• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • The warm heart and beautiful soul of viewer Elizabeth Ruse, Australia, has left our lonelier world. We will miss her so very much. - PJ
  • TKR's dojo at dojopsi.com/tkr/ is open.

How to view today's winning game

#21
Happy to answer any questions... What questions do you have?

**I just ask that you first try a few sets. In all likelihood you will find..... that it simply works and may not have any questions. In the unlikely event you do have questions... just ask... I'm happy to help..
 
#22
Hi Alex, I think I will try it soon. Do you think we can adapt the cue for financial markets? With the stock market, office buildings all look the same :)
 
#23
Snorble

There is all sorts of RV applications that wait to be developed. Only limited by a viewers hard work, skills and execution.

That is exactly my biggest criticism of the ARV people.

I am 100% confident that ARV is flawed and there are people that continue to promote it... I understand the attraction... it's a sexy idea, but it does not work.. but for a few percent advantage if it's worked in a large skilled group...So it sucks the community dry of it's talent. Grinds it down to it's present flat lining state.

Jon says, Marty is most active in the ARV stuff... I remember Marty and I would talk for hours and Marty would say that only he and I had groups that were active... And that my group was well ahead of him. He was right! and we discovered without any doubt ARV is flawed.

As one example. ARV uses photos, which are taken years, or months earlier. They are then associated with the outcome of the future event... such as the "winner of the next MLB game"... When a viewer views the target photo then literally go to the moment that this target photo is taken say 1992.. Then the next question is "winner of the next mlb game"... the question is ... the next game after the target photo in 1992? or the game that shall play this afternoon which is what the viewer only THINKS they are viewing?

I would argue that a viewer is viewing the next game in 1992. See, this accounts for the 60% hit rate. 6 of 10 times a dominate team will beat the other team whether its today or in 1992. the viewer can NOT determine the difference. they have completed a great set, yet it turns out to produce the wrong result...









When viewers should be developing great direct RV applications that actually work, building out excitement and expertize.
 
#24
snor: You need to develop an application that deals with a 1) limited pool of chooses and you could as example view the 2) company's primary product or service..

I did this with the 30 Dow Jones companies that covers requirement 1) limited pool.

I them worked a cue with optimal or highest short term increase in stock price (you can work better language) their primary product or service.

I recall I sketched a gas station. (I had no idea what companies where in the Dow 30) Exxon.. was the match. bought Exxon and it was one of the few stocks that increased significantly during that period.

I suppose you could have some compile a lists of 30 stocks assign it a TRN and view it the same way...

See the important thing is ... there are countless applications.. with direct RV..
 
#25
Developing direct RV applications is such a better focus then the "sucking sound" ARV is having on the community.

Then there are those that mindlessly defense ARV... when the proof of it's flaws are "staring them in the face".. and then there are those that have invested too much in ARV, offer classes and such they aren't able to be objective.

ARV has been around for a few decades... it has seen worsening results over time. In the early day ARV did produce results.. I benefited from those times. I made a ton of dough... which motived me to perfect the skill.. I ultimately concluded that novelty was one of the most powerful forces in the universe. but once novelty was extinguished ... and it always does.. the results will also fall off, which is exactly what it has done... there are no amount of "Wild Cards" or in my case "15 Rules" that can make ARV produce at a significant level.
 
#27
Folks,

I have replied to Alex's points about ARV before...in detail...I am not going to reply to many more, possibly any more. Enough said!

I suggest anyone interested in the subject to look into ARV's history and in particular the research and statistics that are available, and base your conclusions on the fact that are available.

I am 100% confident that ARV is flawed and there are people that continue to promote it... I understand the attraction... it's a sexy idea, but it does not work.. but for a few percent advantage if it's worked in a large skilled group...So it sucks the community dry of it's talent. Grinds it down to it's present flat lining state.
As I've said before, there are numerous instances of ARV working, resulting in substantial sums won. That is not my definition of "does not work". There are a lot of new people in the field, due in part to the interest in ARV, but also other developments - live videos of sessions, new books, some new research...There is project work, some client work, practice, videos, research...'Reports of the death of RV and ARV are greatly exaggerated.'

Jon says, Marty is most active in the ARV stuff... I remember Marty and I would talk for hours and Marty would say that only he and I had groups that were active... And that my group was well ahead of him. He was right! and we discovered without any doubt ARV is flawed.
I asked Marty if he wanted to take the time to respond to your posts, Alex. He said he did not. Enough said!
I will say that APP has had more than a few groups actively doing ARV for several years now, from 8 to 10 currently.

