Remote Viewers commenting on each other?

jimmy_neutron

New Member
I recently heard an interview with Ingo Swann and there was a profound reluctance to comment on other remote viewers. At first I thought that this was a mature attitude to take, i.e. not slinging mud etc. I have changed my mind. If this is to remain scientific, I would expect peer analysis. Otherwise it simply becomes mysticism in the negative sense of the word. I have no doubt about remote viewing. I do have doubts about it when it shifts from rather mundane targets to exploring E.T.'s, Jesus, and what earth will be like in 2025. There is too much contradictory data being generated. If we are to come up with a science of prediction of these sorts of issues we need peer analysis.
Just a thought.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Well, if you want to include 'people in the remote viewing field' who refer to themselves as RV experts along with those very few I would actually consider 'remote viewers' in deed, then it's fair to say they comment on each other all the time.

Some don't comment 'publicly' but do privately. Some of those people don't (can't) say much publicly since they have 1,032 different views privately depending on who they're talking to and that doesn't wash for something public that goes on record LOL.

Which underscores the point that there is a difference between the science field of psi research and the modern layman's "remote viewing" field.

Now if you're talking about actual SCIENCE, there's a lot of conversation over time in that field, but most of that is not recorded, as scientists don't tend to do a lot of media-interviews. They do have peer review though. There is a discussion list which most the active researchers in the field (and a few others) are part of, run by Spottiswoode, where most of them talk to each other and sometimes about issues or what others are doing. But in science, IT ISN'T PERSONAL. So there's generally not much reason to comment on anybody. And you can only comment on research if you're experienced with that or have attempted replication. So in most cases there isn't a lot to say.

If you're talking about the 'casual public' field, you can find 'comments on others' in the field in a whole lot of interviews. In fact sometimes it seems like many of them use media primarily to make a point about someone else ;D -- so maybe you haven't read much in the field. I see it all over.

Best,
PJ
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
I might add that some attempt at a 'formalized predictions submitted for peer review' can be found in McMoneagle's book "The Ultimate Time Machine". So far, some have come true and some haven't. In any case it's a pretty brave thing since every utterance in the book is putting something in writing as a prediction--although, many of them pertain not to this time but to a far future time we won't be around to see anyway!
PJ
 

jimmy_neutron

New Member
I will check out "Spottiswoode". And I will re-read "Ultimate Time Machine".

What I mean about commenting on each other is not about "personality" issues but rather assessing each other in relation to the minutae of the variations in protocol. There is a bridge that is walked when moving from viewing a mundane target to a target in 2025. One could evaluate this from a Behaviour/Neuroscience point of view, and one could also explore it from the position of RV'ers actually viewing "thought forms" (to use the Theosophical label), or doing their own "Active Imagination" work (to use a Jungian label). I wonder if people are actually remote viewing their own psyche's when they shift out of certain highly restrained procedures. The problem with MY OWN hopothesis here is the RV'ing of things like lottery numbers. If this is really happening than what is the protocol within the protocol? The only person I've come across with ANY degree of explanation is Aaron Donahue, and even he is rather guarded and convoluted in his explanation. If it wasn't for the fact that I know much of the occult background he draws from I would have missed it.
I fear that the serious people (and I know there are many) will be swamped by the vaccuous guru laden mind dead new agey types (yes I'm opinionated). RV is real. It is too important to be the "Psychic Fair flavour of the month". IN the absence of mundane feedback, what internal feedback cues are viewers using to convince themselves that they have hit the signal line correctly?
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
I see RV working all the time. I see a lot more delusion, wishful thinking, etc. in any given month than I see of RV in a year. I see a lot of ragtag occult and metaphysical studies jumbled into adhoc systems repackaged as a form of remote viewing or influence with alleged expertise and sold and/or bragged about for fun and profit. It is unfortunate that people who aren't themselves informed in these areas perceive some who are, even if badly so, as having some degree of RV legitimacy as a result.

In science the remote viewing protocol
(a) usually does not--though it CAN--relate to methodology such as various acronym-RV-methods;
(b) has a pretty small set of accepted requirements anybody can learn in minutes; and
(c) has little to do with "theory."

All the stuff about what we're really doing, how it really works, whether it's the psyche or signal line or thought forms or quantumly or holographically etc. is theory, philosophy, models; this is not part of the science which is measuring what can be demonstrated, without regard for whether we know why/how.

There is no validation for future targets except the future. There is no validation for esoteric targets except some future potential experience of that esoteria.

The best one can do is note a viewer as repeatedly skilled at working provably doubleblind or soloblind, and then try and extrapolate his general performance to things we don't have feedback for.

There is NO protocol that could validate such claims about the future, or make anything consistent.

I fear that the serious people (and I know there are many) will be swamped by the vaccuous guru laden mind dead new agey types (yes I'm opinionated). RV is real. It is too important to be the "Psychic Fair flavour of the month".
Everybody wants to save RV. Wish I'd had half of you around eight years ago.

IN the absence of mundane feedback, what internal feedback cues are viewers using to convince themselves that they have hit the signal line correctly?
Well it apparently doesn't take much to convince some people. And other people don't get their RV data from their viewing, they get it from assumed targets they make up out of their heads, 'lead'/monitor a student through, personally interpret their results for, and then announce to millions of people have been 'worked on for a year by a remote viewing team better than anything the military ever had'. Or they read the stuff of people they know can view and just steal that. How can anybody prove otherwise. Or they read science magazines and take small tidbits of trends the public doesn't much know about yet and then 'predicts' them, so that within a few months or year they can then point to a current science magazine, with another article on the trend, as 'proof' of their prediction. My point here is that so much of the layman's public so-called RV field is utter nonsense, that it is frankly not worth bothering with.

Although sometimes, a viewer really has a sense of being in great target contact, in general, research proves viewers are the lousiest judges of their accuracy, and I have never yet seen any evidence that there is any protocol (by which you mean method I assume) which either prevents error or validates truth.

But, there are probably some people who for quite a few bucks will tell you something different. ;-)

PJ
 

jimmy_neutron

New Member
Lucky for me that I don't have "quite a few bucks". I have to, more or less, do it on my own (with the exception of valuable feedback such as yours-It really helped hearing your thoughts. Especially your last reply).
I appreciate what your saying and I concur. I do wonder (however), about those who do seem to be able to nail down numerics, though. IF this is happening (IF IF IF) then there is some psychological method that we can get at. Personally, I would love to pull that off as I have alpha-numerics jumping around like a grade 3 class on a sugar high. Aaron is using some form of multiplexed matrix . This is something that can be evaluated (if he were to give us the rest of the formula that is).
A last thought. After producing fascinating results as the "biggies" did under SRI etc. why would they then go the "Nostrodamus" route? When the original data was so compelling, why inflame the issue by RVing bases on the dark side of the moon (for example) which only gives people like the "Amazing" Randi and my old professor James Alcock material to make fun of them with? It makes me wonder if the last orders given to them when they were under "black budgets" were to go and so completely humiliate the project that nobody would take it seriously.
I think I'd better go plug in my hemi-sync tape before i get a migraine trying to figure this all out.
;)
 

waterway

Member
Jimmy N. wrote:

"I do wonder (however), about those who do seem to be able to nail down numerics, though. "

I would suspect that IF someone could nail down numbers with even the slightest ability greater than chance, they would be waste deep in cash AND would be strongly motivated to keep their skills a big secret.
 

waterway

Member
... and as to why some famous RVers "went the Nostradamus route"... well, that's how you become a famous RVer! From what I've seen and read, MOST of the old participants are pretty low key. We remember the really wacky stuff cuz... well, turn on the TV and see what you find....

For instance, I am having a lot of trouble peddling the manuscript for my book "The calm, benign and boring life and work of a Remote Viewer". Its just not happening.... <g>
 

jimmy_neutron

New Member
Actually, you don't have to be an RV'er or psychic to make money on a lottery. Very late one night 12 or so years ago, a grad student in math showed me how to use statistical probability to win the pick 3 lotteries. The problem was it would be a full time job as you are winning but having to lay out an large some in order to win a wee bit more than that sum every so many times out of so many times. I have had to take a couple of stats courses so understood that what he was saying made sense but I was so tired I don't remember it. I'm sure someone has posted this on the net.
As to your "manuscript". Well, get a web cam and do "live request" Remote Viewing on the net, do amazingly well with your targets, be famous, and then they will beat down your door to publish.
I think thats how it goes.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
I do wonder (however), about those who do seem to be able to nail down numerics, though.
I don't know of anybody who can, and I also don't know of anybody who can nail down sounds. Now, that is NOT to say that this data never comes in during a session. It does sometimes. And it's not to say that some people are not more prone to getting data of certain types better than others, or better than other people. Some are.  It's just to say that waiting for it by chance is totally undependable, and asking for it forces the psi situation into a forced-choice situation, which tends to be a great deal less accurate statistically than free response (remote viewing).  

