Targ Confirms ARV casino winnings by Ed Dames students in his book

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
PJ said:
So do I, by which I mean, if the person who knows the target is standing there leading you through it, it's a process exercise, not Remote Viewing. There may be useful purposes to process exercises, but the unfortunate thing is people tend to learn by example, and then go home and become absolutely expert at cold-reading their wife.
Lol you do make me smile PJ :)

T
 

AlexDiC

New Member
PJ. I have never been referred to as a "favorite flower"! I prefer you not refer to me that way.. but thanks anyway.

I'm fine.. Marching along and enjoying my RV work.. I no longer post the wagering work on this site. I did for a year or so.. it was unproductive.

Friday night, Russell said to me; (and I hope I am not misspeaking) ESP was real in the 1970-1980s. When the money dried up so did people's belief in ESP. The only thing that will make it real again is using RV to earn large sums of money. He went on to say, he hopes I make a half a million and tell the world, then ESP will be real again... (I think it would need to be more like 50 million, before I brought anyone's attention to it)

I calculated that accurately predicting 4 winning teams in a row has a 1% probability. that is.. we accurately pick 1 of three teams from the embedded list 4 times in a row. 1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3 = 1%

3 in a row is 3.5% probability, still very low likelihood of chance. We run 3 and 4 in a row rather consistently.

Ha.
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
AlexDiC said:
PJ. I have never been referred to as a "favorite flower"! I prefer you not refer to me that way.. but thanks anyway.

I'm fine.. Marching along and enjoying my RV work.. I no longer post the wagering work on this site. I did for a year or so.. it was unproductive.

Friday night, Russell said to me; (and I hope I am not misspeaking) ESP was real in the 1970-1980s. When the money dried up so did people's belief in ESP. The only thing that will make it real again is using RV to earn large sums of money. He went on to say, he hopes I make a half a million and tell the world, then ESP will be real again... (I think it would need to be more like 50 million, before I brought anyone's attention to it)

I calculated that accurately predicting 4 winning teams in a row has a 1% probability. that is.. we accurately pick 1 of three teams from the embedded list 4 times in a row. 1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3 x 1/3 = 1%

3 in a row is 3.5% probability, still very low likelihood of chance. We run 3 and 4 in a row rather consistently.

Ha.
Lol Calm down Alex, She made a mistake thinking you were Alexis another member on this forum who mods gave the username "gentle flower" . Im sure she was not refering to you. ;)
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Alex,

Ohhhhh that's funny. Yes, I was thinking of the other. He is a tough young marine and I once dubbed him that because it was so hilariously at odds with his actual persona. Probably he didn't appreciate it either but I consider it a sign of affection.

I recall you now and I'm sorry -- I've been away for so long, I kind of stop in every 6-12 months briefly and then depart again. I'll be around a lot more in 2014 though so the locals will be suffering me.

I agree that pretty much until RV can provide our culture with something it actually wants -- which directly or indirectly translates into money -- it's unlikely to go anywhere. I find ARV fascinating although two of the ideas incorporated into Risk Intuit, a project I hope to finish in 2014 now that I am more focused on the viewing world again, I don't think have been done before or much so I'm looking forward to it.

I have noticed one thing in the past about precog viewing though. The more it's done in hard protocol the easier it gets by which I mean the better the results. If all practice is done precog to even arranging a target for example, it's like it starts to break down some of those psychological barriers. Has interesting side-effects in daily life. Like realizing the jar of pickles is going to fall before it does, or feeling a flea bite before it actually has leaped on you, or just 'knowing' that the dinner one is making is not going to be what is had for dinner so something's going to come up. I think it's important to lean against those belief systems since I expect it might reduce some (not all) of the somewhat irritating interference in ARV which seems like, when considered, some kind of subconscious 'issue' on the part of the viewer or tasker (to describe, or find highly relevant, something in the non-target option).

