Perdicting Future Events

AlexDiC

New Member
Jon K. Sorry it did not work out for you. You can't expect to know what we are doing now from two years ago when you dropped out? For your unsuccessful story there are a solid core of dedicated viewers that stay in the group, worked sessions every weekday and have successful stories. They wouldn't have stayed if we where not succeeding.

This has been and continues to be a work in progress. So when you "dropped out", you can only be commenting on old work and old procedures that have long since been modified. You should look at the posts... the evidence is right there.

Unfortunately your style of RV work was one that I never could do justice with. I was never able to really extract any useful data from your work.

It only natural that the process that we use now has progressed well past that of what Joe and I first taught a few years ago. I have lay out the process in detail in these posts and provided many examples. Simply... It's a compound cue with a list of teams embedded in the cue. We acquire the target from that list by identifying the architectural features of the optimal winning team from the finite embedded list.

Hope that helps.
Simple direct RV..
 
Alex wrote:
Sorry it did not work out for you. You can't expect to know what we are doing now from two years ago when you dropped out? For your unsuccessful story there are a solid core of dedicated viewers that stay in the group, worked sessions every weekday and have successful stories. They wouldn't have stayed if we where not succeeding.

I regret it did not work out as well. Like many others who stopped sending in sessions, I paid a lot to attend the weekend orientation/training, and put in a lot of time doing sessions. Only to find that your method did not work, and money was lost by many over the months, after some initial success. I do have information more recent than two years ago – quite recent in fact - and it is not in agreement with the picture you paint. Not at all. If there are “successful stories”, ask a few of the people to post here to provide some support for your claims.

Let’s recall that a few years ago you were posting a lot about using “golden markers” to achieve wonderful success. Emphatic claims of c. 80-90% accuracy. But then you returned many months later with the opposite message – Hey, ARV doesn’t work – at all, you claimed. Now you say you have again developed good success with new methods, although you admit it is a “work in progress”. Is it any wonder that people do not take you at your word – and want to see some substantive evidence of successful work, not just selective posts?

Your claim that ARV does not work is mistaken. To cite just two examples: Greg K has demonstrated with his 13-year experiment (and published paper) that ARV does indeed work. He made over $140K during that period using ARV. And the APP stats also indicate that ARV does work – with success far above chance. The APP work has involved hundreds of trials with dozens of viewers in 10 or more groups. The APP groups utilize binary and some forms of unitary ARV. One can succeed using ARV.

It apparently doesn’t bother you that you made a false claim – that nearly the entire “small army” stopped taking part because they didn’t want to do the work. And when I say that I for one stopped simply because so many picks were wrong, you say only “sorry it did not work out for you” with no hint that your original claim was misleading. With all that the participants had invested, the hefty fee, the time and commitment, people were not dropping out because they didn’t want to do the work. They were losing money.

Finally, on science, which you’ve mentioned a few times - You say you were trained as a scientist and science does not proceed in a straight line, ok, fine. But what you are offering here certainly isn’t science and you gave no hint of it either in the “small army”. No overall stats, for example. No systematic assessment. You work hard, have put in a lot of effort on this over the years, why not be truly informative - write up your findings, what has worked and what hasn’t, include any statistical data you have (or at least an approximate tally), and circulate that. Then people would have something substantive to evaluate and discuss.

Jon
 
To cite just two examples: Greg K has demonstrated with his 13-year experiment (and published paper) that ARV does indeed work. He made over $140K during that period using ARV. And the APP stats also indicate that ARV does work – with success far above chance. The APP work has involved hundreds of trials with dozens of viewers in 10 or more groups. The APP groups utilize binary and some forms of unitary ARV. One can succeed using ARV.
Don't forget one of the most successful projects to use ARV to make money--Dr. Hal Puthoff's project to raise money for the construction of a private elementary school. I first heard of this project in Stephan A. Schwartz's book, Opening to the Infinite. This project made $250,000 in a little over a month by investing in silver futures contracts. This project used absolute beginners as remote viewers. Dr. Puthoff discusses this project in a lengthy video presentation about his involvement in RV research at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOAfH1utUSM . (Note: Dr. Puthoff discusses this project at about the 1 hr 03 min mark in this presentation.) In this video Puthoff displays a graph tracing the results of their investments. He also shows how they did it. (They used two viewers per trial. They used real-life, three-dimensional objects as the ARV targets.) I believe it was their use of real-life objects, which the viewers could handle and examine as part of their feedback, which contributed to the historically-noteworthy success of this project.

By the way, Puthoff and his colleagues ended this project when they hit their fundraising goal. They were not experiencing any kind of decline in their success rate when they ended their project.
 

sharp

New Member
Banded_Krait said:
.....He also shows how they did it. (They used two viewers per trial. They used real-life, three-dimensional objects as the ARV targets.) I believe it was their use of real-life objects, which the viewers could handle and examine as part of their feedback, which contributed to the historically-noteworthy success of this project.
I think this is spot on. I have the concept of running sessions and sending feedback via 3d printers. They are still a little spendy for the masses at the present, but maybe give it a couple years.

