Click to enlarge image.

Loraine Connon, Tom Atwater and T.W. “Stargirl” Fendley’s group entry, ARV3, finished in 11th place of 113 players in Saturday’s Derby Wars contest, earning double their $25 entry fee. Stargirl used Associative Remote Viewing to pick 8-1 longshot, Willa B. Awesome, in Race D and 5-2 Holladay Road in Race H. She hit winners in two of the four races she viewed.

On his individual contest entry, Tom picked a 20-1 longshot in Race F. Although My Summer Slew placed, the win/place payoff was higher than the winning horse’s, making it the ARV winner in our contest protocol. Several horses with Tom’s second-highest Targ CR scores won races — he was definitely in the zone!

Click to enlarge image.

Dave Silverstein used 1ARV (Unitary Associative Remote Viewing) to make a successful Over/Under prediction on the Jan. 26  Memphis at LA Clippers NBA game as part of a sports-wagering group facilitated by Marty Rosenblatt.

Click to enlarge image.

Using Associative Remote Viewing (ARV), Tom Atwater picked three winners to finish 15th of 131 players in Saturday’s Horse Tourneys online contest. With $48.20 in contest points, he lagged $1.80 behind those who qualified for the next round in February. Additionally, in a group entry, Tom, T.W. “Stargirl” Fendley and Loraine Connon finished in the top third, ranked 43rd with contest points of $29.20.

Tom started the day with 5-1 winner Lil Deb in Race A, which was also the group’s pick.

A last-minute switch gained Tom a win in Race E. When he checked the photoset again just before post time, Tom noticed a barrel in the background that matched a cylindrical sketch, which he AOLed as a “55-gallon drum.” He switched his pick to Howe Great (odds 9-2), which won the race easily wire-wire.

In Race H, Tom picked the 2-1 favorite Absinthe Minded. Loraine also ARVed the place horse, Tiz Miz Sue, for the group

In Race J, Stargirl’s ARV choice Colors of the Glen, #7, went off at almost 10-1 and rallied to finish second. Something unique also happened – the winner’s win + place total ($4.40+$3) of $7.40 was EXACTLY equal to the place horse’s price $7.40. So this race actually had two contest-winning horses – #7 (outcome G) and the favorite #6 (outcome F). We declared outcome G as the winning contest outcome for this race in the stats since the intent was to view the horse with the highest win/place payoff.

Click to enlarge image

Marty Rosenblatt’s Oct2004 Stock Group scored a hit on its first prediction of 2012 (example shown of T.W. Fendley’s transcript for 1/11/12 trade). Group members regularly submit their remote viewing transcripts a minimum of 24 hours before the prediction, and often several days earlier. Transcripts are independently judged. The group has an 86 percent success rate using the Group 1ARV protocol.

Click image to enlarge.

Tom Atwater and T.W. “Stargirl” Fendley used Associative Remote Viewing (ARV) to pick Old Bushmill – at a juicy 7-1! – as the winner in Saturday’s Dixie Poker Ace Stakes at the Fair Grounds in New Orleans, one of the Public Handicapper contest races. Stargirl also claimed her first ARV trifecta — using one ARV transcript to choose all three winning horses in exact order — a feat that would have paid $228.80 on a $2 bet.

Following is an announcement emailed to me by the Association for Research and Enlightenment (A.R.E.). I took this online course in 2009 — it’s a good introduction to remote viewing!

In this four-week internet-based group, your mentor, Dr. Henry Reed, will personally lead you through a discovery process by which you will come to appreciate the unique qualities of remote viewing and its place in psychic functioning.

 January 4-January 31, 2012

 You will learn how to:

• Distinguish remote viewing from other psychic procedures
• Prepare yourself for a remote viewing session
• Detect target attributes
• Conduct a retro-cognitive remote viewing session
• Enjoy a live remote viewing session with a partner
• Use remote viewing skills for spiritual growth

It’s not too late to register for this eGroup, which begins Jan. 4. Cost $119.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Click to enlarge image.

The following was prepared by Tom Atwater:

Six ARVers who signed up and paid last January to enter the National Handicapping Championship online contests participated in ARVing for yesterday’s contest. We finished 153rd out of 1328 entries, or in the top 12%–an excellent showing!

CONGRATULATIONS to our two ARVers who had contest winners – BOB and MIKE!  And to ME, whose pick finished 2nd! Plus we had several other good ARV sessions. All in all, great work by the group!

Here are the details:

(For the group login, I used only ARV top Targ CR choices as self-judged by the viewer. No logical handicapping was used to make picks.)

RaceA: Mike’s 140-1 (!) shot made a menacing move on the turn, but tired in the stretch to finish 4th. But at such a price it was a high ROI – and remember the max ROI is our goal now. So it’s a good thing when an extreme longshot comes fairly close like that.