Now there are people who will claim they can do X, and Y, and Z, and if you still don't kneel they will also tell you about ABC, and if they're on the radio they'll mention their astonishing omniscience at QRS.  It's all very intriguing, but I've been in this field eight years and I have yet to see more than posturing in this regard.

On rare occasion, a person will provide some small tidbit as their 'evidence'. Alas although I am one of the biggest proponents of RV, even I am a skeptic about what has been seen so far.

For example, unless someone is known to be adamant about scientific protocol, media will never work in it--they won't even much of the time it's demanded--it is not in their interests to waste a ton of money filming someone who fails, you understand; they really want to ensure their result is something viewers will like watching. And since anybody doing viewing knows that sometimes it's great and sometimes it's lousy and it's the consistency that is important (since it doesn't matter how good something is if there is no degree of trust you can have in the data), it always would require several examples of anything to be taken seriously.  So, a media example of psi brilliance means little to me.

Now, if the media is some skeptical source itself (say, like ABC's "Put to the Test") or the media is actually getting info on something that is by nature in protocol (double blind) such as a future event or info for an unsolved investigation question, and/or if there was a whole lot of examples so there was a base for some stats there, then this I take seriously. Unfortunately, the number of viewers who claim these aspects of media (lots of examples, skeptical sources, and being known for being demanding-obsessive about science protocol) number only... well, one.  McMoneagle.

Sometimes you will see something like a lotto ticket, not a massive amount but a small to moderate winner, from someone claiming to have gotten it through psychic means. And that might be so, but that brings us to a problem, such as (a) it could have been chance and it's hard to prove otherwise, and (b) had they published a 'prediction' of the numbers or had a psychic session notarized and then had the winner there'd be some evidence, but when all you see is someone won something once or twice, well this happens even to people who aren't psychic, so that is tenuous. I am not saying that it can't be so. In the context of a lot of other evidence, I would probably take it seriously. However, outside that context, when presented as pretty much the only evidence, I don't.

Now in the layman's remote viewing field, the biggest ego builder and money maker comes from the mysticism and cultism that has become a common prop in the field. That is to say that there is a SECRET involved and only Guru X (and loyal minions) knows it.  Should you wish to join his cult or give him money for something, he will consider deigning to share with you, mere mortal that you are, a portion of the Cosmic Secrets that only he has access to.  In the layman's RV field, similar to Scientology, this generally comes in the form of a methodology referred to as a 'tech' or 'protocols'.

Alas. None of the beings with this Higher Knowledge seem capable of demonstrating, to the satisfaction of even an RV-believing-supporter such as myself, that these Claims To Omniscience are legitimate. It is very common for people to take pieces of religions, cults, occult, metaphysics, eastern traditions, and other things and mix it in with what they are doing. This helps add to the near-voodoo level "mystique" and combined with "modern tech" terms, may give the impression that someone is really an Oooh-Aaaah viewer.

Unfortunately, there are several Nearly Omniscients who make such claims.  And none with decent evidence, as mentioned above.  That is not to say that none of them--or someone they hire secretly--can view.  It's simply to say that the claims made are prototypical for the 'huxter psychic' field and the evidence for them is just as lacking as has traditionally been found in that genre.

why would they then go the "Nostrodamus" route?
Which people specifically are we referring to?

When the original data was so compelling, why inflame the issue by RVing bases on the dark side of the moon (for example)
OK. In order to converse on this, it has to be broken up into some categories that make it possible to do so intelligently without either crediting people we shouldn't or dissing people we shouldn't, because you cannot measure anything out of context and still be fair.  Like so:

1.  A prediction falls into the Nostradamus category no matter WHAT it is about.  Is your question, why does any so-called remote viewer make predictions?  

2.  Predictions on things we are likely to have feedback about within the next century may be esoteric now, but do at least stand a chance at feedback. This includes predictions about known mysteries, nearby planets and moons, etc.  (see Swann's viewing of Jupiter in 1973 for example).  I personally do not put this in the same category as remote viewing "The Galactic Hall" (Brown) or "The Pregnant Martians under Mount Baldy" and "The Pathogen In A Can" (etc. Dames), but that's just me.  Perhaps you feel differently?

