GameDay Psychic uses a proprietary psychic technology to successfully predict the winners of sporting events, the direction of financial markets, and more.
This proprietary technology developed over the past 15 years is based on declassified U.S. Government research.
This website serves to publicly document my NFL football game predictions using this technology, establishing an indisputable record of success.
by Lincoln B. Lounsbury
IN 1995, THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY declassified 89,000 pages of the Top Secret Project Star Gate, content that contains the fundamental elements of two potentially powerful psychic technologies known as Remote Viewing and Associative Remote Viewing.
The technologies were claimed to be processes that could be used to gain psychic access to information that was otherwise inaccessible via the ordinary senses. The end-product of the processes was simple notes and sketches on paper - a 'session' - replete with either previously unknown information or a prediction.
In Remote Viewing the task of a 'Viewer' is to describe and sketch something unknown and useful about a 'target' of interest. Remote Viewing is primarily used to gather information about the past/present and Project Star Gate used Remote Viewing almost exclusively.
CIA Remote Viewing Session
Successful session - The CIA Remote Viewer, Pat Price, was given latitude and longitude coordinates and tasked to describe and sketch the site of interest. Neither Price nor the person assigning the task knew anything about the target site or location (double-blind). In addition to the work above, Price provided extensive detailed sketches and descriptions about secret activity inside the buildings which, years later, the U.S. Government learned were accurate. This facility, the Semipalatinsk Test Site, located in northeastern Kazakhstan was the Soviet Union's primary location for building and testing nuclear weapons at the time of this session.
Associative Remote Viewing was specifically designed for predicting future outcomes and has been used primarily in the private sector. In Associative Remote Viewing, the task of a Viewer is to describe and sketch only one of two or more unknown images in a set. For example, to predict the winner of a football game, one image in a set of two would be labelled with the name of one of the two teams playing, and the other image in the set would be labelled with the opposing team's name. The task for an Associative Remote Viewer in this example would be to describe and sketch the image in the set that is associated with the name of the team that will win the game.
Associative Remote Viewing Session
Session by Lincoln Lounsbury
'flat sheet of metal' - successful session predicting Syracuse would beat Boston College in the football game between these two teams on 11/28/2015. Syracuse won 20-17 with a last-second field goal. Unlike the extensive detail that is a desirable product of a good Remote Viewing session, an Associative Remote Viewing session only requires enough information to distinguish one image from another. A sketch of the entire bus here, for example, would have been of no more value than 'flat sheet of metal.' In fact, any practice of associative remote viewing that even tolerates, much less promotes, attempts to psychically access and sketch superfluous information will actually doom the associative remote viewer to long-term failure.
AN INTERNET SEARCH on the topic of Remote Viewing will locate impressive reports of Project Star Gate's success as well as the names and colorful stories of the Father of Remote Viewing, Ingo Swann, and the esteemed Stanford Research Institute scientists Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ who worked with Swann. This group initially developed Remote Viewing technology prior to the CIA learning of its existence and rolling out the welcome mat.
Success aside, and amid claims of an anti-psychic political agenda, in a Congressionally Directed Action in 1995, the CIA hired the American Institutes for Research (AIR) to evaluate the Remote Viewing technology. In their condemning report AIR concluded, “it remains unclear whether the existence of a paranormal phenomenon, Remote Viewing, has been demonstrated” and “even though a statistically significant effect has been observed in the laboratory … the information provided by Remote Viewing is vague and ambiguous, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the technique to yield information of sufficient quality and accuracy for actionable intelligence.” [AIR,1995].
In practically one stroke of a pen, Project Star Gate was dead and the technology was declassified. While the fundamental process of Remote Viewing occurred for some as having less than nominal value, it wasn't the case that everyone involved with the Project at CIA considered the technology worthless. To the contrary, the 89,000 pages of declassified documents are highly redacted and, to this day, not all the sessions produced by the Star Gate Remote Viewers have been declassified.
