Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Time Shift Experiments & Remote Viewing

  1. #1

    Default Time Shift Experiments & Remote Viewing

    "If the past is changed we would remember both timelines."

    Glenn once said that if I recall correctly.

    Glenn, what is the theoretical basis for this belief?

    What does that theory predict to be the difference between those who remember both timelines & those who only remember the changed timeline?

    Does the theory predict a split time stream after the change or a single time stream with some in that time stream remembering what is now a nonexistent time stream? And if so, does the theory allow for reverting back to the original time stream if the original experiment is thwarted?
    Last edited by Nemo; 2016-Dec-12 Mon at 01:32.

  2. Default

    Aloha Nemo,
    You always ask interesting questions.

    "If the past is changed we would remember both timelines."
    Glenn, what is the theoretical basis for this belief?

    Let me put a bit more perspective to this question. I believe this was during a discussion on our “Ebba Project” where we were wrestling with concepts concerning an effort by a few remote viewers to make some sort of change to the past that would affect something that was very well documented in the present. There are a few considerations to take in and a few concepts that must be agreed upon to understand the probabilities. By probabilities I am referring to the plausible nature of the effort and whether the remote viewer believes the effort is viable or possible. This is important to insure a common quality of effort from the viewer.

    I think it is important to note that the effort by the viewer would be limited to making target contact and simultaneously emulating a predetermined sensory concept with the intent to add that concept to the target environment. The theory is supported by the basic premise that remote viewing itself is a viable effort despite all that we do not know concerning it. It would be as reasonable to believe that the viewer has some presence at the target they are viewing regardless of the event size of that presence. The viewer essentially becomes an added quantity to the total consciousness within that environment. Whether or not the sensory concept they employ while working the target will become significant is limited to the gain potential the viewer exerts.

    If you as the viewer were given a target and a concept to employ at that target, you would still be blind, and would never face a conflict or paradox from what you may or may not know about the target. It would be different for the Targeteer who designed the effort. If the Targeteer is successful, and is able to bring about a change within the target environment that creates a conflict between the past and the present, it will only be a conflict/paradox for them. History would have recorded the new state as if it had always been that way. The event would then never need to be tasked and so the Tasker would lose their awareness of the tasking. The viewer would remember working the target but would have no insight beyond that. The Targeteer would be the sole person with a duplicity of knowledge regarding the target and he/she would maintain that knowledge because it is a memory within their consciousness and outside the basic consideration of space/time. It may only be a slight memory or a 2nd guess at the reality of the known information about the target. I think the clarity of the knowledge possessed by the Targeteer will also be easily forgotten unless they have been careful to record their efforts.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts