What is ARV?

1. Introduction
2. How does it work?
3. Leveraging "Effect Size"
4. Stopping thinking (Free Response)
5. Associative outcomes
6. Step by Step example of an ARV trial
7. Gaining consensus by using many nested ARV trials

8. Target practice page

Resulting from my research over the last 15 years, I have discovered a way to use your intuition to predict the outcome of future events. Even random future events.

Before I get into explaining how it's done, let me start with a simple analogy about leverage:

You probably have the ability to deposit $1 into your bank account every day, but you may not think you have the ability to earn a quarter million dollars.

If starting at the age of 10, you deposited $1 into an interest bearing account every day, by the time you retired at 60, your account would have swelled to $237,000. What I'm getting at here has nothing to do with saving your money, or the effects of compounding interest. What I'm talking about is ABILITY and leverage over time. It takes a very SMALL amount of ability to produce a LARGE effect over time.

If you have ever sensed correctly that the phone was about to ring, or thought of an old friend the day BEFORE you bumped into him at the mall, then you probably have a small amount of true intuitive ability.

This is about LEVERAGING that tiny little bit of strange and mysterious mental ability to make USE of it in our daily lives. Like gaining some insight into an important decision you need to make, discovering the meaning of the universe or finding a parking spot.

return to top

How does this work?

A mass of credible research from institutions such as Stanford Research institute, Princeton university, the US government, the Russian government and dozens if not hundreds more research institutions, governments and scientists over the last 100 years or so have shown statistically that the human mind has the ability to predict the outcome of any random event slightly more often than chance alone would permit.

I'm not going to go into the statistics math here, but the average effect size from meta studies is very significant that this effect is not due to chance. Generally, we know that it is true, and that it happens, but we have absolutely no idea HOW it works, WHY it works, or even how it might fit in with our current physics models, which obviously does NOT allow for such a thing to be possible.

But then again, 95% of the general North American population believes in God or a higher power and THAT certainly does NOT fit into any current physics model!

Knowing this, you might be inclined to wonder why your lottery tickets don't win, or why you didn't walk away from that Vegas casino with a fortune in your pocket the last time you were there. There are Two reasons:

1. The 'effect size' in these experiments was VERY small. That means that participants in these experiments had to correctly guess the outcome of a coin toss thousands of times before the scientist could measure that this ability was not due to chance. You probably haven't been to the casino a thousand times, nor would I recommend that as a way to test this theory.

2. The experimenters found that participants performed much better if the subject of the intuitive guessing game was a 'free response' and not a 'forced choice' answer. A "forced choice" answer is where the participant chooses his answer from a list of choices. Forced choice is like guessing a coin toss - you choose either heads or tails (a forced choice). A "Free Response" answer is where the participant can invent any answer at all. Example of a Free Response answer would be to guess what object I was holding behind my back. It could be anything at all, therefore eliciting a 'free response' answer.

The reason 'free response' works and forced choice doesn't is due to involving the analysis and logic processes of the human brain where it does NOT belong. Pure and true intuition - like guessing the outcome of a completely RANDOM event should NOT involve THINKING. Unfortunately, our brains are used to being exercised and even if it's obvious that the brain can't 'think' out an answer to a random choice, it still does - or at least tries to. Like considering the previous coin tosses - you think: "Oh, the last 3 have been heads, so this one has GOT to be tails". The coin you are tossing does NOT know about the result from the previous coin flips.

So does this must mean that if I stop using my brain to predict the outcome of random events, and if I realize that it only works very slightly more than 50% of the time, I will eventually win the lottery? Well, essentially, YES. Although probably not the lottery because the odds are heavily weighed against you due to the cut that your government enjoys.

The secret to APPLYING your intuitive ability - that is, to correctly guess the outcome of REAL questions that you want the answers to, is all about considering these two rules:

1. That the 'effect size' will be very small - slightly better than 50% and,

2. That you can't use your BRAIN to figure out the answer even though it will try.

I have found a way to use your intuition to predict the outcome of ANY event you want to know about, while considering our two rules: BLOCKING your brain from interfering AND taking advantage of multiple attempts to leverage the small effect size.

return to top

Leveraging "Effect Size"

Remember what I said before about ABILITY? Even a very minuscule small amount of ability properly leveraged can produce some amazing results. Like my previous example about simply depositing a $dollar into your bank account every day until you are 60.

