1 00:00:09,330 --> 00:00:07,110 so Deborah did such a good job 2 00:00:11,070 --> 00:00:09,340 describing associate remote-viewing and 3 00:00:13,169 --> 00:00:11,080 talking about what it is and how the 4 00:00:16,859 --> 00:00:13,179 other set up one of the things that I 5 00:00:19,650 --> 00:00:16,869 first started thinking about is what's 6 00:00:23,429 --> 00:00:19,660 the most important part of the study is 7 00:00:25,170 --> 00:00:23,439 it the viewers and a lot of ARV research 8 00:00:27,990 --> 00:00:25,180 and a lot of remote viewing research 9 00:00:30,060 --> 00:00:28,000 focuses on the viewers my question is 10 00:00:32,790 --> 00:00:30,070 what's the role of the judges and 11 00:00:35,549 --> 00:00:32,800 doesn't make a difference and also how 12 00:00:38,760 --> 00:00:35,559 does the investment choice play into 13 00:00:41,370 --> 00:00:38,770 this this whole process before I get 14 00:00:43,740 --> 00:00:41,380 into the study let me first talk about 15 00:00:46,620 --> 00:00:43,750 the difference between prospective and 16 00:00:50,130 --> 00:00:46,630 retrospective studies retrospective 17 00:00:52,260 --> 00:00:50,140 studies that's where you take a gather 18 00:00:54,630 --> 00:00:52,270 data that's already been collected and 19 00:00:56,670 --> 00:00:54,640 you try to run some analyses over it so 20 00:00:58,950 --> 00:00:56,680 things like meta analyses or something 21 00:01:01,170 --> 00:00:58,960 that are typically a good example of 22 00:01:02,460 --> 00:01:01,180 retrospective studies the data is 23 00:01:04,439 --> 00:01:02,470 already out there we've already 24 00:01:05,999 --> 00:01:04,449 collected it so let's just look at it 25 00:01:07,640 --> 00:01:06,009 and see if we can see any trends in the 26 00:01:11,430 --> 00:01:07,650 data see if we can get information a 27 00:01:14,910 --> 00:01:11,440 prospective study on the other hand its 28 00:01:16,830 --> 00:01:14,920 previously designed configured the 29 00:01:19,469 --> 00:01:16,840 analysis methods they're all defined all 30 00:01:24,810 --> 00:01:19,479 this is set up before any of the data is 31 00:01:28,230 --> 00:01:24,820 is ever ever collected now why would you 32 00:01:30,660 --> 00:01:28,240 do a retro or prospective study with so 33 00:01:32,520 --> 00:01:30,670 much data available with so much 34 00:01:37,130 --> 00:01:32,530 information around why would we ever 35 00:01:39,990 --> 00:01:37,140 choose to do a prospective study well 36 00:01:42,120 --> 00:01:40,000 when you're making decisions for a 37 00:01:45,750 --> 00:01:42,130 retrospective study you have to decide 38 00:01:47,969 --> 00:01:45,760 things like hey what what which studies 39 00:01:49,560 --> 00:01:47,979 are am I going to include what are the 40 00:01:51,690 --> 00:01:49,570 different criteria I'm going to set up 41 00:01:53,730 --> 00:01:51,700 for the studies I'm going to include and 42 00:01:56,990 --> 00:01:53,740 those things that brings in an 43 00:02:01,859 --> 00:01:57,000 opportunity for more sources of bias 44 00:02:03,990 --> 00:02:01,869 within the study in addition when you're 45 00:02:05,999 --> 00:02:04,000 doing a prospective study it gives you a 46 00:02:08,070 --> 00:02:06,009 better foundation for exploring more 47 00:02:09,690 --> 00:02:08,080 factors that might be involved rather 48 00:02:12,030 --> 00:02:09,700 than depending on factors that might 49 00:02:13,349 --> 00:02:12,040 have been done in other studies and 50 00:02:17,220 --> 00:02:13,359 working from what other people have 51 00:02:18,510 --> 00:02:17,230 already defined the final thing that's 52 00:02:20,700 --> 00:02:18,520 really important 53 00:02:23,790 --> 00:02:20,710 about prospective studies is they allow 54 00:02:27,030 --> 00:02:23,800 for pre-registration within our field 55 00:02:29,610 --> 00:02:27,040 it's very important that we maintain the 56 00:02:32,310 --> 00:02:29,620 integrity of our data and the integrity 57 00:02:34,920 --> 00:02:32,320 of our studies one of the things that 58 00:02:38,430 --> 00:02:34,930 most of the sciences require or 59 00:02:39,990 --> 00:02:38,440 encourage is that you define everything 60 00:02:42,840 --> 00:02:40,000 and put all your information out there 61 00:02:44,460 --> 00:02:42,850 so pre-registering like somewhere like 62 00:02:45,930 --> 00:02:44,470 the Kessler labs where they have a 63 00:02:48,450 --> 00:02:45,940 pre-registration system 64 00:02:51,480 --> 00:02:48,460 you take your design you take your 65 00:02:52,890 --> 00:02:51,490 analysis method you determine what your 66 00:02:55,590 --> 00:02:52,900 sample size is going to be and you put 67 00:02:59,160 --> 00:02:55,600 it all in the registry before you ever 68 00:03:00,810 --> 00:02:59,170 do the study by doing this whenever 69 00:03:03,780 --> 00:03:00,820 