I'm happy to report a successful trade adding $1950 to the profit pool. This trade was held for only 1 day, but I tripled the number of contracts traded to approximately equal the profit potential of holding a position for a full week.

So far, there have been 12 trades/predictions and 8 winners which equals 67% correct. The profit sits at $24,825, approximately 25% of the way to the $100,000 goal.

We're doing ok - my percentage of winning trades is lower than it has been traditionally, but I'm hopeful that over time and many more trades, it will start to creep back up to around 75% to 80% correct. Even still, when considering my STARTING capital of $50,000 - in essence, we've made a profit of $24,825 which is a return of almost 50% on equity in only 6 months. How is your mutual fund performing?

I've made a few changes to the protocol - the most significant change being ADDING more trials to gain a stronger consensus. It may seem like a lot of work and complication just to earn a $1950 profit, but to me, it makes sense to do more work up front and gain a greater percentage of successful trades in the end.

In fact, I have been recently criticized in a new book (by a much respected military remote viewer - and a fantastic guy I might add) for "over-complicating" the ARV process by remote viewing so many nested trials in order to gain a strong consensus. I believe this criticism is unfair in consideration of the vast amount of research I have done in exactly this specific area over the last 4 years. I believe that it is necessary to apply this time consuming, repetitive and tedious method for these two reasons:

1. First and foremost, I just do NOT believe that remote viewing is as accurate as what may be reported outside the scientific community. At least, for the average Joe like me, it isn't. I have no doubt that remote viewing is far more accurate for the likes of Joe McMoneagle, Lyn Buchanan or Paul Smith - but I'm not them. I'm just like most of you, and I/we need something that will leverage our more average-level abilities so that we can actually USE the outcome for some useful purpose.

Science has measured the average remote viewing "effect size" across thousands and thousands of laboratory trials spanning the last 25 years and the globe at around 0.1 per trial which works out to somewhere around 55%. That is, around 55% of the remote viewing trials an average person does will be correct. (I'm over-simplifying a bit here because I don't want to get into a long, drawn-out math exercise)

If I were to measure the consensus of, say 20 ARV trials, and end up with a result of 12 trials predicting outcome A and 8 trials predicting outcome B, then we could say that our 55% remote viewing 'effect' could be at work producing the 12 trials confirming outcome A. But 12 out of 20 is no where near statistically significant! That result could easily be mere chance. In order to know for sure if our 55% 'effect' is actually producing a reliable and believable result, we would have to do about 150 trials!!

I don't mean to suggest that one needs to do 150 ARV trials just to predict the outcome of a single binary event, but if we're looking for a way to QUANTIFY our confidence, then we would need some way to measure at least 150 different "remote viewing guesses" about the target in order to compute a reliable statistic.

My multiple target approach is not as different from traditional single target ARV as you might think - or at least it differs in ways that might not be as obvious as the number of targets used in both cases. Here's why: In traditional CRV (controlled remote viewing), the remote viewer will spend 20 minutes to an hour working on one single target. But during that time, they will attempt to describe the color, smell, size, texture, emotions, and possibly dozens of other aspects of the target. When a judge compares the remote viewers transcript with 2 targets in an ARV trial pool, he/she is basically choosing the best fit by mentally gaining consensus by considering each of the dozens and dozens of remote viewing perceptions. Well, that's exactly the SAME as multiple target ARV - it's just rather than describing a dozen aspects of ONE target, I try to describe ONE aspect of a dozen targets.

It's ALMOST the same, but with this major difference: By using multiple targets, I can QUANTIFY the degree of similarity between my RV perceptions and the targets. Every single perception is graded against one target or the other, recorded and used to compute a final probability against chance that we have predicted the right answer. Traditional ARV doesn't and therein lies the problem - the lack of objectively quantifying the similarity between the remote viewers perceptions and the actual target leads to possible over-confidence in a prediction.

2. The use of many nested targets in ARV has another distinct advantage - it overcomes chance target complexity miss-matches. Say I selected two random photos to be used in a traditional ARV trial: target A - a complex scene consisting of the inside of a machine shop with tables, machines, devices of every imaginable shape, color, etc and Target B - a country road with trees. Now, anyone can clearly see that any set of random perceptions will more likely match Target A than Target B. In this case, it would be VERY difficult to FAIRLY judge between the two photos because Target A simply has more stuff in it that would be more likely to match any RV perception just by chance alone. In other words, it adds more 'noise' to the process.

In multiple target ARV, this problem is eventually washed out because no one single target is weighed so heavily as to effect the outcome of the entire series.

To close, I would like to say that I know investment advisors who spend weeks and sometimes months diligently gathering and analyzing detailed data on a particular stock or industry. All so they can make a buy or sell recommendation to their clients. For every prediction I make, I probably spend a total of a few hours spread over a week or two remote viewing ARV trials. I really don't think I'm doing too much work - nor do I think I'm overly complicating the process. Remember - according to conventional science - we're not even supposed to be able to do this at all!

Thanks and have a great weekend!

Best regards, Greg K

....