ARV Research Update September 30, 1999

For details on what ARV is, the ARV protocol and how experiments are conducted, please also read the previous report: ARVupdateJune6.html

I have just recently completed adding the results from my 1250th Associative Remote Viewing (ARV) trial to my database, adding about 250 trials since the last update. I've had mostly winning series, but a couple of losers which prompted me to take another look at the Sidereal Time and effect size correlation. It seemed that the unsuccessful sessions were predominantly conducted at poor sidereal times (poor sidereal times, as per previous research).

Many of you might be familiar with the Sidereal Time/ Psi Effect Size research by James Spottiswoode. He found that he could increase the average effect size of 4000 remote viewing trials from various universities and research institutes by more than 300% if he looked at only those trials that occurred around 13:30 sidereal time. At 12:00 noon Local Sidereal Time (LST) each day you would be facing the same part of the universe, the same stars, etc.

In the last research update, I introduced a graph that plotted the effect size in my database when filtered using Local Sidereal Time. I also noted that during certain hours LST, the milky way galaxy center (Sirius) rises and sets and had found some correlation with peaks and troughs in my effect size. Well, I must apologize, as it appears that I jumped the gun on that a bit because the application that I was using was incorrectly configured to provide the correct Local Sidereal Time. It looks like I was out a few hours and therefore, the correlation with the Galaxy center rising and setting in the sky is weak and not nearly as valid as I thought it was. It is still obvious that there is some connection with the movement of the galaxy and my effect size, but my data didn't make any obvious correlations with various positions of Sirius anymore.

This time, I used a different software package and double checked it's accuracy. It took a while, but I found something that is even more startling than my original false start with Sirius. I inadvertently turned on an option that plotted a line on the celestial sky called the Galactic Equator. That is a line that crosses the sky and lies directly over the milky way galaxy. It represents the plane of our milky way galaxy. At two times during the day, the Galactic Equator line will lie DIRECTLY overhead - a line that stretches straight from horizon to horizon, directly up, above your head. At other times during the day, the line will curve around you.

What is most interesting about what I have found is that in my data, I have two effect size peaks and two effect size troughs. The two peaks happen EXACTLY at BOTH times the galactic equator is straight and overhead. The one major trough happens when the equator line is the furthest from directly overhead to the North, and the other trough is when the galactic equator finishes it's second off-center cycle for the day (the charts below explain it better). The correlation is dramatic and seems to make some logical sense as well. Here is an image of the sky that shows gamma-ray photons that are more than 40 million times more energetic than light photons. The gamma-ray glow from the plane (the Galactic equator) is clearly shown across the middle.

Gamma Ray All Sky Map
Picture Credit: NASA, Compton Gamma Ray Observatory

If you could see gamma-rays, the above image is what the sky would look like when the milky way plane (the galactic equator) is directly over head. Here are some other images of the galactic plane.

Infrared Image from http://www.adc.gsfc.nasa.gov/mw/milkyway.html

Optical Image from http://www.adc.gsfc.nasa.gov/mw/milkyway.html

Here are 6 images that show graphic representation of the sky at key local sidereal times and also a bar to the right of each image that shows the measured ARV effect size from my database at that time. The blue line is the Galactic Equator. The six images show the two times per day when the equator line is directly overhead and the two times per day when the equator line is at it's maximum curvature away from the overhead positions.

Here is the sky at exactly 04:00 LST. The blue line depicts the Galactic Equator. Note that it is directly overhead and straight. Also note that the ARV effect size measured at this time is almost 7 units.	Here is the sky at exactly 09:00 hours LST. Note that the effect size has dropped off, and also that the Galactic Equator has curved away to the west.
Here is the sky at exactly 13:00 LST. The galactic equator is at it's MAXIMUM distance from overhead (to the north) and the ARV effect size is at it's lowest point - actually BELOW mean.	Here is the sky at exactly 21:00 LST. The galactic equator has moved from it's maximum north position and is once again straight and overhead. Also the ARV effect size measured is near it's maximum once again.
Here is the sky at exactly 02:00 LST. The galactic equator has continued it's move to the North. Notice the effect size drop with only a slight curve to the north! The effect size drop is not due to the degree of curvature of the equator line, but due to the fact that it is once again at it's MAXIMUM northerly position in that cycle. Note the next frame 2 hours later where it once again returns to straight and overhead and the resulting effect size peak.	Here we are at one full Sidereal day, returning to where we started (04:00) with the galactic equator once again straight and overhead with the effect size at it's maximum.

images are from a shareware version of CyberSky by Stephen Michael Schimpf http://www.cybersky.com/

I have prepared an html slide show showing every hour of the Sidereal day with the corresponding ARV effect size.

