• TKR Chat Monday nights: 8pm PT 11pm ET 4am GMT here in the chat room. Also: Mission tasking has resumed in the dojo. Tasks close 7pm Monday nights.

Next President of the USA?

sharp

New Member
To be "completely fair", there were still a dozen Republican candidates, and three Democrats at the time Alex made his prediction. Of course some had a lot less chance than others, but by all standards, Trump was a longshot to win the nomination, let alone the presidency. I thought Alex was off base, right up until election night. He predicted what the experts could not. Like his style and method or not, he deserves some credit in my book.
 
It wasn't 50/50 when Alex predicted a Trump win when there were about 17 Republican candidates. There was a 5% chance statistically that Trump would win the nomination of the Republican Party. The betting odds were probably better than that since I imagine some of the candidates were even bigger long shots (e.g. Santorum, Gilmore, Jindal, and Pataki).

Then too, as we know, Trump wasn't favored to beat Hillary but through the electoral college has become the President-Elect. His method worked well and like others I give him credit for that.

Jon

BTW, the specifics of the method may be new (focus on buildings, I believe - but I haven't reviewed this thread for a while) but the method of viewing the outcome of a situation or event (binary included) directly is not new. For example, TDS used it in its work. Don and I used it in Aurora RV Group starting around 2005 - viewing the activity or emotion associated with a particular outcome.

Note: i see Sharp just posted while I was typing this.
 

fletch

New Member
Jon K said:
It wasn't 50/50 when Alex predicted a Trump win when there were about 17 Republican candidates. There was a 5% chance statistically that Trump would win the nomination of the Republican Party. The betting odds were probably better than that since I imagine some of the candidates were even bigger long shots (e.g. Santorum, Gilmore, Jindal, and Pataki).

Then too, as we know, Trump wasn't favored to beat Hillary but through the electoral college has become the President-Elect. His method worked well and like others I give him credit for that.

Jon

BTW, the specifics of the method may be new (focus on buildings, I believe - but I haven't reviewed this thread for a while) but the method of viewing the outcome of a situation or event (binary included) directly is not new. For example, TDS used it in its work. Don and I used it in Aurora RV Group starting around 2005 - viewing the activity or emotion associated with a particular outcome.

Note: i see Sharp just posted while I was typing this.
No Jon [and Sharp], look at the second post if you need more confirmation. It was from PJ and said "Technically the 'answer' is still blind but at this point it's basically a forced-choice from about 4."

That would have been Sanders, Clinton, Trump and Cruz.

We all new Cruz wasn't going to get the nomination so that left it between Clinton, Sanders and Trump. Polls actually favored Clinton and Trump and whether we like it or not, no one was in the news more than Trump and no one was more crude and divisive.

He kinda stood out from the crowd. A LOT...

There were also numerous "predictions" being made at that same time stating Clinton had it while others stated Trump had it. It was a 50/50 shot and to me isn't that convincing by itself.

Any of us can flip a coin and be right about half the time.

Can Alex make these predictions? Hell I don't know. I just know I need something a bit more than a one off and the scant information I've seen so far.
 
Fletch,

Alex posted his prediction on Jan 29, 2016 and my impression is that he did the work earlier than that, as did a coworker.
On that date there were still 11 Republican candidates in the race plus 2 Democratic ones. So from a statistical point of view Alex had 1 chance in 13 of being correct.

It was a wild campaign throughout and on Jan 29 it was not at all clear that Trump and Clinton would become the nominees. As a casual media watcher, to me Sanders had a decent chance and Cruz, Rubio and Kasich still had a chance, to varying degrees. So from an odds viewpoint, it was a "forced choice" from about six candidates. Still not 50/50. We disagree.

Re: Can Alex make predictions?
I encourage Alex - and have in the past - to publish some stats. Otherwise we really don't know how successful this method is. But it seems Alex isn't interested in doing this, which is unfortunate.

Jon
 

fletch

New Member
Jon K said:
Fletch,

Alex posted his prediction on Jan 29, 2016 and my impression is that he did the work earlier than that, as did a coworker.
On that date there were still 11 Republican candidates in the race plus 2 Democratic ones. So from a statistical point of view Alex had 1 chance in 13 of being correct.