3.  The specific example you use is, I assume, out of Ingo Swann's book "Penetration".  He did not do this viewing in the modern day, he was paid for it by a client, he offers what he says is outside corroborance in a detailed old book by someone else who was not using psi, and in general he does not talk about this much outside that particular book, which has been out of print for awhile, so he is not using it to sell media, training, or anything like that.  

In the case of Swann and McMoneagle I make exceptions ONLY BECAUSE both of them have very consistently been tested in the science lab.  It is a kin for example, to a successful innovative inventor with many products and patents, who claims to have invented something astounding. It might be astounding, we might have to reserve judgement until feedback (proof), but because there is a history of validation, experience and competence, we take their claims seriously enough to give them some benefit of the doubt that it is at least worth attention.  Someone out of left field, with no real proven skills, experiences, patents and working products, could claim to have an Important Secret Invention, but who would take them seriously?  So what.  A legend in their own minds until they demonstrate otherwise.

So, I do not consider those two viewers, Swann and McMoneagle, or their works, to be in the same category as a lot of other people in the media making claims or viewing esoterics or space targets et al who do not have the substantially 'proven' background they do.  Perhaps you feel differently?

which only gives people like the "Amazing" Randi and my old professor James Alcock  material to make fun of them with?
Randi would be, by his nature, inclined to ignore people like McMoneagle and May in the lab, while pointing great fingers at people like Dames and Brown in the media. It should not be rocket science for even laymen to understand that completely different people have completely different levels of credibility, and that is true whether it is science or media in measure.

It makes me wonder if the last orders given to them when they were under "black budgets" were to go and so completely humiliate the project that nobody would take it seriously.
Actually, that is a very common suspicion in the field...

I think I'd better go plug in my hemi-sync tape before i get a migraine trying to figure this all out.
LOL!

PJ
 
W

wizopeva

Guest
I recently heard an interview with Ingo Swann and there was a profound reluctance to comment on other remote viewers.  At first I thought that this was a mature attitude to take, i.e. not slinging mud etc.  I have changed my mind.  If this is to remain scientific, I would expect peer analysis.
 

Peer analysis is generally reserved for published research of a scientific nature. I haven't seen much of that in the rv community. There is however plenty of general theories and hand selected case studies. Those are sorta hard to do a peer review on without getting personal. And without giving some kind of counter research, I would say that in some ways, it could easily become hypocritical. So I do actually think that Ingo's approach is wise.

Now if you want to talk about how to run a session, project, or whatever, I do think those are great questions for Ingo and great subjects to look into. All those things can be addressed via personal opinion without venturing into attacking others. And another thing about attacking others is the attacker often really has little idea how projects were run or how the other person operates, thus making most attacks to be conjecture and error prone themselves. For instance, I am somewhat familiar with both the CRV method and the TDS method. I have heard many a TDS practioner make false statements about how CRV is done and then criticize CRV for it, even though their initial info was wrong. Basically, they just were not well educated in CRV and so were not qualified to properly criticize.

On the other side of the fence though, I have heard the exact same thing happen in reverse, ie that some CRVers made incorrect accusations about the TDS method. They were criticizing something they did not fully understand. Perhaps it is just human nature to want to think the method you do is better, even if you don't really have the needed evidence and experience to make that comparison properly.

Otherwise it simply becomes mysticism in the negative sense of the word.  I have no doubt about remote viewing.  I do have doubts about it when it shifts from rather mundane targets to exploring E.T.'s, Jesus, and what earth will be like in 2025.  There is too much contradictory data being generated.  If we are to come up with a science of prediction of these sorts of issues we need peer analysis.  
Just a thought.  


Well I do agree there has been a lot of wrong data and contradictory data. I think there are a number of reasons for that. First, I think the most flamboyant of us generally get the most attention to start with. Those that are more moderate tend to get ignored by the media, especially the American media.

Plus rv is inherently descriptive in nature. The viewers describe and sometimes name but basically, it's not an exact science. At some level, in order to make a coherent report, an analyst or report writer has to take the sessions and analysis and match it up with the tasking and try to make sense of it. If that report writer is not extremely level headed and able to keep his/her ego in check, it can easily lead to an overreaching of what the data actually says. For instance, a viewer might say that he sees something that looks like a UFO with glowing lights, a strange flight pattern, etc, and in reality the target could have been a dayglo frisbee. The viewer was accurate (he said it LOOKED like a UFO, not that it was), but the data could be easily misconstrued if not carefully crosschecked by a level headed analyst and report writer.