you're whenever some people whenever 70 00:03:06,080 --> 00:03:03,790 someone wants to evaluate the quality of 71 00:03:09,480 --> 00:03:06,090 your study they can go back and look at 72 00:03:11,220 --> 00:03:09,490 the free registration data compare what 73 00:03:13,230 --> 00:03:11,230 your results were and see how well you 74 00:03:16,320 --> 00:03:13,240 stayed within the parameters that you 75 00:03:20,220 --> 00:03:16,330 originally defined you can define things 76 00:03:23,580 --> 00:03:20,230 like your your criteria for significance 77 00:03:25,650 --> 00:03:23,590 and if you change any of that you define 78 00:03:27,690 --> 00:03:25,660 all that whenever you finish or whenever 79 00:03:30,150 --> 00:03:27,700 you put your final report in there so by 80 00:03:33,120 --> 00:03:30,160 doing this what we're doing is we're 81 00:03:37,890 --> 00:03:33,130 adding integrity to our data which is so 82 00:03:40,500 --> 00:03:37,900 important within our field so let me 83 00:03:43,440 --> 00:03:40,510 tell you now about our study this was a 84 00:03:45,960 --> 00:03:43,450 really typical ARV study we did 85 00:03:47,910 --> 00:03:45,970 something we just took exactly what they 86 00:03:49,910 --> 00:03:47,920 were doing in the silver futures markets 87 00:03:52,560 --> 00:03:49,920 that they did back in the eighties and 88 00:03:55,950 --> 00:03:52,570 the only variation we had on it is we 89 00:03:57,960 --> 00:03:55,960 had three viewers instead of one but we 90 00:03:59,670 --> 00:03:57,970 had one we had the viewers we had one 91 00:04:02,100 --> 00:03:59,680 judge we had an investor and we had a 92 00:04:06,030 --> 00:04:02,110 court a coordinator they were all 93 00:04:08,100 --> 00:04:06,040 extremely experienced ever all the 94 00:04:10,050 --> 00:04:08,110 viewers had experience in reviewing had 95 00:04:12,660 --> 00:04:10,060 done it in other and had it done ARV and 96 00:04:15,480 --> 00:04:12,670 other times the judge was very well 97 00:04:16,800 --> 00:04:15,490 established in fact these people were in 98 00:04:19,170 --> 00:04:16,810 this room but they don't even know that 99 00:04:21,240 --> 00:04:19,180 they were part of the same study nobody 100 00:04:24,350 --> 00:04:21,250 knows everyone was blinded to who was 101 00:04:27,930 --> 00:04:24,360 involved with the study we used one 102 00:04:29,550 --> 00:04:27,940 stock for the investment throughout what 103 00:04:31,170 --> 00:04:29,560 we did is selected a stock at the 104 00:04:33,330 --> 00:04:31,180 beginning and we did it randomly 105 00:04:34,710 --> 00:04:33,340 we were looking for something that was 106 00:04:36,240 --> 00:04:34,720 volatile we didn't care if it was going 107 00:04:40,080 --> 00:04:36,250 up or down or anything we just wanted to 108 00:04:44,100 --> 00:04:40,090 change a lot during week what we do is 109 00:04:46,620 --> 00:04:44,110 we target the viewers on a Saturday and 110 00:04:50,100 --> 00:04:46,630 say tell us what you're going to see 111 00:04:51,900 --> 00:04:50,110 next Friday the viewers would do their 112 00:04:54,330 --> 00:04:51,910 viewing and returning information to our 113 00:04:56,760 --> 00:04:54,340 coordinator by Sunday night the 114 00:05:00,660 --> 00:04:56,770 coordinator would take it use a RV 115 00:05:04,680 --> 00:05:00,670 studio with which never just define use 116 00:05:07,680 --> 00:05:04,690 a RV studio to get to targets to targets 117 00:05:09,750 --> 00:05:07,690 and all the viewer data to the judge the 118 00:05:12,900 --> 00:05:09,760 judge would look at it make a decision 119 00:05:15,600 --> 00:05:12,910 on which photo matched the coordinator 120 00:05:19,260 --> 00:05:15,610 will get the information back randomly 121 00:05:22,020 --> 00:05:19,270 using random.org determine which stop 122 00:05:23,850 --> 00:05:22,030 which image would represent an up Sauk 123 00:05:27,630 --> 00:05:23,860 than which image would represent a down 124 00:05:30,210 --> 00:05:27,640 stock we then make the investment Friday 125 00:05:32,370 --> 00:05:30,220 we'd run through the week Friday we'd 126 00:05:34,830 --> 00:05:32,380 resolve the investment and the viewers 127 00:05:38,160 --> 00:05:34,840 would see that the target picture that 128 00:05:40,140 --> 00:05:38,170 actually matched what actually happened 129 00:05:43,170 --> 00:05:40,150 in the market they never saw up a decoy 130 00:05:44,610 --> 00:05:43,180 image in this study it was all designed 131 00:05:46,740 --> 00:05:44,620 to make money we're a nonprofit 132 00:05:49,710 --> 00:05:46,750 organization at the Rhine we were trying 133 00:05:52,620 --> 00:05:49,720 to generate some funds unfortunately in 134 00:05:54,270 --> 00:05:52,630 this study we did not make money we 135 00:05:55,950 --> 00:05:54,280 actually lost a bit of money but it 136 