It was a wild campaign throughout and on Jan 29 it was not at all clear that Trump and Clinton would become the nominees. As a casual media watcher, to me Sanders had a decent chance and Cruz, Rubio and Kasich still had a chance, to varying degrees. So from an odds viewpoint, it was a "forced choice" from about six candidates. Still not 50/50. We disagree.

Re: Can Alex make predictions?
I encourage Alex - and have in the past - to publish some stats. Otherwise we really don't know how successful this method is. But it seems Alex isn't interested in doing this, which is unfortunate.

Jon
Perhaps therein lies the difference in our opinions re: the political aspect of the conversation; I argue politics on a daily basis and for hours at a time therefore I am extremely up to date on the topic. It may not be relevant to the conversation but my "exuberance" on the topic had me banned from numerous sites in the past.

I have to also mention that even if there was little to no knowledge of how many candidates were in the race, at all times Trump was an oddball and completely new to the equation. He for fact stood out and therefore had to be memorable.

For me, anyone at all that claims they can predict the outcome of any future event with regularity is an extraordinary claim and I would require extraordinary evidence that, that is the case. To date, I haven't seen it.

It doesn't matter if you rate this event 50/50 like I did or you gave it a 100% hit,, it's still a single event.

If the man does have this gift great! He has the opportunity to prove it beyond a doubt. For me, that hasn't happened yet.
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Gents: I predicted the 2012 election results correctly using the exact same technique and I have posted it in the thread....

*"Publish stats?" How about this for stats... I viewed election results twice... correctly viewed both targets. 2 for 2.

** "Great gift".... not likely... anyone can do it if they have a good viewing technique and reasonable level of expertize.

*** "need more than a one off" pay attention.. please. I posted 2012 election work in these same thread...

**** "viewing an activity or an emotion" is too subjective... viewing an architectural feature is far easier to analyze. i.e. 2012 does it look like the Whitehouse or not..

****** ALL THIS discussion is silly..... like I have been suggesting for years ....JUST TRY IT... it's a 8 minute commitment!

WHY IS everyone so reluctant to just try it???????

It is so simple... pick any binary future events. formulate a cue that directs you attention to some architectural feature that is connected to one or the other event occurs....
 

fletch

New Member
What you're don't seem to be comprehending Alex is anyone can say I predicted that. We're then faced with the situation of do we believe you or not. An example would be me going all the way back to 1969 and claiming I predicted all the POTUS's forwards. Would you believe me? You would be a fool if you did.

I think I've already established I don't buy into things unless they're proven to my satisfaction. 1 proven prediction doesn't do that. If there are other advanced predictions of yours here in the forum, my apologies. I overlooked them.

In order to prove your predictions beyond any doubt is to publish your prediction/s in advance where we can all see it. Right here in the forum would be a nice spot since that would settle all the arguments. We're all in agreement you were spot on with Trump,,, so far,,, but it takes more than one prediction. A verifiable pattern is needed.

[For those that don't know, Trump isn't the POTUS yet. He has the majority votes, not the electoral votes. That will take place January the 6th. when the electoral votes are counted by Congress. To be fair to Alex, I believe the majority vote is what he may have predicted.]

An example of a pattern would be, for instance, the next [whoever] will be the winner in the next football game between [whoever]. Then we wait and see.

And it doesn't need to be football. It can be any subject we can verify at a future date.

For me to be satisfied I would ask for 7 out of 10 in any subject/s we can all verify. I for one am more than satisfied with that degree of accuracy.

As for me personally trying your method,,, yes I did. Repeatedly. Obviously it didn't work or I misunderstood something. Never have I been able to predict anything with an acceptable degree of accuracy beyond the next card in a deck and according to several people right here in the forum it's nothing to be exceptionally overjoyed with.

To put it simply, you're asking that we fool our brains if I understood correctly. I'm well aware of that philosophy and it isn't the first time I've tried it.

As I stated, it didn't work for me. Others may have a degree of success, if so I for one would like to see their input on their success level as well as see how well they do "live" if they're willing.

If you or anyone wish to be "tested" ok. If no one does that's ok too.
 
Alex,

I guess you'll never get it. Stats matter. You ain't got them. Until you do, you just have one, two, a few anecdotal results.

