UMS

[Shannon]

The one thing that strikes me odd about the lotto thing and numbers being close (say you pick 37 and 38/36 comes up) is the balls are in all different places in the tank.

So if you picked 37, its not like 38/36 were right next to it like  on the lotto card.  In the tank 38/36 might have been very far away from 37.  So you could argue you weren't really "close" in that way.  This is if they still use the tank with all the jumbled balls in it.

You are correct; however, when the experiments I did were performed, over and over again I got the result that the forecast number would either be spot on or slightly off (+/-).  This held true regardless of how the numbers were generated for the lottery.  The only way I could think to explain it was that multiple probability lines that were almost identical resulted in those close number combinations.  Since the numbers were usually +1, 0 or -1 to what was drawn when I used a valid predictive system and used it properly, I was clearly defying chance, but still not able to exactly pin down what numbers were coming up.  Why would that be, when the same predictive system, in several cases, was able to pin down situations and circumstances exactly in other applications?  The only thing I could think of was that each possible combination represented a possibility line, and that as we approached the drawing (and went through the drawing), millions or billions of variables ranging from extremely minor to major were resulting in the specifics that resulted in that combination being chosen, and that made sense when you try to play the whole thing in reverse.  In reverse, you can slow things down and see (with balls) the direct causative events more clearly.  The issue is with the number of variables needing to be considered, and recognizing what variables actually have an influence, what that influence is, and keeping pace with the speed of action.  Run that drawing in reverse in slow motion (or even in slow motion forwards) and you can see with certainty what is doing what, as long as you can recognize it as a variable of influence.  So it isn't random, and it is too much data, speed and complexity for us to accurately model or predict with currently available tools.

Also, do you think all people who win the lottery had something to do with it?  I've seen all different types of people win: good, bad, poor, rich, drug addicts, homeless, working men, business men, etc.  Probably non use subs and have all different subconscious and conscious mindsets..  Do you think they all had something to do with it?  It was never completely random?

I think that the complexity of the entire system that is influencing it is grand beyond what most people would ever begin to suspect.  In their own way, everyone is a variable influencing those balls.  Every person on the planet.  It is like the idea described by chaos theory that a butterfly flapping its wings can potentially lead to a hurricane somewhere else on the planet.  So yes.  They were influential variables.