00:05:57,480 --> 00:05:55,960 wasn't because there was a problem with 137 00:06:00,120 --> 00:05:57,490 the viewing or the judging or any of 138 00:06:03,330 --> 00:06:00,130 that process it was because we're 139 00:06:05,700 --> 00:06:03,340 nonprofit organization we were limited 140 00:06:08,370 --> 00:06:05,710 in the way we can invest our funds and 141 00:06:11,340 --> 00:06:08,380 the investment company we were working 142 00:06:14,460 --> 00:06:11,350 with told us well let me they told us 143 00:06:16,500 --> 00:06:14,470 that we could do one thing and that was 144 00:06:19,020 --> 00:06:16,510 we weren't able to short the stocks so 145 00:06:21,450 --> 00:06:19,030 anytime there was a down prediction we 146 00:06:23,040 --> 00:06:21,460 couldn't make the down predictions so it 147 00:06:24,900 --> 00:06:23,050 ended up that we lost little money we 148 00:06:26,640 --> 00:06:24,910 did the evaluation as if we could make 149 00:06:28,590 --> 00:06:26,650 all the investments and we would have 150 00:06:31,680 --> 00:06:28,600 made probably about 5% increase in about 151 00:06:35,160 --> 00:06:31,690 12 weeks so there were 12 weeks of the 152 00:06:38,160 --> 00:06:35,170 study that's the basis of the study and 153 00:06:40,920 --> 00:06:38,170 that's about it so not nothing ok the 154 00:06:43,790 --> 00:06:40,930 interesting thing was actually the 155 00:06:48,270 --> 00:06:46,409 nobody in a study knew that this was 156 00:06:49,890 --> 00:06:48,280 going on except for me and I was not 157 00:06:52,920 --> 00:06:49,900 involved with any of the process of 158 00:06:54,450 --> 00:06:52,930 doing the reviewing there was an 159 00:06:57,030 --> 00:06:54,460 additional judge and an additional 160 00:06:59,400 --> 00:06:57,040 investment instrument this was a 161 00:07:02,250 --> 00:06:59,410 prospective study that was trying to 162 00:07:03,780 --> 00:07:02,260 determine how the judges compared to 163 00:07:05,610 --> 00:07:03,790 each other is the judge in how to 164 00:07:08,760 --> 00:07:05,620 important as a judge in the process is 165 00:07:12,629 --> 00:07:08,770 the investment choice important in this 166 00:07:14,520 --> 00:07:12,639 process so every Sunday night whenever 167 00:07:17,070 --> 00:07:14,530 the coordinator would get back all the 168 00:07:20,190 --> 00:07:17,080 viewers data and the targets and send 169 00:07:21,810 --> 00:07:20,200 them to the judge I would get the same 170 00:07:25,740 --> 00:07:21,820 information and I'd send it to another 171 00:07:28,200 --> 00:07:25,750 judge that so there were two judges but 172 00:07:30,150 --> 00:07:28,210 each judge knew there might be a second 173 00:07:32,190 --> 00:07:30,160 judge but mainly for a backup in case 174 00:07:34,110 --> 00:07:32,200 they couldn't do it one week they both 175 00:07:36,120 --> 00:07:34,120 thought they were the primary judge for 176 00:07:38,129 --> 00:07:36,130 the study they both thought that they 177 00:07:39,779 --> 00:07:38,139 were responsible for the investment they 178 00:07:42,180 --> 00:07:39,789 didn't know that we were invest in it 179 00:07:44,010 --> 00:07:42,190 nobody knew the stock nobody except for 180 00:07:47,940 --> 00:07:44,020 me and the investor knew what the stock 181 00:07:50,670 --> 00:07:47,950 was and using the same protocol that I 182 00:07:53,670 --> 00:07:50,680 picked the original stock we picked a 183 00:07:57,990 --> 00:07:53,680 second control stock to compare and see 184 00:07:59,520 --> 00:07:58,000 if there was a variation on this so both 185 00:08:01,860 --> 00:07:59,530 like I said both judges thought they 186 00:08:05,339 --> 00:08:01,870 were the primary judge the way we 187 00:08:08,100 --> 00:08:05,349 analyzed this is the results of the 188 00:08:10,980 --> 00:08:08,110 judges were compared I wasn't interested 189 00:08:13,260 --> 00:08:10,990 in how the viewers did there are so many 190 00:08:14,700 --> 00:08:13,270 studies on the viewers we gave them 191 00:08:17,400 --> 00:08:14,710 their feedback so they could get their 192 00:08:19,589 --> 00:08:17,410 own information on how well they did but 193 00:08:22,230 --> 00:08:19,599 was interested in how the judging 194 00:08:24,659 --> 00:08:22,240 compared so the judging data was 195 00:08:27,210 --> 00:08:24,669 compared for not only to see how they 196 00:08:29,460 --> 00:08:27,220 did with the main investment target but 197 00:08:32,779 --> 00:08:29,470 also with the control investment target 198 00:08:40,290 --> 00:08:32,789 and the results where the judges were 199 00:08:42,079 --> 00:08:40,300 extremely different looking at between 200 00:08:44,400 --> 00:08:42,089 the judges there the judges used 201 00:08:46,949 --> 00:08:44,410 different one of the things about this 202 00:08:49,050 --> 00:08:46,959 study is that everyone