Viewing an emotion is subjective but not "too subjective" - doing so was an important part of successful client work done by a group I was in (TDS). It worked. Repeatedly.

You're always ready with a quick putdown, Alex...all this "silly discussion". Right. I guess you'll never get THAT either. It's one reason I seldom post any more on threads you start, and I'm pretty sure others feel the same way. Who needs it?

There's more I could say. I'll leave it there. Over and out.

Jon

P.S. Fletch, 10 events is not enough to be statistically valid. Rule of thumb is around 20 to 30 events to even begin to consider it stat significant.
 

fletch

New Member
Perhaps I should have elaborated a bit more. 7 out of 10 ON AVERAGE. Not just ten tests and that's the end of it.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Aw come on you guys! I definitely agree there's a lot of issues in RV related to this, directly and indirectly, but on the whole this is about stuff that is INTERESTING and FUN!

Life should be fun. It should! ;D

I volunteer that such discussions would go better if a few of you were a little more socially diplomatic with each other at times. ::) :D


My own thoughts about all this in no particular order:

* - I think if someone makes a prediction for anything publicly like here, at least there is a record of it, and that deserves some credit for being right if it turns out that way. It doesn't make them a guru but it means they did something publicly prior to the date which is good. As a field we are doing a lot better than we used to be on this point.

I love public discussion about future events -- genuine "interest" in "wanting to know" is a lot of what drives viewing, internal to peoples' psychology, and that's a good thing!

* - As pointed out in this thread, working completely outside blinding protocol is an issue in viewing, since it's outside protocol, but the "future" element moves it back into blinding. Of course that leads to debate when it's merely "forced choice" of two options rather than a true unknown or at least more options.

STILL: observe here that the methodology was attempting free-response data in a structured viewing format for the forced-choice result. This is a good place to point out that there are a lot of ways to structure one's approach to psi, both within and without various points of protocol.

While certain things are "best practice" or "most vs. least credited" within 'Remote Viewing' (add Official Term sign there), still, RV is not the only way to do psi, and these things are all the individual choice of the viewer. We are still individuals I hope.

We all have our own way of framing things. I would call Alex's target-informed approach "intuitive work using a remote viewing structural free-response method for forced-choice results." I don't normally go on about protocol for any future target because I feel the future by its nature is a sort of blinding and feedback arrangement of its own.

* - One debate here is not about ARV methods, it's about whether to use ARV or regular RV. As I've been pointing out (I think it's on firedocs FAQ from at least '02 if not sooner), most things you can use ARV for, you can also use RV for if you just want to approach it that way -- or vice-versa. This is simply a question of tasking protocol, and that's a personal decision of the viewer/manager. It's not any more or less RV for doing it one way or another, in the case of the tasking.

* True, one result might not be as impressive as 20; but so what, you gotta start somewhere right? Sometimes people work alone, or only occasionally, or only choose to share a small part of what they do publicly, so they are not going to have a whole edifice of official trials like organized group activities tend to spawn. Sometimes they choose to work one way or another. That is not worse, it is merely different.

(As far as this place goes, TKR is a "Remote Viewing and Dowsing" project -- it spans both free-response and forced-choice psi, as well as other forms of "psi" simply because viewers and dowsers tend to be interested and participative in other approaches as well. The two approaches (free response and forced-choice) CAN be used together creatively in personalized intuitive efforts like Alex is doing. And if it works for him, awesome! That's what matters in the end!)

At this point I'm a lot less focused on what people choose to do -- now that the field at large finally got a clue about tasking/blinding/feedback protocol actually mattering (well much of it did, anyway) -- than I am on focusing on whatever people choose to do and whether it works for them. That's the metric!

So, you know, you gotta do it in order to see. And if it's fun for you, OR if it has good accuracy for you (both valid reasons to do something, though completely different things), then have at it, have fun!

Talk is great when it provokes thinking and communication -- but while we ponder the armchair philosophy about it all, let's not overlook the bottom line: a person predicted something, with some variation on intuitive/psi practice, and they turned out to be accurate* about a future event (which is a form of blinding).

That's what matters!

I was going to say, "results trump theory every time" but then I realized that's an accidental pun given the current target. Ha! Ha! Ahem...

But... well, they do.

