View Full Version : How I generate random OP target ID's

Dick Allgire
2007-May-16 Wed, 20:07
If you wonder about a target ID and how it is generated and whether it is random, here is how I have been doing it. I just spent 30 minutes making a new list of random ID's.

I took 36 small squares of paper and wrote the letters A thru Z on each one. I put the pieces of paper in a bag and randomized them. (I mixed them up.)

I took 10 poker chips with the numbers 0 thru 9 on them and put them in a bag and mixed them up.

I sat down without looking and mixed the papers with the letters and selected one and wrote it down.

I mixed the numbers bag and selected a chip without looking and wrote that down. I continued this process - letter then number- until I had generated a list of target ID's with 8 alpha/numeric tags. These are pristine and will be used as needed, cued and associated with specific targets of interest.

For practice validation targets I used the same method, but selected all letters. All letter ID means it is validation (but no less important) and a combination of letter/number/letter/number is operational.


By the way, I look at the list, and they already mean something to me, like the title of a good book by a great author that hasn't been published yet, but you're waiting to read when it comes out.

Glenn B. Wheaton
2007-May-20 Sun, 01:49
Aloha Dick,

I think that the target ID selection process is a bit more important than most people would believe. During the random selection process we often see results that seem to be less than random. The malleability of randomness as we have seen becomes part of the unique signature that becomes the target ID. It has been the subject of hours of thought for me since we began to play with entrainments. Randomness seems to have more properties than we would normally associate with it. Let me bounce a few thoughts your way about randomness.

Not really the chaotic factor, randomness like events, changes when it is observed. Not only does it change from the conventional definition but it also seems to take on a synergy. I believe that randomness becomes part of the binding in entanglements. Observation + randomness creates entrainments whose result is entanglement. That is the keep it simple algorithm. We have seen observation and randomness work together in a symbiotic fashion to create affinity. That affinity was really an entanglement of two objects with mass. One would not normally think or suspect that randomness had any mass to speak of but what if the observer's effect really was only the observation and its ripples in the pool of randomness. It makes one think of fate or destiny in a bit different light.

I doubt that true randomness can exist in any state where observation, mass, gravity, or light exists. What we have is really an arbitrary state of localized randomness. For brief periods in time it can be shaped by the one who knows its' secrets.