I wish you well in your endeavor.
I notice this is an "ESP" experiment based on your title, which means it is not by nature bound to the protocol/definition of RV (Remote Viewing). Still, the reason RV got popular is because its definition and protocol allowed a higher success rate than ESP done in other formats, so perhaps it's worth mentioning some of that. Also you refer to ARV which _is_ specific to RV.
If you are struggling to visualise any numbers, you might like to try associative remote viewing (ARV) instead.
Remote Viewing (vs. ESP which describes anything) of any type including ARV is "free response" by its primary nature. If you are limiting selection in some way to known options, it is not remote viewing, it is card choosing (or, in some respects, concept dowsing). (Well in your case, it is literally card choosing, humorously.) The success % of non-free-response psi work is vastly lower (and is not RV), so you might find better success with a free-response format.
The basic idea is to associate a particular image with each lottery number, and then to try to visualise before the draw which images you will view after the draw.
Image. Singular. There is just one target for one session, right. (Trivia: visualization is one sense of many. Works for visual people. Less so for others.)
For this project we will be using Tarot cards from the Rider-Waite deck as our target images, as follows:
1 - 20: the first 20 cards from the MAJOR ARCANA
21 - 29: the suit of CUPS
30: The WORLD
31 - 39: the suit of SWORDS
40: The FOOL
41 - 49: the suit of PENTACLES
After the draw we will study the cards represented by the drawn lottery numbers. But can you see now which cards you will study later?
1. This is not remote viewing by definition, since it is not free response. It fits within an ESP experiment but not within what would properly be called RV or ARV, fwiw.
2. This is not performed within an appropriate RV protocol even for ARV, because the viewer is informed to the 'target' in advance. "Visualizing and guessing which of some known options you'll see later" is not remote viewing at all. Do more in-protocol RV and you should naturally begin to understand the difference.
3. This violates a basic ARV protocol: the viewer should in the end get feedback only on the target. Not the unmanifest potentials. By spec'ing the list up front, that's impossible.
4. You are missing the primary point of associative remote viewing. There are two primary reasons to use ARV:
a) to assign a good quality target for free response psi to something which is a lousy target because it is abstract or whatever.
So for example, numbers are classic 'abstract' targets. Even if the viewer does accurate describe them, how that comes across to an individual may be a unique thing, and the judge is unlikely to understand and translate that well. ARV lets you make targets into decent targets known to be acquired by decent viewers a decent % of the time -- like a physical location, event or thing for example. It's much more likely a judge will understand even symbolic data for 'mountain' vs. for '17'.
In your example, all your targets are pretty much abstracts, as tarot cards; 'representation' targets. Remote Viewing can make anything a target, but if you want to have success in evaluating the viewers' sessions (the worst part of ARV by far), the closer to traditional, ideal targets as possible the better. Nouns: person, places, things. And to a lesser degree events.
b) to assign a diverse set of options which are very different from one another to something which is otherwise very similar.
So for example, you could use ordinary viewing for sports games such as baseball. But no matter which team wins, both are inherently part of the context of the target, and viewers are likely to get elements of both in the data which is very confusing to try and evaluate. So ARV can be used to make the 'potentials' -- the target which will be shown to the viewer as feedback for their session -- far more diverse, as well as more gestalt-level, e.g. a river vs. a mountain vs. a person. All you need is to be able to tell them apart in session data.
In your example, all your targets are tarot cards. By its nature this is like making all the targets 'nearly' the same thing.
This is SO much like making the targets the same thing, I am tempted to think you haven't done any real viewing. It doesn't take very much experience evaluating sessions let alone creating them, to realize the fundamentals noted in this post. You would benefit from some real world experience so I encourage you to try it. It might make your experiments with others all the better.
If you merely wished to suggest that people could 'associate' one thing with another thing, I'd leave the ARV/Associative Remote Viewing terminology out of it. Card-guessing association is not associative remote viewing.
What you are really doing here is attempting to "do the viewing within the peak period of Local Sidereal Time, as analyzed by Spottiswoode et al." Some viewers do use this although more back in the day when this was first found.
The dominant association with astrology (that during this LST a certain star in Libra is present) is a grafting-on from others, not that this makes it any less interesting of course. Using astrology as the focus reminds me of the studies of the MARS effect in sports.
I actually thought the Local Sidereal Time of an individual viewer (based on longitude) coincided with having the constellation Virgo directly overhead (and the Center of the Galaxy, Sirius A, behind that), but this is not something I ever really paid attention to in astrological terms so I don't really know. I suppose no matter what "theory" related to LST is used for the dominant focus, it's all the same really, we could just as arbitrarily choose a star or constellation with a certain degree of angle to the viewer as well as what was overhead.
All experimentation is good.
RV experimentation that fits within the definition of RV, and within the protocol of RV, is cooler to me.
Even ESP experiments are cool though. Please keep us updated on your success.
Best,
PJ
