooked. That’s called significant. And this 0.05 (or .01 or .001) is just convention.

BTW the more testing you do, the lower usually gets the p-value. If you throw the coin 10 times and get 4:6 p is somewhat close to 100%. If you throw the coin 1000 times and get 400:600 p is getting pretty close to 0%.

Problem is when you do too much testing then even very small differences of what you expect can turn out to be "significant" so you have then to use something different to estimate if you are onto something.
=========================================

The short answer to your question Gene IMO is that statistics can only be used within an ARV set-up if the remote viewer is able to see both potential feedbacks and through experience learn to choose the correct one.

The only other time you can use statistics is if there is only 1 image - which in the case of computer masking and judging through word labels is possible, in theory at least.

Best regards
 

Gene_Smith

Administrator
Staff member
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

Hi Xerophyte,

I really appreciate your detailed response on this and I think that the P Score might in fact be exactly the tool I’m looking for. Of course I will need to do more research on the matter and there’s always the possibility that Rocheleh is going to just hand me the simple formula I need. But if I’m reading this right a P Score of 0.25 would indicate a 25% probability that something happened by chance; the reverse being a 75% probability that it isn’t just chance and that is exactly what I’m seeking here.

You mentioned: “The short answer to your question Gene IMO is that statistics can only be used within an ARV set-up if the remote viewer is able to see both potential feedbacks and through experience learn to choose the correct one.”

Actually this is exactly what I do.. Now before anyone gasps in horror let me share that I went insane some time back, quit my job and did ARV sessions full time day in and day out for over two years, all the while doing a number of experiments, sticking with each long enough to make sure my result was significant and not just a fluke. One of the things I discovered in relation to displacement or result is it did not matter if I judged my own sessions, thus seeing both targets, or had someone else do it. In fact I had a few % points better results doing my own judging verses someone else in that it was ME who was at that target and it was, or should be me, who could best identify where I was.

In this instance I would be using the parameter that I would be having a binary decision, and therefore two targets possible per session and I do my own judging. It is my experience that I can get a correct answer day in and day out over time at a very minimum of 55% and in actuality over 60%. Now using that parameter, but without a rating system of how good the session was, ala Greg’s 1-4 rating; meaning I’m either confident enough to say I believe I went here or not. Then perhaps doing enough sessions wherein I get a P Score of 0.25 would yield my desired 75% accuracy rate.

Again I appreciate all the thoughts I’m getting on this.

As a total side issue, where you brought up Angela Thompson Smith, I ran into her the other day in the chat room and found her to be a really interesting person who had been involved in a number of things I was unaware of prior to chatting with her. I’m thinking she would make a good guest for one of our chat room interviews. If anyone has any thoughts on this please do let me know.

Gene Smith
 

larrywojo

New Member
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

Hi Gene,

Before I begin, I'd like to second having Angela Thompson Smith in a chat session. I think it would be a definite asset for all concerned.

Now, for the meat of the matter - as difficult as it might be for me to explain at the moment, I intuitively feel that what you are alluding to is do-able. At least from a mathematical / statistical point of view. I think we have the necessary parameters to plug into a formula. We just have to properly quantify them.

What I'll need, though, is a 'firming up' of descriptions for:

"Individual Session Hit Ratio" and "Correct Decision Making Ratio".

Right now, to me, the former is the resultant ratio of success vs. failure via Viewing, but the latter is a mystery to me. I could do any number of sessions, and yet still leave the final cash-outlay decision to the most arbitrary of decision making processes.

Just to recap, and to make sure we're of the same mind, I see it this way: I have three stocks in front of me: A, B, C. I ARV all three and come away with a 55% success rate overall (unknown at the time of Viewing, of course).

I then go back and View the hell out of stock B, looking to "nail it".

You want to know how many sessions it would take to View stock B in "nail it" mode to attain a success ratio of 75%, right?

(But how the hell you get a 77% "right buy" decision out of a constant 55% "maybe it's this one" ratio like Greg said he does, I'll never know. This boggles my mind. Must be something lost in translation).

I'd sure appreciate you're getting back to me on this, Gene. I figure, what with you coming up with the Target engine I use for my practice targets and all, I owe ya one.

Standing by,
larrywojo
 

larrywojo

New Member
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

P.S....

Unless... he's not using his entire sample (all of his viewings) from which to select his "buys"! (decisions leading to that 77% 'correct decision ratio').

last minute thoughts,
larrywojo
 
X

xerophyte

Guest
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

Hi Gene,

In quick response to that I would say Angela would be a great person to invite; and I'm sure she would agree to take part.
 

Gene_Smith

Administrator
Staff member
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

Hi Larrywojo,

Well let me begin by saying that it is another Gene who is responsible for that target engine.

Regarding: "Individual Session Hit Ratio" and "Correct Decision Making Ratio".
By individual session hit ratio I mean that if I’m doing one session on one question that has only two possible answers such as yes/no, buy/sell, up/down. So I’m saying that it is my experience that anyone can consistently get a correct answer 55% of the time over a period of time.