An internet search on the topic of Associative Remote Viewing will also locate reports of success, almost all of which involve some form of financial investing, sports betting, or playing the lottery. Curiously, these reports typically have in common a pattern of initial success, while subsequent attempts to replicate the success routinely fail or are never reported. This is assuming, in some instances, subsequent attempts were made to earn even more money. 'One-hit wonders' abound.
Associative Remote Viewing pioneer Stephen Schwartz observed the failure of practitioners of this technology to succeed in the long term. In his book, Opening To The Infinite, Schwartz writes about the existence of the phenomenon saying, “looking back over the years, my sense of ARV [Associative Remote Viewing] is that it is a very useful protocol for 'one-off' projects.” [SCHWARTZ, 2007]. Writing further on the subject of associative remote viewing in 2009, Schwartz admonished, “I would not recommend that you spend your time doing this. ARV is quite good at 'one-off' events, but not very good for long term activity.” [FINERMINDS.COM 2009; RETRIEVED 8/13/16].
Unfortunately, Schwartz was right: The Associative Remote Viewing technology he developed was good for one-off events, but fundamentally flawed as a tool for long-term projects. The good news is I have resolved the numerous, critical shortcomings of traditional Associative Remote Viewing technology creating a proprietary technology that works. The most fundamental, game-ending pitfalls which have plagued practitioners forever have been transcended, as can be seen in my results below, and this technology will be available soon in the form of a training course.
Photo by Paola Harris © 2002
IN 2004, I BEGAN PRACTICING, researching and developing Remote Viewing and Associative Remote Viewing technology, confident I could both improve the Remote Viewing technology and get the Associative Remote Viewing Technology to work in the long run. Rather quickly, however, I focused almost solely on Associative Remote Viewing, specifically attracted to its precisely measurable and indisputable 'Hit' or 'Miss' results.
In Associative Remote Viewing, a Hit is a prediction that exactly matches the actual outcome of the predicted event. For example, Team X was predicted to win the game and Team X did win the game. A Miss is a prediction that did not match the actual outcome of the predicted event - Team X was predicted to win the game and Team X did not win the game.
Unlike Remote Viewing, where determining the accuracy and usefulness of a session can sometimes be as difficult as the AIR report concluded, predictions which are a product of a properly structured Associative Remote Viewing session always prove to be definitively accurate or inaccurate. Also, unlike Remote Viewing, for long-term applications like sports betting and financial investing, Associative Remote Viewing predictions are always actionable or usable.
In 2011, after seven years of practice, research, and development, I passed the tipping point in a series of breakthrough discoveries which summarily and sufficiently explained why traditional Associative Remote Viewing technology wasn't working. More importantly, the breakthroughs made my practice of Associative Remote Viewing successful. Since 2011 I have completed thousands of Associative Remote Viewing Sessions achieving solid success rates and a solid Return on Investment. Below is a brief overview of a sports-betting opportunity followed by an example of my personal success in that domain.
WHEN BETTING ON AN NFL FOOTBALL GAME, there is an option, of course, to simply bet on the team you believe will win the game. Another more popular betting option is betting 'against the spread' (ATS) where points (the spread) are either added to the 'Underdog's' final score or subtracted from the 'Favorite's' final score depending on whether one bets on the Favorite or the Underdog.
For example, let's say a Sportsbook (the part of a casino dedicated to sports betting) advertises a spread of 3.5 points for a game. If a Bettor places a wager on the Underdog, the Sportsbook will add 3.5 points to the Underdog's final score at the end of the game, and the Bettor will win if the underdog's final score plus the spread (3.5 points) is greater than the Favorite's final score.
If the final score of the game is, say, Underdog 10, Favorite 13, the Underdog Bettor wins the bet because 10 plus 3.5 is greater than 13. If the final score of the game was Underdog 7 Favorite 13, the Underdog Bettor loses because 7 plus 3.5 is less than 13.