ARV LST html slide show

For a research and database summary including a summary of all predictions, please see the previous research summary report here: ARVupdateJune6.html For details on the ARV protocol and how experiments are conducted, please also read the previous report: ARVupdateJune6.html

Commonly Asked Questions and Answers

Q. Why do you think certain Local Sidereal Times are related to your ARV success?

A. I believe it might have something to do with my effect size peaking exactly when the milky way arm (the galactic equator) is directly over head and my lowest effect size is when the galactic equator is at it's maximum offset during each cycle. The galactic equator is the plane of our milky way galaxy and it represents a line that is extremely dense with stars - billions and billions of stars emitting all sorts of radio waves, light particles and who knows what else. Something that is either being emitted from the galaxy plane or being shielded by the galaxy plane might be responsible for moderating psi.

Q. Why do you think the moon phase is related to your ARV success? (see chart at: ARVupdateJune6.html)

A. Well, I'm not really sure, but there is some interesting, though vague similarities between the LST effect and lunar effect. My peak effect occurs when the moon is full, or approaching full, and lowest effect during the new moon phases. The difference between a full and new moon is basically where the earth is in relation to the sun and the moon. During the full moon phases, the earth is between the sun and the moon, and during the new moon phases, the sun and moon are on the same side of the sky. So we have greater psi effect when we are at an 'equilibrium' with regard to the sun and the moon - the earth between the sun and moon. This is similar to the LST effect where we reach peak effect sizes when the milky way galaxy is directly overhead and directly behind the earth - again, a kind of equilibrium of some sort.

Q. Do you think this 'equilibrium' is due to gravity?

A. No, I don't. The reason is as follows: At 21:00 LST when we 'look' up into the sky and 'measure' that the galactic equator is directly overhead, we are actually measuring an event that no longer even exists. The light and other particles that travel incredible distances from our milky way take so long to reach us, that what we think we see is no longer even there. Gravity, on the other hand, takes no time to effect us - it's instantaneous. If gravity was responsible for moderating psi, then we would measure the effect exactly where the galaxy IS, not where it APPEARS to be. The fact that our research indicates that what we 'measure' might be responsible for moderating psi (light, radio waves, gamma waves, etc), then we can conclude that perhaps gravity which does not actually 'travel' like light does, is not a factor.

Q. Why do you think that James Spottiswoodes LST data is different - almost opposite of yours?

A. I don't really know. I have randomly split my data into two chunks and the LST correlation graph is similar between the two parts meaning that the effect is probably legitimate. The reason for the differences might be found by examining the differences between our two databases. James database represented psi experiment results from hundreds of different subjects whereas my database contains data from one subject - me. James database also contains data from research that was conducted all over the world, whereas my data is generated from experiments done almost exclusively here in Calgary, Alberta where I am based. The effect found in James database may be a 'group' fingerprint, whereas each of us may have our own specific fingerprints that may be due to various sensitivities to cosmological events and formations. When the individual fingerprints are combined, the resulting group fingerprint may not necessarily reflect the majority of the individual patterns.

Q. Will you do public speaking?

A. I have not yet, but would like to. I'm just waiting for an invitation.

Q. Is remote viewing a natural skill that you have and if so does it mean that perhaps I or others who do not have a similar level of natural ability cannot accomplish the level of success that you have been able to demonstrate?

A. To some extent yes, but I have been teaching the ARV protocol for a year now - and the vast majority of those students can demonstrate a similar level of remote viewing proficiency as I do. The biggest obstacle for most is rather typical I'm afraid. Many are unwilling or unable to devote the kind of effort required to properly conduct the ARV protocol fully, and to commit to it for some period of time. As with most difficult challenges in life, it takes persistence and dedication to achieve your goals - Accurately predicting the future by accomplishing proficiency using the ARV protocol is no different.

Q. Can I see some examples of typical remote viewing sessions?

A. I have posted some remote viewing transcripts at my web site. http://www.remote-viewing.com/outtakes/index.html The examples that I have chosen aren't typical - they are probably a little better than average.