Now as to: “Correct Decision Making Ratio”. As one example if I simply did one session and made my decision off that and my session hit ratio as stated above was 55% correct over time then my decision making ratio would be 55% matching my session ration as I made one decision based on one session.

What Greg is doing, or at least I’m proposing is that by doing multiple sessions on the same question it should be possible to raise the probability of mechanically producing a higher % of correct decisions. So to recap I’m saying that if I have a hit ratio on any given single session of 55% and make my decision off one session my decision ratio of correct vs incorrect decisions will also be 55% assuming I mechanically follow making my decision off my session results. But if I have 100 sessions on the same question (as an example), that while my results may still be 55% correct overall, that the use of multiple sessions might/should indicate that whatever the 55 sessions out of my 100 done indicates such as buy or sell then the decision made should be correct more often than 55% and in my mind should increase according to an identifiable formula according to the overall number of sessions I do on any given target. Or to beat this horse just a bit more, should I do 1000 sessions and get 550 that said buy then I could be much more certain that buy would be a correct answer.

Gene (The other one)
 
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

Gene, Larry Wojo, and others...

This is a fascinating topic--one that is very complex but deserves to be examined more.

Although I am not familiar with Greg K.'s methodology, it is my guess that he is using the following concept from communication (information) theory: introduction of redundancy. I read about applying this concept to RV in the following two sources:

(1) The seminal paper by Harold (Hal) Puthoff and Russell Targ:

Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ. 1976. A Perceptual Channel for Information Transfer over Kilometer Distances: Historical Perspective and Recent Research. Proceedings of the IEEE, 64: 329-354. (as reprinted in the book, Mind at Large). See pages 20-22.

(2) The interesting source book on paranormal phenomena:

Hans J. Eysenck and Carl Sargent. 1993. Explaining the Unexplained. (see pages 30-32).

The paper by Puthoff and Targ goes into more theory than the book by Eysenck and Sargent.

Basically, communication (information) theory is about recognizing patterns (order). This is called the signal. It is our job to recognize the signal against the background noise.

Communication (information) theory and statistics are inexorably linked. This is obvious if you think about it: both are concerned with recognizing patterns ("information") in large samples.

My very crude understanding of introduction of redundancy is as follows. What one is trying to do is recognize a signal against background noise. The signal is a recognizable pattern; it is non-random. The noise, on the other hand, is largely random. Therefore, to increase your odds of recognizing the signal against the background noise, you should repeat the transmission containing the signal.

To help myself understand this concept, I visualize a "voice-print"--you know, one of those graphical depictions of the frequencies contained in a small sample of sound. If you have ever seen the voice-print of "white noise"--that is, a sample of sound that is completely random--you will see it is entirely uniform. It has no pattern whatsoever. On the other hand, a voice-print of a person speaking a few recognizable words has a definite discernable pattern.

I understand the concept of introduction of redundancy to mean the following (in the context of the voice-print): You repeat the transmission n times, counting the instances of each frequency. Because the noise is more or less random, while the frequencies representing the signal repeat, if you superimpose each voice-print on the others in an additive way, you will gradually see the signal emerge from the noise.

One of the first researchers to apply this concept to ESP was the Czech parapsychologist Milan Ryzl in his groundbreaking research with the Prague bank clerk, Pavel Stepanek. In one of his most famous experiments with Stepanek, Ryzl was able to successfully "transmit" a 15-digit number which had been converted to binary format. These "bits" were represented by small green or white cards which were placed in envelopes and presented to Stapanek to call. This procedure took 19,350 "calls" by Stepanek to perceive the 15-digit number correctly, at an average of nine seconds per call. This resulted in an actual transmission rate of 0.00029 bits per second. (Don't use this method if you have to call 911!).

(I often wondered how Stepanek tolerated the incredibly tedious sessions Ryzl put him through. It was only recently that I read that Stepanek suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder and actually craved the security of the well-defined, structured, repeatable laboratory setting.)

Gene, to get back to your original question: It is my guess that you would have to have some measure of the amount of "noise" in the RV "channel" in order to compute how many times you would have to repeat the transmission in order to raise the success rate a given amount. A good book on communication (information) theory would probably give the background mathematics.
 

larrywojo

New Member
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

Hi Gene,

Not to rain on your parade, but with the thought I've given this, it seems I constantly wind up in an endless loop.

The only variable of an consequence in any equation I come up with is the "Individual Session Hit Ratio". No matter how you alter the other constants to fit a formula, they are all still dependent on this single variable.

In a nutshell, the only thing that is going to contribute to any increase in overall accuracy, in this variable or the "Correct Decision Making Ratio", is a greater acurracy in any given group of Viewing Sessions.

I'd have to take a better look at Greg K's work to understand his numbers, although I am far from disputing his own results. There just must be something there that I am not understanding.