If a spread Bettor places a wager on the 'Favorite,' the Sportsbook subtracts 3.5 points from the Favorite's final score, and the Bettor will win if the Favorite's final score minus the spread is still greater than the 'Underdog's' final score.
If the final score of the game is, say, Underdog 10, Favorite 17. The Favorite Bettor wins because 17 minus 3.5 is greater than 10. If the final score of the game was Underdog 7 Favorite 10, the Favorite Bettor loses because 10 minus 3.5 is less than 7.
Sportsbook Betting Board: spreads are highlighted in yellow
WHEN BETTING IN LAS VEGAS, one must accurately pick winners against the spread, on average, 52.38% of the time to break even financially, yet successfully predicting winners against the spread 'just' 54% of the time in the long term would be good enough for those starting with larger bankrolls to easily earn a comfortable living. It is estimated that more than 200 million people bet money on the last Super Bowl, yet there may not be even a dozen individuals, cadres and syndicates in the world who pick NFL winners against the spread 54% of the time or more in the long term.
An internet search for such success turns up only a handful of sports bettors who have publicly documented this kind of achievement, yet all the achievement above a 54% success rate (still better than virtually anyone) is ultimately only success in recent history or a short history at best, while long-term success at 1,000 picks or more, if they have even made that many picks, still runs below 54%. By 'publicly documented' I mean 100% of NFL predictions are publicly posted no later than immediately PRIOR to kickoff and show a long-term success rate against the spread above 54%. To be sure, there are countless websites built by dishonest touts who claim far greater, mostly absurd levels of success, all to cheat people out of their money. These touts, when not just plain lying about their results, regularly advertise success rates after as few as 100, or 50, or even 10 picks as great accomplishment when, by accepted statistical measures, the results are based on such a low number of predictions that success can't even be measured.
THE SUCCESS of even a single practice of Associative Remote Viewing has profound implications that eclipse its value as a tool to merely generate income, but when you're using Associative Remote Viewing to bet on sports, invest in financial markets or show on a public website, for starters, that a technology has been developed that actually works to predict what is popularly called 'the future,' it's indisputable numbers that spell crystal clear success that matter, and nothing spells success, here, like a positive Return on Investment.
Between 2013 and 2018 using Associative Remote Viewing, I successfully predicted winners against the spread in 277 out of 502 NFL games, a 55.2% success rate. Not 1,000 bets, but keep reading. Betting $100, for example, on each of these 502 games (flat betting) at average Vegas odds of 10-11 (.91 to 1) would have produced a gross profit of $2,707, a 5.4% Return On Investment. $1,000 bets would have grossed $27K, and for a professional sports betting enterprise using my predictions, bets of $20,000 - the typical limit Las Vegas casinos have on individual NFL games - would have generated $541,400 in gross profit per employee placing the bets.
Investment professionals will recognize these numbers greatly understate the potential for profit, here, even for those investing with smaller bankrolls because the numbers only represent one outcome that's possible from placing a mere 502 bets over a six-year period using flat betting. Just by employing financially sound money-management strategies like the Kelly Criterion, for example, investors making 500 bets or investment trades at this point might easily have realized twice the gross profit of their flat-betting counterparts. Using such methods, the six-year gross profit per employee above (remember, only 502 bets) might easily have exceeded $1M by now.
In addition to predicting the outcome of NFL games over the past 15 years, I have successfully predicted thousands of college football games, basketball, baseball and hockey games, horse races and currency, equity and commodity markets. My overall success rate exceeds my 55.2% NFL success rate and the odds against chance of me being as successful as I have been over the past 15 years varies in the range of billions to one. The technology I developed works, and it works in the long term.
Session by Lincoln Lounsbury
'Black background' and a sketch of the hub of the tree - successful session predicting the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (+3) would cover the spread against the Washington Redskins on 10/25/15. The final score was Tampa Bay Buccaneers 30, Washington Redskins 31.