involved was so 203 00:08:51,720 --> 00:08:49,060 experienced and so well steeped and 204 00:08:53,790 --> 00:08:51,730 remote viewing and with an ARV protocol 205 00:08:56,220 --> 00:08:53,800 I didn't want I was trying to make money 206 00:08:56,980 --> 00:08:56,230 with this I didn't want to try to tell 207 00:08:58,810 --> 00:08:56,990 them do it then 208 00:09:00,579 --> 00:08:58,820 wäôre don't do that one this method 209 00:09:02,320 --> 00:09:00,589 don't use that method I said use 210 00:09:04,840 --> 00:09:02,330 whatever you're most comfortable with so 211 00:09:06,730 --> 00:09:04,850 the viewers used multiple methods there 212 00:09:09,100 --> 00:09:06,740 was a variety of different ways that the 213 00:09:11,500 --> 00:09:09,110 viewing was done judging was the same 214 00:09:13,389 --> 00:09:11,510 way one of the judges was using a very 215 00:09:15,490 --> 00:09:13,399 intuitive process another one was using 216 00:09:18,010 --> 00:09:15,500 a very structured score based process 217 00:09:19,570 --> 00:09:18,020 but that's not exactly what I wasn't 218 00:09:21,940 --> 00:09:19,580 trying to determine which one was better 219 00:09:25,269 --> 00:09:21,950 I was just trying to determine is there 220 00:09:28,449 --> 00:09:25,279 a difference within judging well one of 221 00:09:31,660 --> 00:09:28,459 the judges actually kind of hit a planet 222 00:09:33,160 --> 00:09:31,670 chance 50% right across the board half 223 00:09:36,240 --> 00:09:33,170 right and half wrong for what they 224 00:09:39,880 --> 00:09:36,250 predicted the second judge though 225 00:09:42,760 --> 00:09:39,890 actually did really really only got one 226 00:09:45,699 --> 00:09:42,770 correct out of eight sessions that they 227 00:09:48,639 --> 00:09:45,709 judged now I say this is the primary 228 00:09:50,590 --> 00:09:48,649 judge though hit four weeks in a row 229 00:09:52,329 --> 00:09:50,600 that might not see much four weeks out 230 00:09:54,220 --> 00:09:52,339 of twelve it doesn't seem like it's very 231 00:09:56,350 --> 00:09:54,230 good Ian other weeks too but hitting 232 00:09:57,820 --> 00:09:56,360 four weeks in a row is a pretty good 233 00:09:59,380 --> 00:09:57,830 score it's only it's something like a 234 00:10:02,139 --> 00:09:59,390 six percent chance you're gonna get four 235 00:10:06,819 --> 00:10:02,149 weeks in a row what we're talking about 236 00:10:09,850 --> 00:10:06,829 though missing it was nine weeks in a 237 00:10:12,519 --> 00:10:09,860 row that the second judge missed and did 238 00:10:15,000 --> 00:10:12,529 not get the correct investment did not 239 00:10:18,880 --> 00:10:15,010 pick the correct investment direction 240 00:10:21,160 --> 00:10:18,890 that's a very significant score in the 241 00:10:24,010 --> 00:10:21,170 wrong direction it's what we call sign 242 00:10:27,699 --> 00:10:24,020 missing right so there was a very strong 243 00:10:30,100 --> 00:10:27,709 sign missing component to this when I 244 00:10:32,410 --> 00:10:30,110 compared two judges on each of the 245 00:10:34,060 --> 00:10:32,420 investment targets and I looked at them 246 00:10:36,750 --> 00:10:34,070 on a price on the main investment that 247 00:10:39,370 --> 00:10:36,760 we're actually investing in there was a 248 00:10:41,319 --> 00:10:39,380 significant difference between the 249 00:10:43,389 --> 00:10:41,329 judges and the judges were obviously 250 00:10:46,389 --> 00:10:43,399 being influenced by the primary 251 00:10:47,650 --> 00:10:46,399 investment the control investment they 252 00:10:53,980 --> 00:10:47,660 scored a chance both of them across the 253 00:10:57,220 --> 00:10:53,990 board so the conclusions here are that 254 00:10:59,829 --> 00:10:57,230 the judges could be evaluated in a 255 00:11:02,019 --> 00:10:59,839 similar way that viewers are evaluated 256 00:11:03,490 --> 00:11:02,029 we should consider very experienced 257 00:11:05,170 --> 00:11:03,500 judges judges have been doing for a long 258 00:11:06,970 --> 00:11:05,180 time that have been using this method 259 00:11:09,189 --> 00:11:06,980 and have been having we have to evaluate 260 00:11:10,840 --> 00:11:09,199 what their success rates are and 261 00:11:13,720 --> 00:11:10,850 evaluate whether 262 00:11:17,319 --> 00:11:13,730 how they are interacting within ARV 263 00:11:20,259 --> 00:11:17,329 projects they varied significantly but 264 00:11:22,600 --> 00:11:20,269 only on a target investment which tells 265 00:11:25,090 --> 00:11:22,610 me that the target that we set for the 266 00:11:26,769 --> 00:11:25,100 investment did have an influence in the 267 00:11:28,269 --> 00:11:26,779 control investment if we just pick any 268 00:11:31,449 --> 00:11:28,279 other investment occur out of the Hat 269 00:11:34,960 --> 00:11:31,459 we're less likely to have an