Goldtent TA Paradise

Video regarding Market prediction for Month of October

1. Karl says:

   October 2, 2016 - 5:02 pm at 5:02 pm

   Thank you so much. About to look.

2. Karl says:

   October 2, 2016 - 5:46 pm at 5:46 pm

   Again, thank you for bringing up this topic, which may try people’s patience, however.

   Being indecisively in the middle, I’m afraid I tend to act as Devil’s Advocate against either or any position in this matter.

   Here, in the first presentation. I have to say that even if things work out more or less as projected, a big So What will be elicited. October surprises, crashes, and meltdowns are routinely predicted and sometimes these sorts of things have happened. Has The Hillary fallen down with tall persons behind her? Probably nothing new. Might it even trigger a financial crisis? Not a surprising prediction, one anyone could make. <– These are objections anyone can make even if the prediction occurs.

   From my light dipping into the DoD funded remote viewing work circa 1980 around Palo Alto, published by the IEEE: even the problem with real imagery in conjunction with a HRC fall or market crash that looks like the 2nd drawing with the triangular shape within it–there will almost surely be some differences between the drawing and the real place, more than enough for skeptics to do their thing. (I have participated informally in such experiments myself–the hits sometimes are eerily correct–but not reliable enough to be, well, reliable.)

   In other words, if I may allow myself a snide remark, the remote viewing hits are often like the "hits" of a lot of the less successful TA, where the target is hit, sort of, almost, or kindof, if you look at it just the right way, approximately, in retrospect — or it was just exactly as predicted except perhaps in the opposite direction, or maybe in a different market, by a different index, several days off.

   In other words, even if the prediction turns out eerily correct, it will be easy for skeptics to find problems with it.

   Additionally, this presentation, even if I thought it were valid, doesn't offer me anything useful to trade on.

   There is other psi work (see Jahn, book written when prof emeritus electrical engineering Princeton) that I will not take up space w with unless asked that to my naive mind may be tougher for skeptics.

   I apologize for offering up my negatives, sounding like the sort of person I typically detest. I only offer a critique because I am interested and grateful for your bringing the topic up.

   • Karl says:

     October 2, 2016 - 6:57 pm at 6:57 pm

     Correction: Robert Jahn when he wrote the book I read (circa 1980-85) was I think retired Chair of Applied Physics at Princeton, not EE.

     (Can’t resist: Jahn would get computer to generate astronomical # of events, programming them to fall according to a normal distribution. Then would ask volunteer to move the bell-curve (mentally) to the right (or left) from just outside the computer room. Remarkably often ensued a shift–minuscule in degree but extraordinarily high in statistical significance–of the bell-curve. As I recall, as is typical with psi research–and actually it happened rather less than in a lot of TA–there was no shift or the vanishingly improbable shift occurred in the wrong direction. So it wasn’t consistent, 100%. I haven’t followed up, but I don’t know that skeptics have been able to blow a hole in the work. Very tough, unlike much of the remote viewing work, because of hard statistics, no clearcut explanation in physics of how the subject could have altered the computer’s function (or unconsciously forseen its alteration).