So I think a lot of these probs that we have seen have come from analyst and report writers that have overreached. That can happen even if all blinding protocols are strictly followed, but it can get even worse if people get lazy about protocols and allow excessive frontloading, insufficient mixing of more mundane feedback targets, etc. I think these types of issues are not always properly addressed.

Beyond that, there is just so much rivalry and bad blood between the top viewers that I don't think any kind of huge collaboration is likely in the near future. At this point, I think it's up to the next generation to take a less personal and more scientific approach to these kinds of issues and I don't think that will occur unless we work to set aside personal attacks and work on more proactive types of commentary. We need less empty talk and more 'do.' Of course, we are human and to be human is to experience some rivalry, but I do think we can do better than we have in the past.
-E
 

andy2001

New Member
It is occasionally posibile to get an edge in the bigger lottos when they have enough rollovers, but your be waiting a long time for this on the pick 3. Apart from that the only possible thing is to play numbers which less people play, but I don't think that would overcome the big house edge.

While it is probably possible to win the pic 3 with remote viewing or PSI functioning, most people trying to do so are probably trying to run before they can walk, and would be better of trying to predict the outcome of sporting events.


Actually, you don't have to be an RV'er or psychic to make money on a lottery.  Very late one night 12 or so years ago, a grad student in math showed me how to use statistical probability to win the pick 3 lotteries.  The problem was it would be a full time job as you are winning but having to lay out an large some in order to win a wee bit more than that sum every so many times out of so many times.  I have had to take a couple of stats courses so understood that what he was saying made sense but I was so tired I don't remember it.  I'm sure someone has posted this on the net.
     As to your "manuscript".  Well, get a web cam and do "live request" Remote Viewing on the net, do amazingly well with your targets, be famous, and then they will beat down your door to publish.  
 I think thats how it goes.
 

GENE6

New Member
Jimmy N. wrote:

"I do wonder (however), about those who do seem to be able to nail down numerics, though. "

I would suspect that IF someone could nail down numbers with even the slightest ability greater than chance, they would be waste deep in cash AND would be strongly motivated to keep their skills a big secret.

Since I live here in Las Vegas... some of my motivation to get into RV was to "Beat" the casino's.

I've already had scary encounters with Casino Internal security following me around (out side in a car) and was actually hit with one of those electric stun things once. (to see if I was using an illegal electronic device) The casinos take a dim view of beating the odds and walking out the door with their money.

The other problem is the IRS. Today's casinos don't have to rough you up so much as sick the IRS on you. If you do a transaction at the cage with 10K or more the IRS and Homeland Security are notified. (like you need that BS on your back)

I have an outbounder Keno protocol I will eventually setup and try. Not so much for trying to make money but to see if it actually works.

Personally I have been trying to apply an ERV variation to stocks. Mostly it drove me crazy. (long story) To make things simple I quiz my subconscious about weather this is a good stock or not to invest in. Mixed results.

As for stocks.. You need to have a very good working knowledge of how all of that stuff works before you head out and try to get rich. An ARV method would probably work great for stocks but I don't know enough about stocks to apply such a protocol. The SEC is a lot more forgiving than some 60 IQ Pit Boss in a casino.

Learning RV has given much more to me than a bail of money would have done. The ability to see farther and with more clarity. Avoiding disasters and a sense of inner piece are things money doesn't always buy you.

Oh and for the record. I strongly do NOT recommend Joe Gallenberger from the Monroe Institute. He now runs an MC2 program there. He did run a "Vegas Vacation" or some such thing I attended once here in town.

If you take a Monroe Course you should do yourself a favor and make sure HE is not one of your Trainers. He is a very Toxic trainer. I stand by this and remember this is just my opinion. Others I have talked with have had good experiences with him.

-ME
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
Re:Tasking Future Sports events/sample*


I prefer the simple way of predicting future events
using RV and thats just the old fashioned
double blind target protocol.

As Ben Kingsley says in the trailer for
Suspect zero..."if you do it right (RV) ..you get it all!!"

I agree.

A group of viewers (group name withheld) recently successfully predicted
the recent Euro 2004 winner and not just that but
also the two finalsits as well weeks before the final.
It was an amazing experience to watch the
future unfold before our very own eyes
with each game as a 100-1 outsider GREECE
finaly lifed the cup.