influence 270 00:11:38,800 --> 00:11:34,970 on that now the judges methods can't be 271 00:11:42,850 --> 00:11:38,810 evaluated in this study and also this 272 00:11:44,290 --> 00:11:42,860 was an exploratory study this and so I 273 00:11:47,309 --> 00:11:44,300 don't think that we can really make 274 00:11:50,350 --> 00:11:47,319 conclusions on this but this prospective 275 00:11:52,870 --> 00:11:50,360 methodology that we've used is something 276 00:11:55,360 --> 00:11:52,880 that can be used for future studies to 277 00:11:57,040 --> 00:11:55,370 determine how judging is important how 278 00:11:59,710 --> 00:11:57,050 the investment choice is important and 279 00:12:02,439 --> 00:11:59,720 how it contributes I would recommend 280 00:12:06,009 --> 00:12:02,449 that regressions be run across these 281 00:12:08,170 --> 00:12:06,019 types of factors in the future to 282 00:12:14,420 --> 00:12:08,180 determine the strength of each of them 283 00:12:30,889 --> 00:12:14,430 within a study thank you 284 00:12:38,639 --> 00:12:34,110 I'm sorry to say that your description 285 00:12:41,879 --> 00:12:38,649 was when you got to the second hidden 286 00:12:47,519 --> 00:12:41,889 procedure was almost incomprehensible to 287 00:12:53,189 --> 00:12:47,529 me because you're partly your discussion 288 00:12:54,720 --> 00:12:53,199 of results the the the tables didn't 289 00:12:59,970 --> 00:12:54,730 seem to correspond to your verbal 290 00:13:02,220 --> 00:12:59,980 description of the judges having a 291 00:13:05,730 --> 00:13:02,230 different performance on the targeted 292 00:13:11,939 --> 00:13:05,740 investment and null performance on the 293 00:13:13,230 --> 00:13:11,949 control investment I it wasn't it wasn't 294 00:13:15,749 --> 00:13:13,240 clear to me where this control 295 00:13:17,579 --> 00:13:15,759 investment was coming from your initial 296 00:13:19,740 --> 00:13:17,589 descriptions that seemed to imply that 297 00:13:23,879 --> 00:13:19,750 the second judge was working on a second 298 00:13:26,519 --> 00:13:23,889 on the other investment instrument given 299 00:13:28,470 --> 00:13:26,529 that also get with to investment 300 00:13:30,720 --> 00:13:28,480 instruments how did you manage to pick 301 00:13:33,449 --> 00:13:30,730 only one feedback picture at the end of 302 00:13:37,679 --> 00:13:33,459 each week so okay thank you York I 303 00:13:40,710 --> 00:13:37,689 wasn't clear let me clarify so there was 304 00:13:44,240 --> 00:13:40,720 only one investment instrument used for 305 00:13:46,710 --> 00:13:44,250 the for the project both judges were 306 00:13:49,740 --> 00:13:46,720 pricking for that same investment 307 00:13:52,290 --> 00:13:49,750 instrument I had a control investment 308 00:13:54,480 --> 00:13:52,300 instrument that I used it was post study 309 00:13:56,910 --> 00:13:54,490 I evaluated the control investment 310 00:13:58,470 --> 00:13:56,920 instrument with both judges as well so 311 00:14:01,019 --> 00:13:58,480 it wasn't like one judge for one and one 312 00:14:03,420 --> 00:14:01,029 judge for the other no both judges had 313 00:14:05,280 --> 00:14:03,430 the same target to pick the investment 314 00:14:08,100 --> 00:14:05,290 and they didn't know the investment 315 00:14:10,559 --> 00:14:08,110 instrument anyway but the investment 316 00:14:12,360 --> 00:14:10,569 instrument was intentionally picked to 317 00:14:15,720 --> 00:14:12,370 be just a single investment throughout 318 00:14:18,809 --> 00:14:15,730 the whole project does that help a bit 319 00:14:20,550 --> 00:14:18,819 okay thank you really interesting and 320 00:14:24,499 --> 00:14:20,560 I'd like to see replications in 321 00:14:26,610 --> 00:14:24,509 continuation it seems to me though that 322 00:14:28,290 --> 00:14:26,620 and I'm I'm 323 00:14:31,560 --> 00:14:28,300 you know out of this field but it seems 324 00:14:34,890 --> 00:14:31,570 to me you missed the main point and that 325 00:14:38,700 --> 00:14:34,900 is you've treated both cases as if they 326 00:14:42,000 --> 00:14:38,710 were independent judged criteria and we 327 00:14:44,550 --> 00:14:42,010 know that there's psy in the remote 328 00:14:47,250 --> 00:14:44,560 viewing we are pretty sure that they're 329 00:14:49,500 --> 00:14:47,260 psy in the judging right but there's 330 00:14:53,220 --> 00:14:49,510 also psy and running the experiment 331 00:14:56,040 --> 00:14:53,230 right and so you as the experimenter are 332 00:14:58,230 --> 00:14:56,050 probably doing some sort of manipulation 333 00:15:00,810 --> 00:14:58,240 of this whole thing and I don't think 334 00:15:03,300 --> 00:15:00,820 you can look at it as just two judges 335 00:15:05,880 --> 00:15:03,310 doing their things with two investments 336 00:15:07,470 --> 00:15:05,890 so I guess I get your point and the 