That's essentially how I've been able to earn over $150,000 by trading futures using only my intuitive abilities. It wasn't ONE trade. Believe it or not, it took many years, hundreds of trades, and THOUSANDS of attempts to apply my intuition using this system. It takes a LOT of work!

So how does one actually do this?

A quick review:

1. Science has measured that the human mind has the ability to predict the outcome of a random future event more often than chance would permit

2. The 'effect size' or the 'amount' that the average human person can predict is VERY small

3. Use of the brain to 'think' an intuitive prediction lessens the effect. In order to produce an effect at all, the brains conventional 'thinking' or analysis must be suppressed. To accomplish this, the answer should be in the form of a free-response, and not a forced choice.

return to top

Stopping Your Brain From thinking (Free Response)

If you asked me to use my intuition to predict the outcome of the hockey game tonight, I might have some difficulty. Why? Because the task is in the form of a 'Forced Choice' question. There are only two possible answers and I would be FORCED to pick one. My brain would start overriding any true intuitive thoughts about the answer because it knows what teams are playing and I probably have some opinions, or hopes or fears about the outcome. Those opinions would most certainly interfere with any delicate, background intuitive perceptions I might have about the outcome.

If you wrote the question down on a piece of paper, and without telling me anything about the nature of your question, asked me to predict the answer, I would have much better luck at correctly predicting the outcome. Why? Because I would have NO IDEA what the question was, and my answer would be in the form of a FREE RESPONSE answer - i.e.; my brain can't 'think' about what the answer might be because I know the question could be any question at all. It cannot consider the choice of answers because I do not know the question.

The obvious problem with only applying intuition with hidden questions, is we can only use it when we don't know the nature of the question. What if it was your intention to predict the outcome of the stock market for tomorrow? You couldn't use YOUR intuition because you KNOW the question - This problem is not solved simply by asking someone else because you don't know for sure that they won't make assumptions about the kind of question you might be likely to ask. All of this will involve some form of thinking and that will definitely interfere with the intuitive process.

True intuition is produced from a THOUGHTLESS mind. There is an old Zen analogy that the way to calm the mind and stop thinking is similar to how to clear a muddy pool. Not by action, by doing, or by stirring it up, but by stillness, by letting it be, and by letting it settle itself. And therein lies the secret to the Universe (or predicting the stock market).

Before continuing, lets review:

1. Science has measured that the human mind has the ability to predict the outcome of a random future event more often than chance would permit

2. The 'effect size' or the 'amount' that the average human person can predict is VERY small . To take advantage of this 'small' effect, we need to leverage our abilities. Just like how a marathon runner trains to get faster, or how you grow wiser, or wealthier through the years. You progress toward your goal by LEVERAGING YOUR ABILITY and taking small steps, one at a time.

3. Use of the brain to 'think' an intuitive prediction lessens the effect. In order to produce an effect at all, the brains conventional 'thinking' or analysis must be suppressed. To accomplish this, the answer should be in the form of a free-response, and not a forced choice. True intuition is produced from a thoughtless mind.

The big question (we're getting there..): How can we predict what the stock market is going to do a week ahead of time by using Leverage and Free-response?

return to top

Associative outcomes

When we observe the outcome of an event, what exactly are we observing that "IS" the outcome? The answer isn't as obvious and absolute as you might think. Consider the observation of the current temperature:

Of course, all of these forms of observing the current temperature are valid observations - no single method is the 'real' temperature because the 'real' temperature probably doesn't exist. The 'real' temperature is just a large causal chain, possibly starting from some gasses burning on our sun causing our atmosphere to warm causing mercury in a glass column to expand which causes an instrument to emit a digital signal to a computer which causes some numbers to be displayed on a computer screen causing the weather man to 'say' something about that number into a transmitter which causes a radio signal to get sent, etc, etc...

There are an infinite number of ways to observe the outcome of an event. Every single one of these observed outcomes is 'ASSOCIATED' to what the temperature is, and NONE of them 'IS' the temperature.