The key i believe was down to viewer skill and
and a rigid tasking and analysis procedure.

This same group of viewers has again
under double blind tasking completed yet another
Future sport RVing event and iam convinced
yet again we have BOTH the finalists involved.
and the future winner indicated as targeted.

(The beauty of predicting BOTH finalist
is that you can back either of them and
still end up winning. A true win-win situation 8) )

Here is a sample of the current tasking :

TARGET ID : 8341 - W224

*DESCRIBE AND ACCURATELY IDENTIFY THE COPA AMERICA 2004 FOOTBALL
CHAMPIONSHIP 'WINNERS' AFTER THE FINAL GAME AS THEY CELEBRATE.

*DESCRIBE AS CLEARLY AND ACCURATELY AS YOU CAN THE NATIONAL
FLAG/IDENTITY/COUNTRY/COLORS OF THE WINNING TEAM IN SUCH A THAT WILL BE
ABSOLUTELY CLEAR TO YOU THE VIEWER AND TO OTHERS LOOKING AT YOUR DATA.

feedback links:
http://global.terra.com/copaamericaperu2004/ingles/index2_i.htm

www.flags.net

No need for numerous complicated ARV or masking/retrostasking, PAN sessions etc...just
RV double blind and know how to analyse
simple session/s with skillfull viewers.

Go on give it a go ;)

Peace,
Tunde
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Ah, the Euro sessions!! Still sorry you didn't win all that money Tunde. ;-)

Ref: TMI, Joe Gallenberger was one of my trainers for the 'Guidelines' program at the beginning of 2001. I thought he was a good trainer, nice guy. I've known a few people who did his Vegas workshops who had a blast. So, like everything, I guess personality is a variable depending on who you're around lol.

Have we moved far enough from the viewers commenting on each other concept I wonder. ;-)

PJ
 

jimmy_neutron

New Member
I'd be interested in being directed to studies that are around viewing numbers that are NOT related to games of chance, the stock market etc. I suspect that very nature of the goal alters the nature of assessing what is happening.
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
Re: Euro 2004

>>Ah, the Euro sessions!! Still sorry you didn't win all that money Tunde. ;) >>

Aye PJ , so am I ;-)
still, iam not one to sniff at £900.00 (around $1,300.00 us dollars) winnings.

It would have been alot more if Portugal had won
but the money isnt the main issue its the fact that
it really does work iam trying to highlight...

I havent seen ANY valid RV data on people winning
in casinos so i cant comment on that.

Peace,
Tunde

ps- and if you thought the euro 2004 was cool wait
till you see the copa america 2004 data ;D
 

GENE6

New Member
Ah, the Euro sessions!! Still sorry you didn't win all that money Tunde. ;-)

Ref: TMI, Joe Gallenberger was one of my trainers for the 'Guidelines' program at the beginning of 2001. I thought he was a good trainer, nice guy. I've known a few people who did his Vegas workshops who had a blast. So, like everything, I guess personality is a variable depending on who you're around lol.

PJ

Yes many of the Monroe Big Wigs had fun on his vacations. Maybe call me exception #1 but that does not make my views invalid. I'd go into this further but this is not the right forum.

What I will say is if you want to have your own Vegas Experience... Get together at a Las Vegas hotel with your Monroe friends. Listen to a couple of tapes, head out as a group and have fun. There is no need to spend $1200 (or more) for a bogus learning experience.

Call me... I'll show up.
 
W

wizopeva

Guest
Re: Euro 2004

Tunde, this is very interesting. I haven't heard much data on this kind of betting. It seems it's usually stock market stuff. I remember Dannion Brinkley once said that betting involving human or animal elements were a lot easier for him than things that were more mathematically oriented. If that turns out to be true, then it might be an interesting clue as to how this stuff works. I hope it keeps working for you.
-E


>>Ah, the Euro sessions!!  Still sorry you didn't win all that money Tunde.   ;) >>

Aye PJ , so am I ;-)
still, iam not one to sniff at £900.00 (around $1,300.00 us dollars) winnings.

It would have been alot more if Portugal had won
but the money isnt the main issue its the fact that
it really does work iam trying to highlight...

I havent seen ANY valid RV data on people winning
in casinos so i cant comment on that.

Peace,
Tunde

ps- and if you thought the euro 2004 was cool wait
till you see the copa america 2004 data  ;D
 
Top