337 00:15:09,480 --> 00:15:07,480 experimenter effect is something that 338 00:15:11,970 --> 00:15:09,490 I'm very familiar with and I do 339 00:15:13,800 --> 00:15:11,980 everything I can to step out of the 340 00:15:16,410 --> 00:15:13,810 process but you can't of course you 341 00:15:17,970 --> 00:15:16,420 can't but what I what I was not involved 342 00:15:20,490 --> 00:15:17,980 with the coordination I was not involved 343 00:15:22,650 --> 00:15:20,500 with moving things around yes I was 344 00:15:25,470 --> 00:15:22,660 taking the information and sending it to 345 00:15:27,120 --> 00:15:25,480 this judge as a second judge I we did 346 00:15:28,710 --> 00:15:27,130 pick the second instrument but second 347 00:15:30,780 --> 00:15:28,720 instrument was randomly chosen just like 348 00:15:34,350 --> 00:15:30,790 the first one was so I wasn't involved 349 00:15:36,750 --> 00:15:34,360 in any sort of anything related to the 350 00:15:39,030 --> 00:15:36,760 second instrument except for the final 351 00:15:40,410 --> 00:15:39,040 evaluation yeah that's when I did my 352 00:15:42,750 --> 00:15:40,420 final evaluation I could have been 353 00:15:44,850 --> 00:15:42,760 detecting the data this was already 354 00:15:46,620 --> 00:15:44,860 collected at that point though so of 355 00:15:48,270 --> 00:15:46,630 course the experimenter affects always 356 00:15:50,250 --> 00:15:48,280 something in there if you've got an idea 357 00:15:51,870 --> 00:15:50,260 how to take me to take you out yourself 358 00:15:57,200 --> 00:15:51,880 out of the experiment I'm happy to 359 00:16:03,780 --> 00:16:01,140 thank you very much I think the bottom 360 00:16:06,090 --> 00:16:03,790 line here is you're making a point about 361 00:16:08,760 --> 00:16:06,100 the importance of judges no matter how 362 00:16:12,270 --> 00:16:08,770 the variations are that were overlaid on 363 00:16:15,120 --> 00:16:12,280 all this in my own informal arv work 364 00:16:19,020 --> 00:16:15,130 I've gotten to the point where the 365 00:16:22,290 --> 00:16:19,030 judges I select are only people that 366 00:16:25,020 --> 00:16:22,300 have an artistic drawing aesthetic 367 00:16:27,870 --> 00:16:25,030 background those are the ones I use and 368 00:16:30,330 --> 00:16:27,880 as far as these scales you have liked at 369 00:16:32,190 --> 00:16:30,340 art scale I've thrown away number seven 370 00:16:35,820 --> 00:16:32,200 because you've got too much analytics in 371 00:16:38,280 --> 00:16:35,830 there and I've used only the sketches 372 00:16:40,140 --> 00:16:38,290 that are provided and not the verbal 373 00:16:42,090 --> 00:16:40,150 descriptions make it very simple and 374 00:16:45,020 --> 00:16:42,100 easy for the judge to look at and 375 00:16:48,150 --> 00:16:45,030 evaluate so it's picture to picture 376 00:16:50,640 --> 00:16:48,160 forget the analytics and this is what I 377 00:16:53,520 --> 00:16:50,650 find to be the most effective procedure 378 00:16:55,770 --> 00:16:53,530 for evaluating Arabi targets where you 379 00:16:58,500 --> 00:16:55,780 have two comparators comparisons to make 380 00:17:01,200 --> 00:16:58,510 and and that could very well be get Dale 381 00:17:03,270 --> 00:17:01,210 and I know that when you do viewings I 382 00:17:05,820 --> 00:17:03,280 know that you're very visual and you're 383 00:17:08,010 --> 00:17:05,830 very drawing oriented and perhaps that 384 00:17:09,870 --> 00:17:08,020 influences what you how you see the 385 00:17:11,730 --> 00:17:09,880 judging to be most important other 386 00:17:13,350 --> 00:17:11,740 people who do more text-based they may 387 00:17:15,120 --> 00:17:13,360 find that it's better to look only at 388 00:17:16,920 --> 00:17:15,130 the text rather than at the view at the 389 00:17:20,310 --> 00:17:16,930 drawings and it does depend on how 390 00:17:22,110 --> 00:17:20,320 artistic the drawings are and how the 391 00:17:23,670 --> 00:17:22,120 judges relate to it one of the things 392 00:17:25,500 --> 00:17:23,680 that you're bringing out that I didn't 393 00:17:27,720 --> 00:17:25,510 talk about in here because it was kind 394 00:17:29,250 --> 00:17:27,730 of out of scope but this led me to the 395 00:17:32,790 --> 00:17:29,260 to the concept and I think never 396 00:17:35,400 --> 00:17:32,800 mentioned it as well so much of what we 397 00:17:37,800 --> 00:17:35,410 do not only in remote viewing but across 398 00:17:42,240 --> 00:17:37,810 the board in parapsychology is based on 399 00:17:44,610 --> 00:17:42,250 targets and judging and how much of our 400 00:17:47,600 --> 00:17:44,620 research is focused on target selection 401 00:17:50,370 --> 00:17:47,610 and judging in a pairing of these two 402 00:17:52,080 --> 00:17:50,380 qualities in this case it was very 403 00:17:54,810 --> 00:17:52,090 important