What I am getting at here, and I hope it's becoming a bit obvious to you by now, is that there are ways to 'DISGUISE' the outcome of an event you are trying to predict in order to first "Hide" it from your thinking brain, and second, to gain consensus by answering the same question dozens of times by CHANGING the ASSOCIATIONS each time.

We do this by predicting the answer to an event that is "ASSOCIATED" to the event we are really trying to predict. That's EXACTLY like observing the temperature by reading a thermometer. The thermometer is NOT the temperature, but it's ASSOCIATED to the temperature.

If we want to predict the outcome of the stock market tomorrow, why not instead predict the outcome of some other event that is closely ASSOCIATED to the stock market outcome? That's not really as 'out-there' as it sounds - you do it all the time. The observation of the stock market close on CNBC is NOT the outcome of the stock market. It's only a bunch of pixels on your TV or computer monitor that are 'ASSOCIATED' to the outcome of the stock market.

Here is an example of how this works: If the stock market goes UP tomorrow, I'm going to dump a pail of steaming hot miscellaneous fish entrails mixed with sour milk over your head. If the stock market goes down tomorrow, I'm going to force you to listen to 5 straight hours of a baby crying. But I don't tell you before hand. It's my little secret.

If I ask you to intuitively predict what will happen to you tomorrow, I'm really asking you to predict the outcome of the stock market because the two potential forms of torture are both 'ASSOCIATED' to the outcome of the market. Plus, It would be a whole lot more fun for ME than watching the ASSOCIATED pixels fluctuate around on my TV screen.

If I wanted to take advantage of LEVERAGING your intuitive abilities, I could repeat this process as many times as required to gain consensus. Each time, I could change the ASSOCIATED form of torture, keeping you blind to what you were attempting to predict.

It would work like this:

Then I would ask you to make 3 predictions using your intuition:

I could then consider all three of your intuitive predictions and attempt to envisage what goofy things I might have to inflict upon you on those 3 days. Since I already know how each form of torture is 'ASSOCIATED' to the stock market outcome, I can use your intuitive predictions as a proxy to the stock market outcome.

We have just solved our TWO conditions to making intuition work with a known question:

1. Your intuitive prediction is in the form of a Free-Response answer due to the fact that your brain can't interfere with the intuitive process because it doesn't know what it's trying to predict.

2. I can LEVERAGE your intuitive abilities by making you predict 3 different events (Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday) that are each ASSOCIATED to the outcome of ONE SINGLE event (The stock market).

This is basically how it's done. And no, I'm not sitting here with fish in my hair. Specific details on how I use random photographs (not smelly fish) as the associations for the two possible outcomes of the stock market will be the next topic.

return to top

Here is a step by step example of the Associative Remote Viewing protocol:

OBJECTIVE - Fred and Mary want to predict the outcome of the stock market for Thursday. They will ENTER a trade on Thursday morning and EXIT the trade on Thursday evening hopefully making a profit. A long position means that they will be 'buying' the market, and will make a profit if the market closes UP on Thursday, and a short position means that they will be 'selling' the market and they will make a profit if the market goes DOWN on Thursday.

1. MONDAY - Mary approaches Fred, our distinguished 'remote viewer', and requests that he use his intuitive abilities to identify a photograph that she will present to him on FRIDAY. The photo will be random, and has not yet been selected. Neither Fred nor Mary have any knowledge of what that photo might be of.

Fred intuitively imagines the photo he will be presented with on Friday and sketches some ideas on a piece of paper. As you can see in our illustration, Fred perceives a half-round, dome-like shape. At this point, Fred does NOT share his thoughts about the photo with Mary.

2. TUESDAY - Mary randomly picks out two photos from a box of random magazine images. Without looking at the photos that she has selected, she secures each one in a sealed envelope and writes "DOWN" on one of the envelopes and "UP" on the other envelope.

It is Marys intention to show Fred one of these two photos on Friday. She will show Fred the photo in the envelope marked "UP" if the markets close UP on THURSDAY, and she'll show him the photo secured in the envelope market "DOWN" if the stock market closes DOWN on Thursday.