Didn't Puthoff's attempt to replicate the trial fail?
 
Didn't Puthoff's attempt to replicate the trial fail?
I know of no attempt by Puthoff to repeat this project. He does not mention any in his Arlington Institute video, and there is no mention of any in Schwartz's book.
 
I have the concept of running sessions and sending feedback via 3d printers.
Now that is truly brilliant!

I have done sessions with all the commonly-used RV targets--photographs, small, three-dimensional objects, and geographical locations where I was taken for feedback. By far, the most vivid perceptions I obtained were from the geographical locations. My purely subjective opinion is that being totally immersed in the target makes the feedback more effective. I note here that the very first attempt to make money using ARV used geographical locations as the target. This was a successful attempt to use ARV to pick the winner of a horse race. It is described in Stephan A. Schwartz's book, Opening to the Infinite. There were two viewers involved, and each was "managed" by a separate team, and each team had its own ARV target locations. (There were six locations corresponding to the field of six horses in the race.) Both viewers picked the target corresponding to the same numbered horse in the race, and so the participants felt pretty confident in betting on that horse. That horse won, and so, of course, did the participants.
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
Banded_Krait said:
Didn't Puthoff's attempt to replicate the trial fail?
I know of no attempt by Puthoff to repeat this project. He does not mention any in his Arlington Institute video, and there is no mention of any in Schwartz's book.
Hi Banded and Sharp,

Yes they did fail and the reasons for the failures were explained in Targ's book, The Reality Of ESP - Page 133 Forecasting December Silver Futures.

They (Delphi) also used 3D objects (orthogonal targets)

See also BBC Horizon The Case For ESP
fast forward to 1:21:39
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McVY5ogi_q8

T
 

sharp

New Member
Thanks Tunde! I even have this book, so the reference was perfect. I knew I read it somewhere, just could not place where. :-[
 

AlexDiC

New Member
We made lots of money in Vegas, years ago with an ARV approach. We went several times and repeated the success... Then it stopped, just like everyone else. However Joe and I continued to work the problem.

Now we have an approach that DOESNT stop after a few early successes. That's the point!

Jon K quit the team, his comments are exactly what I would expect. Clearly the view from a "drop out" is always negative. Ten plus viewers stayed with the research work didn't quit, helped develop the current approach and are very pleased they did. What we do now is far different then the earlier work that Jon K participated in. Everything continues to be refined, it's an ongoing process and will always continue.

I've explained it several times. Nothing fancy, simple RV, using a compound cue with an embedded list of potentially winning teams and directing viewers to acquire the optimal winner from the list and sketch the dominate architectural features of the facility that they won the game.

This RV stuff is work. (every weekday for 10-15 minutes) so 2/3 of the people Joe and I trained dropped out, They simply don't want to do the work. That's just a fact.

I have posted dozens of sessions over months.. There is no fading or failures as with the old methods. You can see for yourself. The work gets stronger and clearer with time.

Last set we completed was 12/19 (break for holidays) had 3 teams in the cue. The RV work didn't hit any targets and there was no common elements between the viewers.. Turned out it was a "prefect set" of RV work! All nonsense and ALL the Teams lost. Exactly how we would expect the work to look. Now with more data points we could reverse the three picks and make a successful three game parlay.

2014 should be a continued success.
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Mark is one of the members of our group. We are always making adjustments as you can see. Mark wrote:

I've been thinking hard about how to maximize the potential of RV for betting. One thing I've come up with that seems to be working. View the stadium of the Largest moneyline payout for a given sport in a given day. The beauty of it is, you know the largest moneyline payout, you can parlay all the games that would have been larger into a potential monster parlay.

Yesterday there were 3 NCAA Bowl Games, I set up some cues without even knowing who was playing. I did a session, looked at my results and had a pretty clean hit on Reliant Energy which happened to be Syracuse over Minnesota.

Today I did the same thing with NHL. Without even knowing the games I cues it up, ran my session, and had a beauty for Bridgestone Arena. Each set only had one game with a bigger moneyline, so I didn't get a huge parlay this time(still almost 3 to 1), but this method could lead to 10 to 1 payouts or better.

We could even do this with a smaller list of games. Instead of Optimal, view Maximum Payout. By using Maximum, you then know the results of all the games which would rank higher in the list and can confidently bet those favorites parlayed with the one underdog.

Seems to be working for me.

Mark
 

Mycroft

Active Member
AlexDiC said:
Jon K quit the team, his comments are exactly what I would expect. Clearly the view from a "drop out" is always negative.
Now you've done it! You can't keep a lid on that mouth of yours!

Is this the way you treat team members? Call them names just because your cult fanaticism doesn't work for everyone?

Take, take, take then when someone decides not to pay up and gets out, you come back firing away at them.

I think your free advertising should come to an end.