RaceB: Bob’s top choice scratched. We both agreed on judging the 2nd choice. It was no factor and finished 7th at 58-1. Hey, longshots are good – they only need to come in once in a while to generate success in contests and in bets!

RaceC: This was my session. I had 2 horses tied with Targ CR 4 – originally had picked #3 at 6-1, but switched at the last minute to #4, also at 6-1.
#3 finished 2nd (in race and in contest $) paying $5.10, so that was the wrong decision but didn’t cost us that much in contest $.

RaceD: Bob’s 30-1 shot made a strong rally from behind to finish 2nd! As the odds-on favorite won, Bob’s horse’s $14.80 place payoff was larger than the win+place payoffs of the winner – so Bob’s horse was the CONTEST WINNER for this race! Way to go BOB!

After 4 of 10 contest races, we were in 331st place out of 1328 entries, well within striking distance, as only one horse had paid more in the contest than Bob’s horse so far.

RaceE: Teresa’s 4-1 horse finished 3rd.

RaceF: Teresa judged for Essie. Her top pick ran 8th at 70-1. I also AJed this race – but I was rushed, and actually only judged Teresa’s top 2 picks. I saw the order reversed from the way Teresa saw it. But the other horse was the 8-5 favorite, so I stuck with Teresa’s pick. My pick ran 9th so she made the right decision there. However, in looking at the race afterwards, I noticed that Teresa’s 3rd pick was the winner of the race/contest at 4-1 – and I saw many matches in that photo too. It is difficult judging so many photos, no question, and sometimes one gets away…. (especially if one only judges 2 of the 9 photos like I did) – but overall our judges do a great job.

RaceG: In this race Mike’s 76-1 horse made a strong move to get to the lead by a head at the eighth pole in the stretch – with me SCREAMING at the top of my lungs! – but the 2-5 favorite recovered from his trouble and went on by him to win by 2 lengths. But the $33.80 place price ($22 in contest winnings because of the odds cap) was much higher than the winner’s win+place prices, so Mike ARVed the CONTEST WINNER!!! EXCELLENT!!!

So now after 7 of 10 races, we were in 130th place – only about $30 out of 3rd place, the last NHC qualifying spot!

RaceI: This was my 2nd session. (came before RaceH, I got the times out of sequence). My pick was #3 at 8-1 (Targ CR 5) over #2 at 10-1 (Targ CR 4). The favorite won easily, but my #3 rallied to just nip #2 by a nose at the wire. The place price was only $6.20 though, lower because the favorite won, and was not the contest winner either, since the win+place prices of the winner were higher than that. But it was still nice to get more points, and validated the high ROI intent once again.

RaceH: Lorraine’s horse, Targ CR 6 (!) and 22-1, was clobbered on both sides coming out of the gate, and as a result dropped far back on the backstretch – he was 15 lengths behind at one point, after being near the lead in his prior races. Amazingly, he rallied around the field to finish 3rd, beaten only a half length for 2nd, and 1 1/4 lengths for the win. There is no doubt in my mind that her horse would have won the race had he not been bumped so hard coming out of the gate and dropped back – it easily cost him 4 or 5 lengths.
So, this was a moral victory, I have no doubt that Loraine ARVed the max ROI horse, at the time of her session; but the probabilities may have changed between then and post time, such that the gate problems actualized. These contests make it impractical to ARV near post time, so this is just the way it goes, sometimes.

At this point we were in 130th place, $34.70 in contest points out of 3rd place and NHC qualifying. It would take at least a 12-1 shot for us to have chance to get in.

RaceJ: Loraine’s pick in fact was between 9-1 and 12-1 throughout the betting, going off at 11.5 to 1 at post time. There were other possibilities at longer odds that I had in my own judging determined to have some matches to her sketch, but in the end it felt right to go with her own pick. Her horse looped the field to make a run up to 3rd at the eighth pole in the stretch, but tired to finish 6 lengths behind, as the even-money favorite won.

So, we ended up with 2 contest wins and one second in 10 races, which is not bad. And the prices put us in the top 12%, which is excellent!

We had many longshots who outran their odds, and though none of them won, the fact that most of them finished in the top 4 is really great work. Such horses are supposed to finish in the rear of the field – yet our ARVing indentified them as being high ROI horses. This is the key to winning both contests, and in making winning bets, in the long run – identifying horses that give positive expectation. So, we are definitely on the right track with were we want to go.

– Tom

Following is a webinar invitation sent by Marty Rosenblatt:

We are looking for RVers who are ready to use a Group Environment to substantially increase the reliability of Group precognitive predictions. Each RVer will do 2 short RV Sessions and 2 short FB Sessions to achieve the 1 Group prediction on the S&P500 Futures market. Details here: www.p-i-a.com/webinar/Dec13_2011.html

Summary:

1ARV-Group is difficult to explain, and yet, easy to do once you can RV. This webinar will have a minimum of theory and a maximum of learning by doing!

