 How many have done one word testing? That's sort of hard to answer. It's surprising enough, there's going to be a number of 277 or something, literally hundreds. But the answer is not that easy to write that because many, many more people make application, initial application, by sending in the form than ever moved to the next stage. And it starts out like this. It's apparently huge number of people applying by sending in the form. And then it drops down whenever you don't hear it from, to an 80% of those people ever again. And then they don't do this, they don't do this, but then finally we get down to a really pretty here. Actually only a score or so in a year actually get to the point where they're ready to be now tested for the preliminary test. So it's not an easy number to give you, but it is literally hundreds. And in Dalasig alone, that has been at least 80 to 85% of the total claims. Now, we have Bart Farkas. Bart, you hear some place? Who Bart? Bart. Bart. Hello, Bart. Yes, Bart is preparing a report by analyzing all of the applications that have ever been from the million dollar price. We're reading with great anticipation, see the breakdown on the kind of people, the gender, the location, the age group and sexual people who make these applications and what happens to the application as they pass down through this, that they exceedingly fine following there with a very small amount on the other end. So that would be an interesting documentation, Bart. As the city said, I would think from the point of your files again, which would make you three to five quarters built, there's probably between 150 and 220, preliminary challenges that would... Actually, that's one of the points. I just pointed to the time you're writing that. Yeah. Yes. The question to care of people now, I presume that this test will eventually go on YouTube somehow or some form. Do you think there'll be a doubt that the folks out there can see how it's done and how rigid it is and that this is the real, this is the real, that's not just, do you think you have less applicants than this, but who think that they can get away with it? Well, in one way, it will see the integrity of the test. It will see how carefully done it is and I think you have to agree with this that what we showed you today is absolute integrity. The care with which it's prepared through various steps, such on the security with which it's handled is unbeatable. It can't be improved upon because we could have ended it right at the point where Connie had missed the three cards and said, okay, we all know who not, but we exist about opening up the other compilings to make sure that it was possibly, there was a possibility that Connie could have won because the card was there and it was properly placed and et cetera. So I think this both encourages and perhaps discourages some people. The people that will discourage is people who are trying to do some tricks on us and we're going to get rid of those for the time for that. We would be sincere people who really believe they've got the card and if they do, hey, step right up. There we are. I'm actually expecting a wall of criticism from folks, from our detractors who are now be able to examine the test and piece by piece trying to see a point where the shadow of Vanochek's hand covered a card and that was the moment he switched the correct card or something like that. He's pretty damn clever, buddy, he's not that clever. I have a question. I mean, I have scientists who have validated me. Can I go after them? Oh yeah, sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. You can just get right away, I'll run into the hall. Vanochek's had a question that wasn't disclosed in the first part of the test today, a lot of protocol, which is I was surprised, a little surprised to see Vanochek carefully keeping the order of the envelopes as it came out of the large envelope. I'm just curious, how did they get in that order? Who knew what order they were in inside that envelope? Yeah, I mean, that is a good question. When it got to me, all they know is I was told I was not to mix that order up, that I'm not allowed to do that and that kind of gives you to sort of that double line that somebody else has already mixed them up and they put them inside the envelope. When they come out, I'm not allowed to hamper the mix. They put them on the table in order to just follow the protocol back. That's all, is that as much as the protocol they had, Allison can answer the beginning part of that question. They were actually shuffled and sealed by me at first, then Jeff re-randomized. So I didn't know the order that they were in. Jeff didn't know the order that they were in. Vanochek didn't know the order that they were in. The oddest concern is that someone could know the order that was in the room and it sounds like there was no way that you were shuffling them out. They were a double envelope and there was no indication among the outside envelope. Because they were randomized twice before Vanochek ever touched the room. That was why when Connie said, I'm moving that one, I said no, we cannot change the order of the cards. Connie, Joe, I'm concerned with Denver, Colorado. As I understand it, do you believe that who are around the person who has these flowers, is that right? No, no. That's worth, I didn't say that. Because one third of the population on this can't do something. And that is a meaning why people don't, when they are coming here or to be tested. I'm sure that many of them can do something but it's not the right time to show people are they, if you put them that way. So therefore, nobody has taken the jetties. I have one more question about the protocol. It seems like everyone from the J-Rest very happy with the protocol as you've designed it. Question one, who came up with it? It was mutually agreed to, of course, but who invented that protocol? And the follow-up then would be, are you going to use this exact protocol to do similar tests of 1000 in the future or every claimant gets different protocols? Oh, every claimant gets different protocols and every claimant is different. Some people say they can determine colors and cards or objects or book or chips or whatever. And on the welfare they can find the same children or all the cold, whatever. Every claimant is totally different from every other claimant. But if another claimant says, I can use 1000, right? Will you use this exact protocol? No, it depends on what they say they can do. You see, they, some of them say I can only find flowing water, flowing fresh water. For example, you know that person demonstrating a fresh 1000 is very, very popular and doesn't work any better than it does here. But nonetheless, they have specific claims. I can only find water which is flowing east and west, et cetera. They're very specific in most of them and their claims. And the test has to be designed, the protocol has to be designed to accommodate exactly that the person who makes the claim dictates the rules as to how these things will happen. All we have to do is filter it out in such a way that it's a double blind procedure and that it is perfectly fair and above board and the million dollars is put on the line. Is this protocol, therefore, retired? You're not going to use this? I must say exactly the same thing. But wait, Orish, if you guys wish to come back next year and do the same thing, you can use the same protocol. We don't know. Usually, when that claim comes in, it's a small subtlety that's different. And that changes the protocol even if it's a small subtlety. Right now, for instance, we do have a claim in her name is Anne Giffler, and she will be coming to the front of the line soon. She also does sealed on-below identification, mostly playing cards, but she doesn't do it through dowsing. And as for the protocols, I do initial negotiations and write numbers graph and Jeff and I confer over what we come up with. Everything's worked out with the claimant and then Randy is contacted to finalize all of them and make any changes that he sees fit. Do you ever have statisticians or scientists? Oh, yes. She had done this with all the numbers for all of these. An important couple of important points. First off, Allison does the major bulk of the work here, so a lot of what you've seen today is Allison's work. Second, it's really the claimant who designs the challenge. They come to us and tell us what they can do. For example, let's say someone came and said they could break the predictive coin toss. If you flip a coin, I can tell you what's gonna be heads or tails. That is the protocol, that's the nascent protocol. Now, of course, we all know that that's 50-50 and it's not good enough. So we will do the numbers and come back with them and say, okay, if you can do that, can you do this? Because this is what we need. And then they agree yes, if they don't agree, we finesse that. And a lot of times that's where it ends because people will not accept anything beyond 50-50 chances of cases.