If anyone else can break this mental logjam, I for one, would be most appreciative!

Sorry,
larrywojo
 
B

bill161

Guest
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

>>One of the things I discovered in relation to displacement or result is it did not matter if I judged my own sessions, thus seeing both targets, or had someone else do it. In fact I had a few % points better results doing my own judging verses someone else in that it was ME who was at that target and it was, or should be me, who could best identify where I was.



Hi All

Just chiming in here. I have been reading your thread and have found it to be very interesting.

I strongly agree that you might do better to judge your own ARV sessions. As you say "it was ME that was at the site". True.

Personally I didn't like the way other people were judging. I just didn't think they were putting any time into it. At any rate that could also lead into personal difficulties and thereby defeat the whole purpose.

In the past I tried doing double sessions on the same target but it seemed the target signal got weaker the second time around. I have also tried (only once) having a second target for the same designation. Been a while but I remember it didn't go so well.

Greg also mentioned that having a large number viewers on a target didn't produce better results than just one viewer. Sounds true to me. Too many people to many ideas.

Just adding my two cents.

Bill
 

Entmu

New Member
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

How about viewing the wrong target to boost your accuracy? ???
 

larrywojo

New Member
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

Y'know...

I'm just sleep-deprived enough to go with that theory.

Seriously, if anyone recalls a certain Stock formula called something like "Black-Water" about seven or eight years ago, the formula predicated the need to purposely buy poorly performing stocks to offset the winning stocks purchased, in an effort to achieve the formula's desired "zero sum" goal.

By attaining that zero loss/zero gain baseline, the overall profit would be theoretically guaranteed, however slight. By running it as a fully devoted computerized program 24/7 in every global market, it had the effect that was described at the time as "Vacuuming up Nickles".

True, the profits were exceedingly small in individual trades, but magnified over global markets with literally thousands of decisions daily, I believe the the company that ran the program had a steady growth, last charted at over 18% annually (and only continued upwards, with hints of up to 30%; but the Russian loan guarantee default crushed the market, and bankrupted the company, if memory serves).

You have an ingeniously creative approach there, Entmu... I'd love to hear more.

Thanks,
larrywojo
 

Entmu

New Member
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

Sure Wedge, anything for you buddy. :)

For example, you flip a coin and want to know beforehand whether the outcome will be heads or tails.

The feedback times will be 9:00 p.m. and 9:05p.m. tomorrow.
You will perform two viewings of what you will see during each of those two feedback times. At 9:00p.m. you will see the picture corresponding to the winning outcome. And, at 9:05 p.m., you will view the picture corresponding to the losing outcome.

Take the drawings that you have made for the winning and losing outcomes and compare them to the pictures that correspond to those outcomes.

You may find that with this method your accuracy may increase substantially. Often I find that if I just view the winning outcome by itself, or the losing outcome by itself, it doesn't work so well. Viewing one by itself and having one drawing, that drawing may have elements of both outcome pictures. Having two drawings will increase accuracy if one picture resembles the drawing much more so than the other drawing. It works way better than making multiple viewings of the same picture. It adds a sort of complementary information for a complementary and binary outcome. It solves the problem of incorrectly viewing the wrong target. Such as in cases where the viewer is never allowed to see the losing target, but may make drawings similar to it. That or the problem that may come about by self-judging...

This method is not to view the losing picture alone. And this method will also work for a triple outcome event, or more, but keep it around 2-3 outcomes. E.g. will the next card from a standard poker deck come out with a value of Ace to 4, 5 to 9, or 10 to King? Three outcomes. Three Pictures, A, B, C. Requires three separate viewings. If the winning outcome is a King, you will view picture C, then another time, A, then B. The order doesn't matter, as long as you know which viewing time corresponds to which outcome.

10:00p Losing outcome
10:04p Winning outcome
10:08p Losing outcome

You can have an assistant tag the outcomes with the pictures randomly as well to avoid extraneous analysis.
Use a coin flip.

Flip a coin, it comes out heads. Heads means picture A, so put A at 10:00p. Next, flip the coin again, Heads =B, Tails =C. It comes out tails, so put picture C at 10:04p.

I've always thought outside the box ever since the accident. I was never like this before. I grew up in a stringent environment, never allowed to think outside of rules and regulations. Things always had to be done in one way. I hope you will all benefit from this method. And may you have high profits and awesome returns.
 

Entmu

New Member
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

And if someone wants to, please pass this info onto Greg K. It might get him interested enough in remote viewing again. That would be great.
 

larrywojo

New Member
Re: A serious ARV related question for the mathema

Outstanding, Entmu!

You pointed out the obvious, and did so quite creatively!

It's amazing that we all overlooked the inherent fallacy of a "binary" outcome... each and every target has an opposite, complementary outcome - the "failure".

Man... I can hear the ol' brain gears clicking as I write.

Owe ya one, buddy :D
larrywojo
 
Top