As one example. ARV uses photos, which are taken years, or months earlier. They are then associated with the outcome of the future event... such as the "winner of the next MLB game"... When a viewer views the target photo then literally go to the moment that this target photo is taken say 1992.. Then the next question is "winner of the next mlb game"... the question is ... the next game after the target photo in 1992? or the game that shall play this afternoon which is what the viewer only THINKS they are viewing?
I could say more about this paragraph but to focus on one essential point: The claim is that the cue reads "winner of the next mlb game". That may be how Ed Dames' viewers do it, using the word "next", but it is far from universal. You can specify the date of the game, and that is often done. There is no "next" in play. In fact, I used cues like that in a 2006 series which resulted in 9 hits in a row and the winning of a lot of money, with 3 viewers taking part.

I would argue that a viewer is viewing the next game in 1992. See, this accounts for the 60% hit rate. 6 of 10 times a dominate team will beat the other team whether its today or in 1992. the viewer can NOT determine the difference. they have completed a great set, yet it turns out to produce the wrong result...
What evidence is there for the claim that the viewer is viewing "the next game in 1992"? Or to the claim that 60% of the time a dominant team will beat the other team? Without any studies or even informal evidence to back this up, it is just a guess. Also, as noted, we and others have achieved rates greater than 60%. Success rates in that range (60-65%) do often occur, true. But it has been surpassed, more than a few times and in long trials too.
 
#28
AlexDiC said:
ARV has been around for a few decades... it has seen worsening results over time. In the early day ARV did produce results.. I benefited from those times. I made a ton of dough... which motived me to perfect the skill.. I ultimately concluded that novelty was one of the most powerful forces in the universe. but once novelty was extinguished ... and it always does.. the results will also fall off, which is exactly what it has done... there are no amount of "Wild Cards" or in my case "15 Rules" that can make ARV produce at a significant level.
ARV can still produce good results, very good results.

A little history...Yes, Alex did win a car and make some real dough using ARV. I've seen the stubs and photos of the car, so I'm convinced he did. This was when Alex was posting here on TKR for months saying that he had a method with ARV that was 100% successful. Yes, 100% successful.

But since then, since novelty has been "extingusihed", others have made, and still do make, real money using ARV. Somehow Alex can't acknowledge that.

"Novelty in the universe" - the software that Joe McMoneagle has used in very successful ARV does not make use of novelty. The software used is anything but that (I know because I ran several series with it). Somehow Alex can't acknowledge that either.

ARV failed for Alex and the "small Army" so he then said, ARV won't work, cannot work, is fatally flawed! He continues in the same vein here, asserting that he has a great new method, one that is 100% accurate (if done properly).

Now maybe, despite all this, the method is good - I hope people try it and see. And keep some stats on it too!

Meanwhile, we're certainly going to keep at it at APP, and keep our stats as well.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
#29
Well, to be fair, I had to walk away from ARV long ago because it just drove me out of my f'ing mind. It wasn't the viewing, it was the human analysis, which was ridiculously fraught with problems for me even with a clean protocol (viewing was fine, no diff than any other viewing).

I did get all the waxing-on about Dr. May's software, but a] I did not HAVE his software -- I had his earlier straight RV software I enjoyed but not the ARV stuff and b] I guess the humans-can't-do-this-part-right element kind of turns me off. I mean I find it intellectual-armchair interesting, just not personally. It has always been the human experience part of RV that drew me to it.

I still find ARV interesting, and like already posted, it's had results -- limited in scope, limited in duration, and requiring usually a lot of people, agreed. Still they are results. Nothing gets better or moves forward without proactive effort.

*

(As a note: I think Alex was just saying the successful (ARV) effort involved novelty, which is one of the popular and probable theories about RV and certainly ARV; not that May's analysis software does. Different thing entirely.)

*

I see the frustration point is that there are not many viewers who will view actively in the field so the more of them that get pulled into a given focus, the less there are who will do anything else. There's probably something to this, but many years past the problem was finding anybody to view anything period unless it was egregiously out of protocol, so at least the problems are getting better...!

Doesn't make them not-problems though, I guess.

*

I'm all for direct RV but I think it's important the protocol be carefully considered because some of these references make it sound more like dowsing at the back as much or more than viewing at the front.

Over the years I've seen a lot of efforts where a group thought they were doing X, but about 85% of X was actually the psi of one or two people in the group "interpreting" or "choosing" based on what the group was doing. Now if that's what they want to do -- I mean we can do this dance however we like, right, what matters is "what works" -- then that's fine, but as they say in business that's really not scalable, you've just bottlenecked it at those two people.

In which case what's the point of the others, aside from making a little on the fly complex zener collection of sessions for a couple of forced-choice evaluators.

PJ
 
#30
PJ wrote:
(As a note: I think Alex was just saying the successful (ARV) effort involved novelty, which is one of the popular and probable theories about RV and certainly ARV; not that May's analysis software does. Different thing entirely.)
Different thing entirely? I don't get your point.

