In the early Eighties, I listened to a series of lectures by a professor of statistics on Consistent Violators of the Laws of Random Distribution. Random Distribution fascinates me, always has, because I figure this statistic evidences some blessing created for us. The statistic is that for every ten (or was it 11) times something happens that could cause a disaster, the disaster happens, and this is so strongly happening it’s ironclad. Professions rely on these statistics (any prediction, risk management, for instance).

TAROT IS ONE OF THESE VIOLATORS when handled with anything in mind. 20 years of experiments with Tarot established this, and the lectures were about all the then-known violators in 1980.

There are also quite a few experiments, ones in the Seventies that I know of, about statistics of how card choices fall into patterns (especially the ones with 5 cards that have shapes on them).

These lectures got me interested in Tarot. I felt the Tarot books were mostly dumb, and when I sat in on professional readers, they were not reading the cards; they were listening to spirits, they said.

I went on to ask questions I knew the answers to, to ascribe meanings to cards. I was a court reporter when I did all this, so my meanings are Verbatim. Been at it since 1980, and now have an encyclopedia of these Verbatim meanings you can access to do readings.

Doesn’t it make sense that there is more than one way, more than one source, for the meanings? It does to me. After all, I cooked up a bunch that work really well.