Banded Krait I will be back to bug you tomorrow. It's late. :D

PJ
 

AlexDiC

New Member
The more it's done in hard protocol the easier it gets by which I mean the better the results
I agree. Now that I have an accurate RV application, ALL my emphasis is on producing "high level RV work".

From what I have seen, most discussions doesn't place much emphasis on achieving high level RV work. It would by impossible to really know if an application indeed works when inferior viewer are used to acquire the targets/results.

No surprise here!
 

Mycroft

Active Member
PJ said:
I agree that pretty much until RV can provide our culture with something it actually wants -- which directly or indirectly translates into money -- it's unlikely to go anywhere.
I think it is a gift of the spirit like energy healing, if not used and appreciated for altruistic purposes we may never receive the full benefit, I think using it purely for monetary goals is self defeating unless you're running an orphanage.

Mycroft
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Ehhh maybe. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I've generally eschewed money for everything of interest in my life, feeling it sort of polluted the intent of things or at least created some conflict of interest, or requirement that one be permissive with some source they wouldn't be otherwise. But why the viewers are doing it doesn't have to be the same reason the tasker is doing it.

In my meditative work, during a cycle of archetype-RV experiments, at one point a target archetype told me, "Every target has the potential to help you evolve." For some reason that astounded me, delighted me as I'd never thought of it, and I said to my inner guide, is that true?! and he said, "For certain. Every part of the universe holds the maximum potential. 'All numbers are infinite,' remember."

So what I'm getting to is that the viewing process, depending on how you do it -- not everyone is a jungian/shamanic freak like I am of course -- can be a genuine spiritual path regardless of the targets, regardless of the tasker's reason for tasking, assuming it's not something miserable that would interfere with the process of course.

I remember, probably twelve years ago, and probably at some ungodly time of night when I'd been working insane hours without sleep and running on adrenalin far too long, I sent an email to a couple ARV people (Marty and Greg I think) that amounted to a manic rant just because of the situation lol. But it was waxing poetic about an idea I had related to ARV and money that I hope to put in Risk Intuit this year. Basically it makes every session a direct contribution to a very personalized charity (e.g. not like a big industry, but specifically this wildcat at a reserve, or that village a goat, or whatever). The idea is simply that, if successful, there would be somewhat more result than that. But the dominant focus is the viewing for charity approach. Sadly in the US there are very few money-betting schemes you can do via internet which complicates it a bit.

PJ
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Banded_Krait said:
[quote author=PJ]So do I, by which I mean, if the person who knows the target is standing there leading you through it, it's a process exercise, not Remote Viewing. There may be useful purposes to process exercises, but the unfortunate thing is people tend to learn by example, and then go home and become absolutely expert at cold-reading their wife.
Although the person leading you through the exercises knows the targets, he really doesn't act as a session monitor. ... And then he basically shuts up for the 20 - 30 minutes of the exercise. He is not "interviewing" or conversing with anybody, so there is nothing to "cold read".
[/quote]

That is not really correct: Cold reading is not simply 20 questions or body language. It's a myriad of physiological subtle senses which can be present even at distance, without sight, without hearing and more, let alone their possible effects in combination. An RV-specific introduction to this topic can be found here:
http://biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/Your17Senses.html
ON-GOING SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY OF SENSORY RECEPTORS WHICH ACCOUNT FOR MANY SUBTLE PERCEPTIONS
Ingo Swann (12 September 1996)

"I have an object which requires a description." Joe McMoneagle does the same thing at his workshops. These instructors which give solo workshops have no other choice.
No way. That's such a lame excuse, of course people have a choice!

Joe of all people would not violate the blinding protocol, good grief. I sent him the quote and asked him about it and he said:

When I do my workshops at Rhine and other places, I have no idea what’s in the target envelope. I pull them from hundreds at home and bring them with me in my brief case. They are sealed and I’m as blind as anyone else is in the room to what they might be working on. I couldn’t tell you what target is what. Otherwise I couldn’t do the RV when I demonstrate it. Some people are well known for saying something like; “Tell me what the object is that I have in my pocket.” And every time they do, if Ed (May) or I are standing there, we both say something about it. That isn’t remote viewing. When I teach how to judge the RV, they [and I] do the judging blind against five possible targets. No one in the room has any idea what’s in the envelope. -- Joe

It is not difficult to work in a legitimate protocol, it just takes a small amount of caring enough about it to bother.