Webinar date is Tuesday, Dec. 13. We will start at 9 a.m. US PacificTime (11 a.m. Eastern) and end with an open discussion beginning at 2 p.m. There will be a break from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. for the RVers. Independent Judges will take the RV transcripts, submitted by 11 a.m., and make their Group prediction before noon in time for a trade. The trade will be placed at noon with the Outcome by the close of the NYSE at 1 p.m.

The only requirements for participation are:
o RV experience
o Agree to do 2 RV Sessions and 2 FeedBack Sessions, which you will either email or FAX to Marty
o Intend and Expect to Have Fun and to Learn something about Group Precognition

If you are interested, please contact Marty marty@p-i-a.com I have a spam-arrest filter that will send you a one-time email, which you must respond to–please look for this.

We are using GoToMeeting, which has a maximum of 16 participants, including me and one or two other independent judges. So, let me know if you will participate ASAP. I know the timing is awkward/impossible for many, and if you can make it, I hope you will join us.

p.s. Our society is harnessing the objective universe that modern physics describes. We believe it is time to harness the reality of the entanglement of all conscious “nows” … past, present and future. Imagine that paradigm shift – participate in actualizing it! We hope to start many new 1ARV Groups.

Teresa Frisch’s Aesthetic Impact Informational Services (AIIS) website lists the following free remote viewing webinar on its November registration schedule:

Nov. 16, 9-10:30 p.m. EST,  CRV Project Management with Lyn Buchanan: Management of a CRV effort is different from normal management in a myriad of ways. Conduct and handling of these specialized personnel and the information they produce can be a minefield from which the unwary and untrained manager may never return. Specifics: differences, pitfalls, preventive measures, special techniques and moral, legal, social and corporate responsibilities, proper methods for maximizing the product of the CRV effort. Many problems can be prevented through a properly conducted effort of aggressive intervention.

Webinar registration

Mel Riley

Following is information Marty Rosenblatt provided:

Remote Influencing yourSelf (RIS) Through Time

Location: Hyatt Place Milwaukee Airport
When: Saturday and Sunday, Nov. 5-6
Workshop begins: 9 a.m.
Register: www.p-i-a.com/Workshops/RIS_Mel_Nov5_6_2011/
Cost: $295

Mel Riley, a “charter member” of the Army Remote Viewing  Unit will discuss bilocation* and Marty Rosenblatt, an expert in precognition, will discuss Remote Influencing yourSelf (RIS) Through Time at the Nov. 5-6 workshop in Milwaukee.

Remote Influencing can have ethical issues when being applied to another person, but Remote Influencing your Self avoids all those issues because it is simply using your free will to influence your life’s journey…your journey through time with your consciousness.

Learn about RIS by doing it at this workshop to predict the future. The approach is to combine Remote Viewing (RV) before the game with RIS after the game. RIS, as applied in this workshop, is a form of RV. RV is a natural human capability that was successfully applied in many ways by the intelligence community and military for over 30 years, including applications involving predicting the future – precognition.

RV/RIS is related to bilocation* and quantum entanglement. For example, Mel has had many bilocation experiences where he feels, in almost every way, that he is at another location and time. The experiences are apparently so real that he has been observed by others, in their location/time. While bilocation is relatively rare, this phenomenon serves as a dramatic example of a “handshake” through space/time where information is consciously entangled.

RV/RIS is all about improving the accuracy and reliability of RV transcripts. RIS can improve RV reliability by influencing, by sharing information with, the RV transcript based on the truth known after the game outcome.

Mel and Marty believe that one’s individual spirit is at the core of each of our journeys. And at the same time, the spirit of each of those around us are to be honored … the self and the group. There is great power and potential in this reality, and so the RV/RIS protocol involves two independent targets for predicting the outcome of one game. One target is for the group, and the other target is a WildCard for you!

Come to the workshop to learn, discuss, and do, RV/RIS with Mel and Marty. We don’t have all the answers. This is a true workshop where we will all be able to discuss, explore and improve our knowledge and appreciation of RV, RIS and precognition. Mel, Marty and each participant will predict the outcome of two games (one on Saturday and one on Sunday), leaving lots of time to discuss these fascinating, fun, and important phenomena.

A take-away from this workshop will be a methodology, a protocol, for continuing to improve your RV/RIS ability in a self-actualizing fashion. Combine that with working with Mel and Marty, and you have a unique workshop opportunity. Beginners as well as seasoned remote viewers will enjoy and learn from this workshop.

For any questions, contact Marty directly at marty@p-i-a.com

*Bilocation definition from the CRV-Stanford Research Institute-Army Remote Viewing Manual

f. Bilocation Break (Bilo Bk): When the viewer perceives he is too much absorbed in and transferred to the site and cannot therefore appropriately debrief and objectify site information … a Bilo break must be declared and objectified to allow the viewer to back out, and then get properly recoupled with the signal line again.