PJ

* Caveat on Accuracy: until the news media finally manages to incite our next civil war or until the new President is sworn in, whichever comes first, we will not be 100% certain of the winner. For now however we are assuming DJT will be the 45th USA President.
 

fletch

New Member
PJ, I held off on replying to you to see what input others had if any.

First and foremost, I don't think any of us are questioning whether or not Alex made a call that turned out to be accurate,,, so far. Since this however is a single prediction we have no idea if it's an actual prediction or a s.w.a.g.

Without a track record all that anyone can truly claim is they made a s.w.a.g. which any and all of us do on a regular basis. Sometimes we're right and sometimes we're wrong.

A simple Google search would show that numerous "gifted" people made several "predictions". Some were right while some were wrong and none of them had a verifiable track record.

What is being asked is for this technique to be put to the test by anyone who wishes to put it to the test. I've tried it on my own numerous times with no impressive results and as I stated I've tried it in the past as well as the present. I can do just as well if not better using my own methods.

That however does not mean the technique does not work, only that it doesn't work for ME.

I for one would welcome anyone to make their prediction here and then wait and see but,,, I for one would prefer they choose a topic less volatile than politics, at least for now.

This in essence is all that was asked for. Well, almost. Jon I think was rather blunt on all of that...
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Fleck:

You are a hard man to reach....

I've explained several times now that I have only "predicted" two elections..so far.

2012 Obama and now 2016 Trump. Both have been posted, Both were correct. I used the same application on both.

*you say that you tried "it" several times with "no impressive results".

Fleck the election is over... the results are in. I'm not sure that really understand how to use this "election application". First of all it has to be used on a "future" event not a pasted event.

You'll need to wait another 4 years.

Worth correcting..... *This is only an "application" not a technique. Viewers that have solid RV skills and employ proven techniques could successfully use this application.

Sounds like you may need a bit more practice and perhaps a different technique?

*However it's very good that at least you tried, however please explain what you election did you tried this application on?


Hope that helps... Alex
 

fletch

New Member
Correct me if I'm wrong Alex but it seems to me you have stated in another thread that you use this same "application" to predict games such as football. You have also messaged me and directed me to a web page with lists of games that you claim you predicted even though they appeared to be after the fact. Now you are saying this "application" you have described is only for Presidential elections?

How many have I gotten correct? Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan [both times], Bush [Sr], Clinton [both times], Bush [Dubya, once] and Obama [both times]. No "applications" needed...

I can't say more without this turning into a political thread so I'll refrain.
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Fleck:

Please explain how you tried to use this technique.

Perhaps I can help make adjustments.

Secondly: I have an application I use with sports wagering. I used a different application with election results.
 

Mycroft

Active Member
PJ said:
* Caveat on Accuracy: until the news media finally manages to incite our next civil war or until the new President is sworn in, whichever comes first, we will not be 100% certain of the winner. For now however we are assuming DJT will be the 45th USA President.
Oh, PJ wish you would have couched that in more positive terms, I know you were being realistic. Can you hear that tic tic tic? Both of those events could be triggered. My concern is if only one comes true and it is the wrong one, then the Republic is still lost. At the very least it will be a very one sided affair and no longer a Democracy nor a Republic. Today is Dec 20, one milestone down one to go and the MSM is in full frenzy.

My personal opinion is that nothing is as it seems, but when faced with the options left to them, the shadow government and the powers that be allowed the only outcome that would keep the continuity of the Republic (at that time). I still vote with an absentee ballot but I'm no fool, it is purely a feel good gesture.

Mycroft
 

fletch

New Member
AlexDiC said:
Fleck:

Please explain how you tried to use this technique.

Perhaps I can help make adjustments.

Secondly: I have an application I use with sports wagering. I used a different application with election results.
Thx but no thx.
 

fletch

New Member
AlexDiC said:
well Flake.... all I can do is offer...

I guess your doomed to keep on having "no impressive results"....
Why pray tell would I request "help" from someone whose only forte' seems to be insults? If I wanted lessons in trolling I might contact you. Since I don't want or need lessons in trolling, I have no reason to contact you. Good day Alex. I see no reason to further communicate with you. I after all do know where I can find spoiled 7 year olds...
 
Top