Mycroft
 

Gene_Smith

Administrator
Staff member
AlexDiC said:
Jon K quit the team, his comments are exactly what I would expect. Clearly the view from a "drop out" is always negative.
Alex if I read what he said correctly he paid a significant amount of money to get trained by you and then take part in what was promised to be a money making venture. When it turned out that he was consistently losing money, as were others, what did you expect him to do, keep throwing money at something that clearly wasn’t working? So he leaves the group, as did many others, and now you brand him “drop out” and “always negative”.

I walk a somewhat fine line on the boards as one of my functions is to facilitate and encourage postings, by everyone, so I’ll keep my comments to a minimum. But when anyone asks a seemingly logical question or posts something of their real world experience working with you that you don’t like you get nasty, then have the audacity to ask repeatedly why people aren’t taking part in your thread; well duhhh.

Gene
 
I think anyone who has been following this thread is aware by now…to keep it mild…of what Alex D. is about - and up to. (There are also past threads on TKR which display the same unfortunate traits.) A few points about his last two posts.

Alex wrote:
We made lots of money in Vegas, years ago with an ARV approach. We went several times and repeated the success... Then it stopped, just like everyone else. However Joe and I continued to work the problem.
Yes, you provided enough evidence to satisfy me (and others) that you and the team won lots of money in Vegas once, maybe more times. But you are just plain wrong to continue to say that ARV success stops for everyone over time. I cited Greg K and APP’s extended success. Ed May has had continuing excellent results with his sophisticated ARV software. They all have not only “worked the problem” but have had considerable success with ARV.

Now we have an approach that DOESNT stop after a few early successes. That's the point!
Kindly stop asserting it - prove it! Post your predictions and post the stats from time to time. It’s a little work, but you pride yourself on work, and say others don’t, so let’s see it.

This RV stuff is work. (every weekday for 10-15 minutes) so 2/3 of the people Joe and I trained dropped out, They simply don't want to do the work. That's just a fact.
Again, that’s most unlikely, to put it mildly. To think that people would invest all the money and time and effort they did and then stop participating because they are…lazy…rather than the cause being a low rate of success with picks…strains belief. Plus - for the last time - you don’t post (systematic, transparent) picks and stats over time; it is a mere assertion on your part.

I see you brought Mark White into this thread, but he’s not posting - because I don’t think he wants to. I have a good relationship with Mark and received a similar email from him some time ago. Note he refers to an idea he had for a method for big payouts via parlays, not to the merits of the architecture method per se.

Jon

P.S. Since I doubt Alex will heed any advice here - Perhaps someone will put together a team, try the method (if it is clear enough based on what’s been posted here – it continues to evolve), post the predictions, and then we would have the benefit of actual stats, which would provide a transparent measure of the success of this approach.
 

tbone

Active Member
I think Karsten is trying it, but I assume he is working alone. I haven't seen any updates but he is the sort of person who likes to see many trials before he draws conclusions.
 

katzenhai2

Ambassador
Yes they did fail and the reasons for the failures were explained in Targ's book, The Reality Of ESP - Page 133 Forecasting December Silver Futures.
I haven't Targs book ... maybe you can shortly explain why the other team failed to repeat the success of Puthoffs ARV?

tbone said:
I think Karsten is trying it, but I assume he is working alone. I haven't seen any updates but he is the sort of person who likes to see many trials before he draws conclusions.
I work alone. But my results seems to be in the same range than usual ARV - ~65%. I don't see any spectacular results or maybe I've done something wrong with the setup (well thats what Dames have to say when someone fails to get same RV results as his team).
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Good morning. I've been out of town for a few weeks. I guess I've gone about as right as I can here at TKR.

Did my best to share what we are discovering.
 

Mycroft

Active Member
AlexDiC said:
Good morning. I've been out of town for a few weeks.
You might want to change your password, it appears someone made a post with your ID only 5 days ago.
http://www.dojopsi.info/forum/index.php?topic=6735.msg56564#msg56564


Mycroft
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
katzenhai2 said:
I haven't Targs book ... maybe you can shortly explain why the other team failed to repeat the success of Puthoffs ARV?
Targ claims they were not successful with future silver forecasting trials due to the following reasons:

* Investors tried to accelerate the trial rate to twice a week
* As a result viewers were not getting timely feedback from previous trials
* Too much attention on getting rich while neglecting spiritual and scientific focus of the trials

I strongly recommend the book if you haven't got a copy already.

T
 

AlexDiC

New Member
* Investors tried to accelerate the trial rate to twice a week
* As a result viewers were not getting timely feedback from previous trials
* Too much attention on getting rich while neglecting spiritual and scientific focus of the trials
we did NOT have these issues. (if in fact these where the issues that distracted Targ's results).

*We do our work each weekday
*I provide immediate feedback
* We focus completely on the business of making money.

Last night we had 3 teams on the Card. I cue directs viewers to acquire the target (arena) that is the Max Money Line Pay Out Winner. Last night we acquired The Rangers at Madison Square Garden. Turns out Rangers where the LEAST money pay out. That meant, the other two teams could NOT be winners. I reversed those two teams and added the Rangers to a 3 team parlay and won..

see my work:
 

Attachments

Top