free remote viewing magazine - issue 3

[Craig Browning]

[ProfWag]

[dazsmith]

[Craig Browning]

Wags... any good student of "Cold Reading" can hit those ratios and that's without any intuitive inclusion.

I don't know of many veteran Readers that walk with a foot in either world (theater & real world) that can't meet those levels of presumed accuracy; we are actually known for being more accurate than the "shut eye" Readers of the world because we understand the demographic and psychological aspects of doing the work.

Hope that shines a brighter light on things.

[Nostradamus]

Daz, I did not try to cherry pick items. You didn't suggest I did. So you make it explicitly clear now that you only get a random number.

Why supply a random number? It's part of the protocol, but why?

[dazsmith]

[Craig Browning]

Daz, thanks for that line "nothing esoteric about it"... I use this CONSTANTLY when dealing with skeptic & believer alike (and yet, both seem to have the ardent need to cling to the fantasy)

[Nostradamus]

I was just curious here since there has been what appeared to me so much talk about the random numbers. So are both of you saying it nothing more than a diversion - a part of the show.

You have to agree it is curious when there is this table thumping cry that all that was known was a random number. I've been corrected before in these threads about there only being a random number. So after all of the table thumping it seems I am being told that it's a meaningless diversion that can be eliminated from the show.

[Craig Browning]

[NinjaPuppy]

Agree!

[Nostradamus]

[NinjaPuppy]

[dazsmith]

[NinjaPuppy]

Ahhhhhh, thank you!

[Craig Browning]