PJ
 
OK, Palyne, you got me there. Targ does not conduct his RV exercises in his workshops in a truly blind fashion, while Joe ostensibly does. (Although, if one wanted to pick nits, one could argue that Joe's method is not truly truly blind, either, since at one point he did know which target was in which envelope, although it may have been a long time in the past.) All I can say is that I have attended the workshops of both individuals, and my personal observation is that their RV exercises were equally effective in teaching RV to the vast majority of the participants who were present.
 

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Well maybe or maybe not, it was not stated anywhere that he makes everything in that. Pretty sure his wife does most prep work for viewing as she's the project manager for their RV biz.

But in any case, we agree that as a "process exercise" the mere "process" probably doesn't differ, so it is what it is. I have no arguments with that.

My point initially was only that people do learn by example. I've had 18 years of people telling me things like, "I paid $10,000 to become an expert at remote viewing, I have a PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATE, and my trainer didn't work with me that way and never said anything about having to work that way." They should sue. If one doesn't work in and emphasize blinding, people don't tend to pick up on it when they walk away, and the protocol is the definition of RV. It's like teaching someone construction and never even mentioning anything about foundations or other key elements that will cause anything built to be fundamentally problematic.

It would seem like trivia, except that I believe blinding protocol directly impacts the development of the viewer's skills. So it's unfortunate if what people learn about remote viewing is "relax and close your eyes and describe" since that element is pervasive to psi of any kind, so not so hard to pick up anywhere, and it's the blinding/feedback protocol that sets RV apart from the rest of the (somewhat messy) psi world.

When people ignore protocol you get basically every disaster RV's reputation has suffered on late night radio, and the internet, none of which it deserved since none of those things even qualified as remote viewing. But because people considered the process format the only thing of importance, and ignored the blinding/feedback protocol as having key relevance to the definition of RV, the path was open for doing literally anything at all and calling it RV. So it seems like a small thing, but the "follow on effects" from exampling something where even subtly, it is evident that the 'expert' did vs. did not likely know the target while they were present during viewing, can be considerable.

Stay warm over there.

PJ
 

AlexDiC

New Member
There are several very good reasons why I use sports wager as a vehicle for my future events research. One of which is:....

There are great benefits working with a large group of viewers. The progress the group research can make is exponential verse working along. So to keep a large group of viewers engaged, dedicated and continuing to works daily... you have to reward them. In my case these viewers all wager independently, making money daily/weekly, so their participation is rewarded.

We have thousands of sessions /data points to which we have adjusted and "dialed in" our protocols. The emphasis has to be on high quality work or you have two moving parts spinning in circles. Ultimately, to success you need to "nail down" an application that has been proven accurate, then work very hard on quality control.
 

Don

New Member
I don't want to hijack the thread, but I just wanted to point out something - something that is frequently forgotten or overlooked about RV - regarding Krait and PJ's conversation about "cold reading". The issue of the double blind and the fact that Targ's casual "intro to RV" type exercise doesn't follow accepted protocol is really only part of - and related to - a much larger problem in remote viewing. It's a problem that goes right to the heart of what the term "Remote Viewing" means.

We often forget that the term "remote viewing" originally was coined to put a label on a specific type of scientific experiment. Being a scientific experiment, the protocol is paramount. The ingredients necessary in that protocol are not only the double blind. Also included are things like (1) a specific target, the parameters of which are known and articulated beforehand (which excludes common fortune-telling staples like "past-life readings, "romantic outlooks", "life readings", "lucky numbers for the week", etc.), (2) no frontloading of any kind (which can exclude the remote viewing of the same "type" of target repeatedly. So the remote viewing, in succession, of the Pyramids, the Sphinx, the Sphinx temple, and King Tut's Tomb might constitue a kind of frontloading), (3) blind judging (meaning the judge cannot take part in any other aspect of the remote viewing effort in any way), and (4) verifiable feedback (which technically excludes, to one degree or another, targets such as UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster. At least, until feedback on those subjects is obtained).