3. WEDNESDAY - Fred provides to Mary his drawing of the photo he will be shown on Friday. Then Mary opens both envelopes and looks at the random magazine photos for the first time - an image of an observatory, and an image of a starfish. WITHOUT looking at what she wrote on each envelope (UP or DOWN), Mary compares Freds remote viewing drawing to each photo and tries to predict which one Fred will be shown on Friday.

Mary thinks that it's pretty obvious that Fred will see the photo of the observatory on Friday because it matches Freds dome shape drawing more so than the star fish. This has to mean that the market will go UP on Thursday in order for Fred to see the photo of the observatory. If the market was to go DOWN on Thursday, then Mary would show Fred the photo of the starfish.

4. THURSDAY - On Thursday morning Mary takes a long position in the market - That is, she is betting that the market will go up that day, thereby forcing the photo of the observatory to be shown to Fred on Friday. On Thursday evening, Mary closes her position.

5. FRIDAY - Mary will now show one of the two photos to Fred. She checks the markets activity for Thursday and finds that the market closed higher at the end of the day - therefore, it went UP, so she shows Fred the photo that was associated with an UP market - the observatory. It is important to stress here that regardless of what position Mary took on Thursday, Fred will ALWAYS see ONLY the photograph associated with what the market ACTUALLY did on Thursday - not necessarily what Mary predicted it should do.

And that is essentially what I define as ONE trial in the ARV process. Fred is the one who predicted the outcome of the stock market for Thursday, but was not even aware of that fact. All he knew, was that he was supposed to predict the contents of some random photo he would be shown on Friday. This ARV "trial" satisfies condition #1 - to form the task as a 'free response' question rather than a forced choice. To ask Fred to intuitively predict the outcome of the stock market, we would be asking him to perform a forced choice task because he would have to choose between the two possible answers - UP or DOWN. By ASSOCIATING the UP and DOWN outcomes to random photographs, we have restructured the task to resemble a free-response question. Since Fred has no idea what could be in the photographs, his thinking brain cannot interfere with the intuitive process.

But in order for true intuition to work, we also need to satisfy condition #2 which is to maximize the very small effect size possible by using leverage. If Fred has a very small amount of ability to correctly perceive the photo that he will be shown on Friday, then Mary would be correct in her stock market prediction using Freds remote viewing information only slightly better than 50% of the time. And that's just not good enough.

return to top

Following is a step by step procedure for nesting many ARV trials together to use consensus to predict the outcome of ONE single event:

STEP 1 - TASKING: Mary, who is the organizer of the ARV prediction project, is planning a vacation to LasVegas and would like to put a sizeable amount of money down on either the "RED" or "BLACK" color on a roulette wheel where she would stand a 50% chance of doubling her money (actually, it's slightly LESS than 50% due to the built-in house odds, but for simplicity sake, we'll assume that this casino is in business for the good of all man kind and does not make a profit).

So, she posts the question: "What color will the roulette wheel result in?" With the two possible answers: "RED" or "BLACK"

STEP 2 - PLANNING FEEDBACK SCHEDULE: Mary is going to use her faithful remote viewer FRED to perform the intuitive prediction for this project. Since FRED is NOT going to predict the outcome of the roulette wheel, but is actually predicting a random photo ASSOCIATED to the outcome of the wheel spin, Mary needs to decide exactly when (date and time) she will show the photo to Fred. And since we are taking advantage of leverage with this project by nesting many ARV trials together, Fred will be observing many different photos at different times. These times are called FEEDBACK times.

Since Mary is planning the Vegas trip for this weekend, she plans for Fred to view the photographs (view FEEDBACK) on Monday when she returns. She is also concerned about leaving Vegas with a profit, and so wants to be certain that Fred provides her with a correct prediction, so Mary will plan on having Fred complete 12 ARV trials. Mary will now specify a feedback time for every single one of the 12 trials. Again, a feedback time is the exact time Fred will observe each one of the 12 photographs that corresponded to the actual outcome of the roulette wheel spin. The feedback schedule would look like this:

Monday, Nov 4, 2002
Trial 1 - 10:00 am
Trial 2 - 10:01 am
Trial 3 - 10:02 am
Trial 4 - 10:03 am
Trial 5 - 10:04 am
Trial 6 - 10:05 am
Trial 7 - 10:10 am
Trial 8 - 10:11 am
Trial 9 - 10:12 am
Trial 10 - 10:13 am
Trial 11 - 10:14 am
Trial 12 - 10:15 am

example: On Monday, Nov 4 at exactly 10:00, Fred will be observing a photograph. Then he will be observing a different photograph at 10:02, and another one at 10:03, etc.

