P7B - ARV group - Examples of our work


P7B Hall of Excellence - personal hits from P7B's remote viewers: examples of best winning sessions (transcripts) produced by P7B group members in 2015

P7B 2016 Odysseus - examples of best winning sessions produced by P7B group members in the P7B 2016 'Odysseus' ARV series - powered by ARV Studio software

P7B 2016 Poseidon and Unicorn - examples of best winning sessions produced by P7B group members in the P7B 2016 'Poseidon' and 'Unicorn' ARV series - powered by ARV Studio software

P7B 2017 example Hit by Teresa - high quality ARV session

ARV series and ARV experiments (2016):

From February 23 2016 until November 03 2016, P7B ARV group did a set of three ARV series while tracking some exploratory variables introduced to me by Mr. Patrizio Tressoldi, Ph.D., Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, Università di Padova, Italy.

As a tasker and RV analyst I created new ARV target pairs by pairing ones with equal amount of visually assessed entropy.

Two exploratory variables were introduced to track them: mood and self efficacy of a remote viewer. Each viewer was asked to rate his/her mood and efficacy using a Likert scale (after completing RV session).


please rate your mood: 1 (Very negative/low) to 10 (Very positive/high)

please rate your self-efficacy: 1 (Very negative/low) to 10 (Very positive/high)

Conclusions (this report gives a short summary of conclusions only, while all trial data is available on files):

There were Hits both with low rates (<6) and high rates (>6) on Mood and Self-Efficacy. The role of these variables seem not very clear in this exploratory study.

There were numerous examples of 'mixed signal', meaning that a transcript was a good match with both photo targets (score >3.5 for both targets) and therefore it was difficult to make a decision which side to pick. These transcripts were Passes most of the time. 'Mixed signal' was observed when both targets had much 'going on' and/or when both targets had high visual entropy (e.g. movement vs heat, humans vs natural movements). To overcome/eliminate 'mixed signal' in the future series, it may be a good idea for targets to be more simpler - a 'one thing'/'one object'/'one gestalt' type of targets.

More on mixed signal:

Remote Viewers will 'pick up' movements very often. If 'movement gestalt' is present in both photos then it may become hard for an independent analyst to make a decision between two photos. The Viewer would have to give something more specific about the movement (or movement type) so the analyst would be able to match it with correct photo.

As for the words to use in transcripts for future series: it is recommended to use only adjective, verbs and adverbs avoiding completely nouns.


General independent observations on ARV by P.T.:

After checking all participants' transcripts it seems very clear how difficult it is to judge, because the lists of words is too wide and variable to be used. However, the use of the drawings (sketches) is less confusing.

@ report by Igor Grgić

Some other information from past projects

ARV series and ARV experiments (2017):

From 7th February 2017 until 20th June 2017, P7B ARV group experimented with an ARV protocol using three photo choices for predicting financial events having two possible outcomes. 19 ARV trials were conducted for prediction Forex currency moves.

Usually, a standard binary ARV protocol with two photo choices is used when wanting to predict an outcome of event which can have two possible outcomes.

For 19 ARV trials, a third photo choice was introduced as advised by some RV teachers. In each ARV trial a third photo choice was associated with "No action/Pass". If a remote viewer produced a RV transcript which was a best match with 3rd choice, then it meant that no prediction call will be made. Therefore, instead of making an 'Outcome A' or 'Outcome B' prediction call, an analyst/judge declared a Pass and no action (financial maket trade) was made. As advised, third choice serves as an opportunity for a subconscious mind to 'opt-out'. It is supposed to help minimise troubling displacement phenomena in ARV. Displacement is when a remote viewer correctly describes a photo choice which was associated with unactualized outcome. Third choice may be a 'way out' by giving a chance to remote viewer to describe third photo choice associated with a 'No action/Pass' rather than describing unactualized photo target.

Out of 60 individual ARV transcripts, there were 10 transcripts producing a Hit (identified as best match for winning photo choice), 10 transcripts producing a Miss (identified as best match for photo choice which was not actualized one), 11 transcripts identified as best match for Third Photo Choice (No Action) and 29 transcripts having a score below threshold of 3.5 on SRI/Targ scale (no match to any of three choices). These 29 transcripts are what we identify as a Pass in standard binary ARV (two photo choices and two possible outcomes of an event).

Conclusion: There were 19 ARV group predictions and 60 individual ARV transcripts (and 60 individual picks by independent analyst). Total number of non-passing transcripts (score bove 3.5 threshold) was 31. These 31 individual transcripts produced 31 picks which were equally distrubuted on all three photo choices (10,10,11). There was no increase in accuracy, rather it dropped to a chance level (50%). It seems that third target intruduced extra complexity and third photo was of equal interest for subconscious mind to connect with it. Note: all three photo choices were dissimilar and each one was of more or less equal numinosity. I see no benefit of having third photo target associated with 'No action/Pass' (neither of two possible outcomes). Other ARV series like this one are necessary to confirm this conclusion.


Additional info about this ARV series (after other inquiries):

There were 5 remote viewers who participated in 19 ARV forex predictions and produced total of 60 ARV transcripts. On average, there were 3.1 viewers (transcripts) per one prediction/event (60 / 19 = 3.1).

Two remote viewers were beginners who did only 9 ARV sessions out of 60. Other three viewers have at least 4+ or 5+ or 10+ years experience.

All sessions were judged by independent judge (Igor).

Time between RV session and Feedback was 12 to 24 hours (it depends on a movement of currency price).

Except introducing 3rd target, all other protocol/series parameters were as usual for this group. Percentage of passes was as usual.

@ report by Igor Grgić