Alex had written:
I ultimately concluded that novelty was one of the most powerful forces in the universe. but once novelty was extinguished ... and it always does.. the results will also fall off, which is exactly what it has done...
Ed May's software was of course novel to those trying it for the first time. However, Joe has done numerous sessions with the software, which features a pool of 300 targets. It has long since lost novelty to him. There are no surprises, no new element, the same photos. He even knows the categories (which it is better one does not know). Whatever novelty there was, has long since disappeared. But he has continued to have good success with it - from what Joe and Ed May have told us. Which is why I cited Ed May's software in relation to novelty.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
#31
Yeah, Joe however may be the linebacker of viewing; he's an awesome educator and certainly an inspiration but if I'm waiting for the average viewer to show his degree of skill and decades of experience in order to succeed in the same way I'm probably going to be here a while. I have quite a bit of experience in both my own solo viewing off pools and seeing people view on target pools small and large and he is definitely even farther above the norm in his ability to deal with that than he is on viewing in general because target pool AOL is genuinely hell.

Novelty, this topic isn't new (no pun intended). The reference is to the entire team but especially all the viewers, and how trying new things often has positive effects that may not last indefinitely. This isn't just viewing, this is present in lots of areas of life and business and sociology. This is referring to "the human experience" not to any point of process, protocol or software.

Your comparison to Joe is the only ref that validly works as a comparison, and you're right, the fact that he does it despite a rather horrid lack of novelty proves it CAN be done; whether it will be and by how many is another story. And there may be other mitigating factors that he has learned over the decades that help compensate that others may or may not have.

Anyway the novelty effect -- and its wearing off -- doesn't seem controversial to me, I've always considered this a given. It's only controversial I guess if this is being used as the allegedly sole reason that ARV ever worked in the first place. That part could definitely be more easily debated since it's probably not.

PJ
 
#33
ARV initially works because viewers have good skills, techniques and novelty. There is also absolutely no question that attention goes to novelty. As example that's why targets that have diagonals, which are unique in nature, are acquired more easily. Also, target that have intense emotions, activities or simply wildly interesting are also acquired more easily. No one would disagrees with this! It's basic.

So combine good technique, good skill level and novelty and a viewer can success using ARV... If any of these elements are missing or are downgraded for whatever reason... ARV fails to produce accurate results. A good viewer will likely hit a target but it will be completely random..

There is a process. a painful process.... I went thru it. I was downright depressed that after 4-5 years.... when I finally had to be honest, that I couldn't reproduce good ARV results...despite a dozen rules or "wild cards" designed to prop up a flawed process. It took me several months to recover and start all over again..

Isn't it interesting the vast amount of experienced viewer have abandoned ARV years ago.
 
#34
AlexDiC said:
PJ> after a viewer completes a set. Simply determine which home teams you have in your cue and google images of each and match the viewers work with the best fit... It may sound difficult... but it isn't! it's obvious ... and should it NOT be obvious than pass...

If a viewer does a good job... the answer pops out... clear as day...

See examples: http://rv4real.blogspot.com/
Unfortunately the blog on this link seems to be removed. Could you please post the latest updated link?

My training is from Ed Dames' videos. But your cue format is unfamiliar. Would you recommend any source to learn more about your technique of direct RV (instead of ARV) and your cue format?

Thank you for your posts! ;D
 
#35
Mr. Nice Guy:

The cue format is unfamiliar because I'm the source and it works perfectly well.

Contact me directly and I would welcome your questions... Alex
 
#38
Here is the Cue that I use:

"Start with the National League MLB teams + next optimal winning home team = view the most recognizable exterior architectural feature of that winning home team team's facility"

This "KEY" is to cue up a well defined, relatively small group of blind targets. First "National MLB league". Second "home teams" and Third "winning teams" (clearly! don't check the schedule, you need to be blind) That's the "limited defined group" BTW... there is no way you could know what home teas from the national league at playing tonight.. unless your you just happen to know that your home that you follow is be playing tonight. In that case switch to the American League to avoid it..

I use "next" so you need to do this a few hours before the games start.

I use "optimal" to let the source pick the optimal team. (ie. could be that the team facility is simply the easiest to recognize it's architectural features or could be the team that has the greatest return or any combination that the source determined optimal.

I use "winning" because that' my ultimate target.

I use "home team" and "home facility" again creates a limited blind pool so that you have a chance to identify the target easily.

I targeting the "most recognizable exterior architectural feature" so I know where to look and your RV sketches HAVE TO BE CLEAR & OBVOIUS.

You should produce clear obvious sketch of a stadium .. go to the schedule ... pick out the games and look at the stadiums that are playing games tonight and find your match.. That home team is your target/winner. (in this example) the National League, the home team stadiums (where the game is played).

Good luck... always worked for me..
 
#39
Nearly one hundred people read this post in the last few days.

So weird.. not one comment. The silent community?

Boring.. no discussion what so ever..

Remote viewing seems a bit sleepy tjese days.....
Used to be so exciting to exchange ideas. Learn... explore,,, expand one's skills. Go in the field and make magic.... Does days are over.

Only thing left for you all is to go to the annual conference and hear the same stories from 1970s..