STEP 3 - TARGET ASSEMBLY Each of the twelve ARV trials requires two random photographs which are called targets. Each target in each set will be associated with either a "BLACK" outcome or a "RED" outcome. There are many ways to facilitate this, including using a computer and digital images. For the sake of simplicity, Mary is going to organize this the old fashioned way - using actual magazine photos and envelopes.

Mary has 24 envelopes - 2 for each of the twelve trials. On each envelope she's writes the trial #, feedback time and one of the two possible associations (outcomes RED or BLACK). It would look like this:

Envelope 1 "Trial 1, 10:00 am, RED"
Envelope 2 "Trial 1, 10:00 am, BLACK"

Envelope 3 "Trial 2, 10:01 am, RED"
Envelope 4 "Trial 2, 10:01 am, BLACK"

etc.... for all 12 trials (24 envelopes)

Now Mary digs into a huge box of random magazine photos and places one random photo into each of the twelve envelope. Mary does NOT look at the photos as she places them into the envelopes, nor does she look at what she wrote on the envelope. This keeps the entire process 'clean' and eliminates any possibility of Mary inadvertently 'leaking' information about the targets and associations to Fred.


Mary provides the feedback schedule to Fred and instructs Fred to intuitively predict (remote view) the single target he will be shown at each of the TWELVE feedback times starting at 10:00 am on Monday and finishing at 10:15 am that same morning. She also informs Fred that her plane leaves on Friday afternoon, and she would like all twelve remote viewing session transcripts by Thursday morning so she can figure out what the final prediction will be.


Fred will have approximately 5 days to remote view each of the twelve targets and submit his remote viewing session transcripts to Mary for analysis.

On day 1, Fred relaxes in his favorite chair, closes his eyes and tries to calm his thinking mind and reach a meditative state. After 5 minutes of 'cool down' Fred mentally asks the following question: "I will be shown a photograph at exactly 10:00 am on Monday. What will the photo look like?" He then jots down on a piece of paper any random thoughts about the nature of the image that occurs to him, along with Mondays date and the feedback time (Monday, Nov 4, 2002 10:00). After writing down a few ideas - maybe a rough drawing, some words and some feelings, he is ready to remote view the second feedback time (10:01).

After a minute or two of further cool-down, Fred mentally asks himself this question: "I will be shown a photograph at exactly 10:01 am on Monday. What will the photo look like?". On a new piece of paper, Fred will write the feedback date and time down (Monday, Nov 4, 2002 10:01), and proceed to record his thoughts and perceptions about what he will see at 10:01 am on Monday. We'll call that piece of paper the remote viewing transcript.

This entire process is called a 'remote viewing session' and may last from 15 to 30 minutes - or until Fred gets tired.

On day 2, Fred will repeat this basic process, but he will continue to make his way down the feedback schedule, producing a separate remote viewing transcript for each of the twelve feedback times. If Fred remote viewed 3 feedback times per day, he would be finished remote viewing all twelve feedback times in 4 days.

When Fred is finished remote viewing all twelve feedback times, he submits his 12 remote viewing session transcripts to Mary.


Mary will now attempt to predict what photo from each set Fred will be presented with by comparing Fred's Remote Viewing transcript notes to each feedback time.

For example, for the feedback time: 10:00, Mary will look at BOTH photos from the envelopes that are marked "10:00" and compare each of the images with Freds corresponding remote viewing drawing that is also titled "10:00". Mary knows that Fred will be observing ONE of these two photographs - probably the one that most resembles his remote viewing transcript for that time.

It is important to stress that although Mary is looking at both targets for the first time, she CANNOT look at the associations (RED or BLACK) that she wrote on the reverse side of each envelope until AFTER she has completed judging ALL of the trials.