Q. Does the type of future event itself make a difference to your success rate?

A. NO - absolutely not. I've tested almost every 'type' of future event imaginable from the most random to the most deterministically predictable - the type of event does not matter. Futures prices, flip of a coin, random quantum events (radio active decay), sporting events, etc. The future IS the future is the future. Period. Future events may be premembered just like past events can be remembered. Time flows both ways relative to how you want to see it. For further discussion of time, please refer to this essay.

Q. If a random future event can be predicted with certainty, then all of the 'causal' events that must happen in order for the final predicted future event must also be considered and must be part of that prediction. If that's so, then the logical conclusion would be that a question, or even an answer would not be required before the remote viewing process began. Is that true?

A. Yes that's correct. A question about the future, or the two answers associated with that question is NOT required BEFORE the ARV process is finished. For example, I can set up 20 arv trials with 20 target sets, each target in each set associated with a 'symbolic' answer of "A" or "B". The question about the future is not required at this point. I can then remote view which of the two photos I will be shown after some event happens, and the judge can complete the analysis - we can, with confidence predict that the answer will be "A" (for example). Then we can derive a question and randomly assign the two potential answers to either "A" or "B". Since we already know what the answer is - "A", we have our prediction.

Q. If the future is predictable then that means that it's all predetermined and that means that I do not possess free-will. I find that kind of depressing.

A. Yes - in a way, the future is predetermined, but the past has also been determined and you don't find that depressing do you? Most people find this difficult to comprehend, and I find it even harder to explain but I'll try. If you look at a transcript of all that you did yesterday you cannot deny that you exercised your free will all day long right? You did what you wanted to do at every turn and yet from today's perspective, as you look at your transcript - you can't change anything you did yesterday. It's etched in stone - a done deal. Well - look at the future the same way. If you view tomorrow from the perspective of tomorrow's tomorrow, you can see why freewill and determinism can co-exist. In short - do what ever you want to do, but once you've done it, it's determined.

Q. When you 'predict' the future do you really predict it or do you make it?

A. Good question. It really 'feels' like we predict a future event, but when you really think about it the logical conclusion is that we actually create our futures - here's why: If the future is predetermined which it has to be, or we would not be able to predict it, then how is it that I am able to predict the outcome of some future event, and then be able to position myself to take advantage of that knowledge (by taking a position in the stock market for example)? If I can do that, and my research is showing that I can, then I think the logical conclusion might be that I am actually creating that event in some way, some how.

Q. What has been your financial return?

A. With commodities and futures a return on invested capital is very difficult to calculate. When trading a futures contract, you are really not 'investing' any money as such. The return is directly related to the risk. If I am correct in my prediction, the more I risk, the more I make, and visa versa.

Q. Why is science main stream still so skeptical with regard to remote viewing and ARV?

A. Perhaps is has a lot to do with a lack of a reasonable explanation for HOW it works. There's tons of evidence that it does work, but no theories with any evidence at all as to WHY or HOW. Science knows that a certain drug works, and science can also explain HOW it works and so science embraces the drug and the data that suggests that it works. If you find anything at all with proof that it works without a reason for HOW it works, you will find little or no scientific backing for it. It's a shame because gravity works and we have absolutely no idea how it works. (That's why I personally don't believe in gravity)

Q. If I want to predict whether or not the stock market will go up tomorrow, why can't I just directly remote view the outcome rather than spending all of this effect and time with the ARV protocol?

A. Well, I suppose you could simply directly remote view the outcome of the event, but most of us don't possess the level of natural psychic skill that would be required to make any kind of confident prediction. ARV is for the average person with an average level of natural ability. That's why we incorporate a series of trials in our task rather than just one or two. It allows us to leverage small amounts of psi and gather confidence by remote viewing a lot of different targets all related to the same outcome.

Q. I recently finished learning a controlled remote viewing methodology. Can I use this approach with the ARV protocol?

A. Certainly! You'll have to do it a lot quicker though - either that or use less trials per series. Using some of the more detailed methodologies available, it would take a century to finish 100 targets in a series. Typically, I will think about my target for about 5 minutes, and record everything I think of and then move on to the next target. I can remote view 12 targets in a hour this way and it works quite for me.

Q. Where can I learn more?

A. At my web site there are a list of books that I have read and reviewed on quantum physics, psi (remote viewing), and spiritual topics. http://www.remote-viewing.com/books.html Also at my web site I offer a free on-line ARV training course. Details can be found at: http://www.remote-viewing.com/coursemain.html And as always, I can be reached by email at greg@ideamachine.com I welcome your questions and comments!