As PJ alluded to, these - and other aspects of protocol - are the very things that define RV and separate it from all the other "iffy" practices that have been historically referred to as "psychic" (and, because of their lack of protocol, may or mat not be truly "psychic" in nature - there's no way to know with any certainty because of their lack of protocol).

What has happened over time is that the term "remote viewing" has come to be used to refer to the activity of PSI reception, as opposed to the conditions under which PSI reception occurs (the protocols). In a way, I guess you could say that "remote viewing" was originally used as a noun. Nowadays, we tend to use it as a verb. This muddies the waters. Erroneously using the word "protocols" to refer to a methodology (such as the CRV methodology or the TDS methodology or the ERV methodology) instead of using "protocols to refer to the
scientific controls
, which were laboriously established through repetition, trial and error, and constant revision under peer review, also muddies the waters.

All of the above is why McMoneagle, in his RV handbook "Remote Viewing Secrets", stresses repeatedly that many
teaching methodologies
do not follow protocol and should not be thought of as authentic
remote viewing methodologies
for that reason, and that, until any methodology is utilized under accepted protocols, it should not be considered to be "remote viewing". Also, all of the above is why Joe says that he is willing to accept practices such as Tarot Card reading, Crystal Ball gazing, and Tea Leaf reading as "remote viewing" - as long as it is done under protocol. Protocol is paramount.

This emphasis on scientific controls really is the thing - and the only thing - that separates RV from all the other
psychic practices. As remote viewers, we should be proud of this fact. This is what separates us from all the other run-of-the-mill, possibly psychic, frowned upon, historically riddled with fraud and deceit, laughed at, unaccepted, and dis-believed practitioners of other practices. These protocols were perfected to the point that even Hyman, the arch-skeptic, admitted that he could offer no valid explanation for how RV-derived information was obtained. It is the protocols, and the efforts made through those early years of remote viewing experimentation to perfect them, that puts RV on a level where it cannot be legitimately questioned. Every time I remote view and I manage a direct hit, I'm very aware of those protocols. They allow me to know - beyond a shadow of a doubt - that I've accomplished what, to mainstream culture, looks like a small miracle.


Targ does not conduct his RV exercises in his workshops in a truly blind fashion, while Joe ostensibly does. (Although, if one wanted to pick nits, one could argue that Joe's method is not truly truly blind, either, since at one point he did know which target was in which envelope, although it may have been a long time in the past.)
See, I don't regard this issue as effort to "pick nits". To me, it is not only an important issue in remote viewing; it goes to the very heart and meaning of remote viewing. Actually, I'm kind of surprised that a scientist - like Russell Targ, who was integral to the genesis of RV - isn't more of a stickler about this. I guess it is because he uses the activity at his workshops as a kind of introduction to remote viewing. But still, it seems to me (based on what little I know about it) that it would be just as easy to make it a truly double blind effort. Well, that's my two cents worth (or maybe, as long-winded as I am, maybe more like my two dollars worth, lol). I'll bow out of the conversation now. Don
 

Don

New Member
Apologies for all the quotes in my foregoing post. I don't know what happened. My computer had me quoting myself! Not sure how that happened.... lol. Don
 

sharp

New Member
For a second there, thought you were predicting the next Adult Video award winner. No offense intended to your viewer or work. It is just amazing what you see when you are tired.
 

AlexDiC

New Member
Kat man. Thanks for being so supportive. It really was "nice" work. Why not post some of your amazing work.

I would love to see it. Post your work that predicts future events. That would be fun to critique.
 
Top