After Mary makes a decision as to which target Fred will probably be shown on Monday, she indicates that choice by marking the corresponding envelope with a check mark.

When Mary has completed judging ALL twelve feedback times - that is, comparing ALL twelve of Freds remote viewing transcripts to the two photos in their corresponding target sets, she is ready to look at the outcome that each chosen target in each set was associated with. Mary will simply add up the number of targets she picked that were associated with "RED" and all those associated with "BLACK". Which ever association has the most 'votes' will be the color she risks her money on in Vegas.


To complete the loop, Fred will now have to observe 12 targets starting at 10:00 on Monday morning - one each minute for 6 minutes, a minute rest, then 6 more minute EXACTLY as per the feedback schedule that was originally created. The photo from each pair that Fred will observe is the one that was associated to the outcome of the roulette wheel spin. If everything went as planned in Vegas, and the majority of Freds RV sessions pointed to a "red" outcome, and indeed a "red" outcome was bet upon and actualized, then Fred would be observing all of the targets that had the word "RED" printed on the back of the respective envelope. If the ARV outcome was a prediction of "RED" and the actual outcome was "BLACK", then Fred and Mary would been wrong and Fred would still have to look at all of the "BLACK" associated targets.

Here is a graphical representation of this multiple trial process:

8 - TARGET PRACTICE - Try it yourself

This it yourself. Below are 120 random photographic targets. Randomly choose 2 numbers from 0 to 120 and write them down. Now randomly associate the two outcomes of your event to each number by writing that association ("Up", "Down", "Heads", "Tails", "He loves me", "She hates me". etc...) under the number. Repeat the process 3 or more times). Now remote view each 'trial'. When you are finished, judge them (don't look at the association when judging), and consider your consensus prediction.

These links will take you directly to a target. Do not click on these links unless you are ready to view your target at your exact pre-specified feedback time and date.

REMEMBER: You are NOT remote viewing these targets. You are remote viewing YOURSELF in the future at your feedback time and date!


   TARGET 41

   TARGET 81


   TARGET 42

   TARGET 82


   TARGET 43

   TARGET 83


   TARGET 44

   TARGET 84


   TARGET 45

   TARGET 85


   TARGET 46

   TARGET 86


   TARGET 47

   TARGET 87


   TARGET 48

   TARGET 88


   TARGET 49

   TARGET 89

   TARGET 10

   TARGET 50

   TARGET 90


   TARGET 51

   TARGET 91

   TARGET 12

   TARGET 52

   TARGET 92

   TARGET 13

   TARGET 53

   TARGET 93

   TARGET 14

   TARGET 54

   TARGET 94

   TARGET 15

   TARGET 55

   TARGET 95

   TARGET 16

   TARGET 56

   TARGET 96

   TARGET 17

   TARGET 57

   TARGET 97

   TARGET 18

   TARGET 58

   TARGET 98

   TARGET 19

   TARGET 59

   TARGET 99

   TARGET 20

   TARGET 60

   TARGET 100


   TARGET 61

   TARGET 101

   TARGET 22

   TARGET 62

   TARGET 102

   TARGET 23

   TARGET 63

   TARGET 103

   TARGET 24

   TARGET 64

   TARGET 104

   TARGET 25

   TARGET 65

   TARGET 105

   TARGET 26

   TARGET 66

   TARGET 106

   TARGET 27

   TARGET 67

   TARGET 107

   TARGET 28

   TARGET 68

   TARGET 108

   TARGET 29

   TARGET 69

   TARGET 109

   TARGET 30

   TARGET 70

   TARGET 110

   TARGET 31

   TARGET 71

   TARGET 111

   TARGET 32

   TARGET 72

   TARGET 112

   TARGET 33

   TARGET 73

   TARGET 113

   TARGET 34

   TARGET 74

   TARGET 114

   TARGET 35

   TARGET 75

   TARGET 115

   TARGET 36

   TARGET 76

   TARGET 116

   TARGET 37

   TARGET 77

   TARGET 117

   TARGET 38

   TARGET 78

   TARGET 118

   TARGET 39

   TARGET 79

   TARGET 119

   TARGET 40

   TARGET 80

   TARGET 120