that the judging was very 404 00:17:57,150 --> 00:17:54,820 important in the process and it does 405 00:18:00,210 --> 00:17:57,160 make me think more about the judges and 406 00:18:02,430 --> 00:18:00,220 how they relate to the target sets and 407 00:18:04,860 --> 00:18:02,440 how they can pick from viewers 408 00:18:06,900 --> 00:18:04,870 information viewers like you said some 409 00:18:08,700 --> 00:18:06,910 people use photo people to use drawings 410 00:18:11,280 --> 00:18:08,710 a lot some people will even go into 411 00:18:14,940 --> 00:18:11,290 paintings some people will actually just 412 00:18:16,770 --> 00:18:14,950 do text how can one judge evaluate all 413 00:18:18,660 --> 00:18:16,780 this different information it's 414 00:18:20,790 --> 00:18:18,670 important for us to start thinking in 415 00:18:23,340 --> 00:18:20,800 terms of choosing target sets and 416 00:18:26,070 --> 00:18:23,350 judging and comparing these together and 417 00:18:27,540 --> 00:18:26,080 pairing the processes together I don't 418 00:18:30,120 --> 00:18:27,550 know if that helps to address your 419 00:18:31,620 --> 00:18:30,130 question - thank you garrets running 420 00:18:32,220 --> 00:18:31,630 back up here again yes it's the eye oh 421 00:18:35,640 --> 00:18:32,230 it's open 422 00:18:37,380 --> 00:18:35,650 yes follow-on question so you gave a 423 00:18:38,520 --> 00:18:37,390 good argument as to why this should be 424 00:18:41,340 --> 00:18:38,530 prospective 425 00:18:43,320 --> 00:18:41,350 if it were retrospective might that 426 00:18:45,130 --> 00:18:43,330 alleviate some of the problems that we 427 00:18:48,220 --> 00:18:45,140 were just talking about with the 428 00:18:49,860 --> 00:18:48,230 if it were retrospect well then you 429 00:18:52,180 --> 00:18:49,870 still have the effect of the original 430 00:18:54,640 --> 00:18:52,190 experimenter right that we would have to 431 00:18:56,020 --> 00:18:54,650 but it's that's historical they did what 432 00:18:57,850 --> 00:18:56,030 they did now you're gonna just have 433 00:19:00,430 --> 00:18:57,860 judges look at it and see what the 434 00:19:02,110 --> 00:19:00,440 judges say you do bring another sort 435 00:19:04,000 --> 00:19:02,120 other potential sources of bias when 436 00:19:05,920 --> 00:19:04,010 you're making more decisions and what 437 00:19:07,420 --> 00:19:05,930 data to choose and how to include it and 438 00:19:09,670 --> 00:19:07,430 there you're still making more decisions 439 00:19:11,830 --> 00:19:09,680 so you're introducing more potential 440 00:19:14,170 --> 00:19:11,840 bias points in the process different set 441 00:19:17,050 --> 00:19:14,180 of problems yes okay it's a different 442 00:19:19,690 --> 00:19:17,060 set of problems I just have a general 443 00:19:22,000 --> 00:19:19,700 comment I as I hear about these 444 00:19:23,130 --> 00:19:22,010 descriptions of these ARV experiments I 445 00:19:26,770 --> 00:19:23,140 realize that 446 00:19:30,250 --> 00:19:26,780 apparently photos are used using a photo 447 00:19:31,570 --> 00:19:30,260 yes source and so on in our remote 448 00:19:34,900 --> 00:19:31,580 viewing experiment that was so 449 00:19:37,720 --> 00:19:34,910 successful where we made $260,000 30 450 00:19:42,370 --> 00:19:37,730 days in the market we use physical 451 00:19:44,380 --> 00:19:42,380 objects and so from the intuitive side 452 00:19:47,110 --> 00:19:44,390 when people get their feedback where 453 00:19:49,180 --> 00:19:47,120 they get to feel the object and turn it 454 00:19:52,720 --> 00:19:49,190 around and really you know again into 455 00:19:55,600 --> 00:19:52,730 contact with it I recall in the judging 456 00:19:58,510 --> 00:19:55,610 process that there were lots of comments 457 00:20:00,160 --> 00:19:58,520 about the tactile sensation of the 458 00:20:03,550 --> 00:20:00,170 target they were going to see and so on 459 00:20:06,280 --> 00:20:03,560 so so I tend to have a bias that a good 460 00:20:09,820 --> 00:20:06,290 way to go is forget the pictures but 461 00:20:11,860 --> 00:20:09,830 actually it handled the objects I agree 462 00:20:12,970 --> 00:20:11,870 with you completely that real targets 463 00:20:15,730 --> 00:20:12,980 things that you can actually feel 464 00:20:18,490 --> 00:20:15,740 engaged more of your senses the 465 00:20:20,740 --> 00:20:18,500 convenience of having emailed targets 466 00:20:22,720 --> 00:20:20,750 and images going around sometimes 467 00:20:24,880 --> 00:20:22,730 outweigh it because our viewers and 468 00:20:26,440 --> 00:20:24,890 judges are all over the world they were 469 00:20:28,540 --> 00:20:26,450 literally all over the world for this 470 00:20:32,440 --> 00:20:28,550 project but thank you for your comments 471 00:20:35,620 --> 00:20:32,450 yeah to house last comment that's