A Bug in the System for Binary ARV

I am trained in several type of remote viewing techniques, including military-style Controlled Remote Viewing ("CRV") and Associative Remote Viewing ("ARV").  These are what I have called applications of clairvoyance using certain defined protocols.  These protocols are all different systems that enable the remote viewers, as well as their monitors and judges of the sessions, to apply uniform standards to the psychic imagery which generally applies to places or events in distant locations or distant time zones, such as the future. 

ARV is interesting because it helps the viewer to relax a bit and takes the pressure off because the viewer doesn't need to find the "right" answer to the ultimate question, but only the imagery associated with one out of two photos which ultimately will represent the right answer. The photos are usually randomly picked.  They are randomly associated with possible answers (usually a binary system of up or down, winning or losing, right or wrong).  A photo of a flower may represent a "win" and a photo of a boat may represent a "lose" if the question (never told to the remote viewers) is: Will the Red Sox win the World Series this year?

I recently joined the ARV group called Applied Precognition Project founded by computational physicist Marty Rosenblatt, who has worked in the past developing computer simulation games and outcomes for organizations like the Department of Defense and NASA, and have a worked on a number of ARV taskings.  Marty was quoted in an interview in the "Eight Martini's Magazine" (issue 12, January, 2015) as saying he liked ARV because of "the clarity it provides in defining a Hit versus a Miss."  He is a big believer in making sure viewers get feedback on their viewing so they can learn from their mistakes as well as their successes.  

Under Marty's ARV system, viewers are also invited to judge their own transcripts.  A numerical scoring system is used to see how well our psychic images match the feedback photos (A and B) that are later randomly assigned to each of our two transcript numbers.  Sometimes our descriptions and drawings are a good match (a "Hit"), sometimes they don't match at all (a "Miss") and sometimes the descriptions of both photos are equally good or equally bad - in which case it is a wash and doesn't count (a "Pass").  All of the group's hits and misses are tallied up at the end of the day.  Marty then places a bet on the group's collective choice.  In our case, it is whether certain international currencies will go up or down that day.

I recently had a result I had never experienced before - nor had I ever seen anyone else produce this kind of result.  It was apparently quite unusual.  I brought it to Marty's attention.  He felt it was interesting enough to bring up for discussion in his Webinar.  I had described and sketched my two transcripts.  They looked very different to me.  I thought I was describing two different photographs (Photos A and B).  After I submitted them online, I was able to see the two photos that were assigned one to each transcript.  For scoring purposes, I was presented with a little four-box grid.  My job was to assign a numerical value to each photo for each transcript. 

Here was the problem:  Instead of describing each of the two photos, my transcripts described the same exact photo!  They both described Photo A.  Photo A turned out to be a photo of Stonehenge (see actual photo at the top of this page).  They were both quite good descriptions and so I scored them both quite high.  I assigned them each a score of "6" out of the Targ 7-point confidence ranking system.  Transcript 756355 describes and sketches a series of choppy land masses in the "forefront" of a golden, warm, glowing sun on the left hand side.  Transcript 880514 shows a tall, stone, carved, gravestone pointing upward, a "monument" with a "national feeling" and perhaps "an angel on a gravestone?" (compare to the actual photo image with a lady standing on top of Stonehenge). Strangely, neither transcript described Photo B  at all which turned out to be a picture of a pink rose.  Consequently, I assigned "0" for both transcripts for Photo B.  

Here are the two transcripts I described and drew, for those of you who might be interested:

Because my brain only focused on one photograph, the scoring came out very strange.  I was forced to take a "Pass" because the "6" for Transcript 1 washed out the "6" for Transcript 2.  I couldn't say which Transcript represented Photo A.  That was a problem.  This is very unusual.  Again, this is a situation that probably hasn't come up much at all in WE ARV discussions - if ever! Take a look at my little diagram below showing two boxes. The top box shows why I had to pass with equal scorings for Photo A.  I call that a "Vertical Pass."  The bottom box shows why people normally pass with equal scorings for Photo A and Photo B.  I call that a "Horizontal Pass."  That just means your psychic brain captured the data equally well or equally poorly for both photos.

Although my brain correctly focused on accurately describing the "feedback target" which was the imagery in Photo A,  my brain also seems to have (without my permission) focused on the ultimate correct winning photo (which was Photo A).  We learned the day after our scores were submitted that Photo A (the picture of Stonehenge), which had been pre-selected to represent an uptick in the financial market in the future, accurately corresponded with a real uptick in the financial market.  It was a real "winning" photo in the end. 

Normally, your job is only to describe each photo choice, not the ultimate photo that will represent the winning answer in reality.  Unfortunately for me, I did both.  My brain apparently also wanted to play "leap frog" and go directly to the winning answer, and only allowed me to describe the one photo (Photo A) that would win.  Unfortunately, not only for me, but also for the overall scoring for our group, I was forced to pass.  My concern is that this unusual problem of what I am calling a "Vertical Pass" results in some problems in the WE ARV system.   

First of all, this has the effect of penalizing the remote viewer in terms of feedback.  Let's face it!  It is not easy to look at a piece of paper with a number written on it and then try to "imagine" or sketch the photo it will represent in the future!  As remote viewers, we all operate with a delicate psyche.  Even small amounts of negativity in this realm can have devastating effects on our future ability to remote view.  This is a delicate art/science of prediction.  In this situation, I was forced to pass, even though I had succeeded in the goal of producing one highly accurate transcript (as well as a second one too) which also happened to turn out to be the winning answer.  I was thus compelled to stay out of the game (a kind of negative feedback for me) even though I had not done anything "wrong" in terms of viewing the target.  If this kind of pass is not corrected, it may lead to other viewers receiving inappropriate negative feedback.

Second, I believe this unusual kind of a pass may result in tilting the scoreboard the wrong way for the group bet.  The WE ARV system is geared toward the ultimate practical application of remote viewing by using the binary selection to make a binary choice in the real world (sports bet, financial market, simple predictions).  My transcripts could not be added to the group selection because a "pass" doesn't count.  If the majority of the other viewers had scored in favor Photo A, then my pass wouldn't have made a difference in the bet.  But let's suppose, there was a "tie" in the overall group, then my choice of Photo A would have tipped the balance toward the correct bet.  Or, let's suppose several of the viewers began to have Vertical Pass issues.  If several were correct, then the failure to include them could theoretically lead to a wrong bet.  In the world of mathematical precision and probabilities, even these seemingly tiny or unusual anomalies need to be taken into consideration if we are to come up with good statistical models for betting.  The problem of the Vertical Pass could represent a very tiny but annoying bug in the system.

POST SCRIPT: I have since had some interesting discussions with Marty about his ARV system and some of the issues I described above.  As I discovered, he actually likes my term "vertical pass" to describe this particular problem which - as it turns out - is a kind of psychic override of his binary choice ARV system and throws a wrench in it.  I accurately viewed too far into the future!  I foresaw the "winning" outcome photo, not the "winning" feedback photo prior to the actual event occurrence.  However, this vertical pass does not interfere with his voting system.  I erroneously believed that Photo A in both transcript #1 and #2 represented, in his system, an uptick.  Turns out, Photo A will be an uptick for transcript #1 and Photo B will be the uptick for transcript #2.  That may sound complicated, but it solves the problem of the Vertical Pass issue I have raised!  It means that if your psyche believes the currency exchange will go up, you will select Photo A the first time and Photo B the second time, and either way, your choice will be the winner!