the 472 00:20:38,020 --> 00:20:35,630 problem is that particularly into volume 473 00:20:39,190 --> 00:20:38,030 finding additional objects that are 474 00:20:40,600 --> 00:20:39,200 enough different from one another that 475 00:20:43,240 --> 00:20:40,610 you used before it gets really 476 00:20:44,550 --> 00:20:43,250 challenging plus the storage of them can 477 00:20:48,030 --> 00:20:44,560 be get in 478 00:20:49,680 --> 00:20:48,040 mountable right so from a functional 479 00:20:52,890 --> 00:20:49,690 perspective objects are actually very 480 00:20:54,690 --> 00:20:52,900 very good what is it what does it seem 481 00:20:58,530 --> 00:20:54,700 short says new new whatever it is new 482 00:21:01,230 --> 00:20:58,540 something or other but from a practical 483 00:21:03,540 --> 00:21:01,240 perspective they become unwieldy very 484 00:21:05,850 --> 00:21:03,550 quickly I want to address what Dale said 485 00:21:08,190 --> 00:21:05,860 and what you said here in so let me go 486 00:21:11,430 --> 00:21:08,200 there first so when I when I teach ARV I 487 00:21:14,250 --> 00:21:11,440 put a strong emphasis on target target 488 00:21:15,720 --> 00:21:14,260 selection target paring and all the 489 00:21:17,580 --> 00:21:15,730 different dynamics you have to take into 490 00:21:19,590 --> 00:21:17,590 account to get a good target match and 491 00:21:21,570 --> 00:21:19,600 if you don't do that you're inevitably 492 00:21:23,220 --> 00:21:21,580 going to screw things up right so it's 493 00:21:24,090 --> 00:21:23,230 very important and that's an emphasize 494 00:21:27,090 --> 00:21:24,100 your point and we've had that discussion 495 00:21:29,490 --> 00:21:27,100 before Dale's case viewers almost 496 00:21:33,060 --> 00:21:29,500 universally produced both verbage and 497 00:21:36,210 --> 00:21:33,070 sketchy and so the challengers why can't 498 00:21:37,980 --> 00:21:36,220 judges judge verbage and sketching both 499 00:21:39,240 --> 00:21:37,990 I mean if viewers can produce and judges 500 00:21:41,640 --> 00:21:39,250 should be able to evaluate them as well 501 00:21:44,030 --> 00:21:41,650 there are certain rules that involve the 502 00:21:46,980 --> 00:21:44,040 judging process and that is that 503 00:21:49,170 --> 00:21:46,990 generally sketching is the is the 504 00:21:50,910 --> 00:21:49,180 highest and most successful way of 505 00:21:52,440 --> 00:21:50,920 matching things but you can't ignore the 506 00:21:54,150 --> 00:21:52,450 verbage but you do have to take it you 507 00:21:56,640 --> 00:21:54,160 know the jury's out on some of the 508 00:21:58,230 --> 00:21:56,650 things they say one thing I do say about 509 00:22:00,950 --> 00:21:58,240 this is that there are viewers who only 510 00:22:04,680 --> 00:22:00,960 produce text there are viewers who 511 00:22:07,110 --> 00:22:04,690 mostly only produce visuals and then 512 00:22:08,910 --> 00:22:07,120 there's those who produce both by far 513 00:22:11,040 --> 00:22:08,920 the hardest ones to judge are the ones 514 00:22:13,110 --> 00:22:11,050 that only produce text and usually they 515 00:22:15,780 --> 00:22:13,120 are verging on impossible to judge in 516 00:22:18,060 --> 00:22:15,790 many cases so you at least need the 517 00:22:20,940 --> 00:22:18,070 sketches and when Dale says he gets 518 00:22:22,770 --> 00:22:20,950 people who have these you know right 519 00:22:24,690 --> 00:22:22,780 brain artistic kind of talents that's 520 00:22:26,760 --> 00:22:24,700 very valuable not message because of the 521 00:22:28,350 --> 00:22:26,770 artistic element because they have they 522 00:22:30,000 --> 00:22:28,360 are there they live in the world of 523 00:22:31,680 --> 00:22:30,010 pattern recognition and shapes and that 524 00:22:33,300 --> 00:22:31,690 and that's where they they come 525 00:22:36,180 --> 00:22:33,310 invaluable it's because their perception 526 00:22:37,590 --> 00:22:36,190 is oriented towards the most successful 527 00:22:40,830 --> 00:22:37,600 kinds of results that you get from an 528 00:22:44,040 --> 00:22:40,840 ARV so I think what you're emphasizing 529 00:22:46,020 --> 00:22:44,050 is the importance of the judge and the 530 00:22:47,760 --> 00:22:46,030 importance of the judge being able to 531 00:22:49,950 --> 00:22:47,770 judge related to the targets that are 532 00:22:51,330 --> 00:22:49,960 being selected and being able to work 533 00:22:54,000 --> 00:22:51,340 with the viewers and all across the 534 00:22:56,190 --> 00:22:54,010 board the judge is really a very key 535 00:22:58,169 --> 00:22:56,200 element here and I think Deborah study 536 00:23:00,690 --> 00:22:58,179 and this study make a pretty 537 00:23:04,710 --> 00:23:00,700 clear that judges should be focused on 538 00:23:06,690 --> 00:23:04,720 at least as much as the viewers data so