Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Los Angeles Airport Earthquake Prediction

  1. #1
    Dick Allgire Guest

    Default Los Angeles Airport Earthquake Prediction

    Los Angeles Airport Earthquake Prediction

    First, I want to congratulate and thank Dr. Courtney Brown for organizing this major remote viewing project. With the number of sessions produced by viewers in various schools of RV there will be plenty of data to examine, and Iím sure weíll learn a lot from it.

    I posted earlier about this and you can read more of my praise for Dr. Brown at this link:
    (Remote Viewers Get Their Act Together)

    And you can see the project information at the Farsight website:

    Right now I want to talk about analysis. Glenn Wheaton has taught us so much more than just the process of sitting down with a target ID to work a target. He trained us how to organize into groups to manage the process, and he trained us in analysis. When Glenn first gave me instruction on the art and science of analyzing RV data I think it was at least an 8 hour course, maybe longer, on the basics of how to create a data extraction matrix, working notes, how to craft scenarios based only the low level reduction of corroborated consensus data. The first time I attempted analysis on an HRVG project I worked probably 4 or 5 hours. I turned in my work and Glenn said, ďNo, you didnít do that right. Go back and start over.Ē He gave me a refresher on how to distill similar data and describe it in a manner that will pluck gold nuggets from a bucket of mud.

    Analysis is important because every session produced by a remote viewer is a combination of good data, bad data, and contamination. (This is certainly true of the sessions Courtney Brown is using for the earthquake prediction.) You simply cannot take the raw product produced by remote viewers at face value. So how can you determine which data are correct? What can you safely and honestly say about the target based on the work of multiple viewers? You must put the data through analysis.

    The analyst must be blind to the target. That means the analyst canít work the target and the analyst canít know what the target is. In the earthquake prediction Courtney didnít follow this hard and fast rule. Analysis is not interpretation. In our system the analyst extracts consensus data (data corroborated by multiple viewers) and uses reduction to take that data down to its most basic, low-level description.

    At the IRVA conference in 2004 I gave a presentation on analysis in which I showed how the process unfolds, using an actual project done at HRVG for a client. The viewers were blind to the target and the analyst was blind to the target. In my presentation we showed all of the work produced by 3 different viewers. No single viewer did an excellent session. Each session contained significant bad data and contamination. Yet everything that came through the filter of analysis was true and correct to the target.

    In the work for our client one viewer drew and described a man being shot with a gun and killed. The scenario was murder. Another viewer drew and described a man on the ground, in pain and injured. A third viewer depicted a human form lying horizontally. Based on these three sessions could the analyst report that a person had been shot and killed at the target? Could the analyst call this murder? Absolutely not. The consensus data did not support this incorrect data produced by a single viewer. The analyst does not embellish the data; the analyst takes the most basic, low-level view of the corroborated data and reports that with the least amount of embellishment. So in the final report on this project the analyst was only able to report that there was a man in a prone position lying on the ground at the target, and that the man MAY have been injured. That is all the analyst could extract from the 3 different versions.

    It turned out that those statements were exactly correct. The target was a man who had been found unconscious and injured lying on the ground. The statements extracted and reduced from the RV data were true to the target. The analyst was not permitted (by our analytic protocol) to look at the first session and conclude, ďa man has been shot and killedĒ and then go look for data in other sessions that supported that conclusion. The analyst canít assume anything.

    In the Earthquake Prediction I believe Courtney looked at one session that he believed indicated an earthquake, assumed this was true and correct data, made a conclusion about the target, and then Ė because he did not find data about a working airport in the follow up work- allowed his bias and assumption to reinforce his conclusion. Whatever he did, I don't believe it constituted valid analysis.

    The analyst must be blind to the target. If the analyst knows the target Ėor worse yet is looking for a specific scenario- then the analystís own bias affects his perception of the raw data.

    What can we say about the work produced on the LA airport target? I would not be permitted to conduct analysis on the sessions because I viewed the targets. My data is in the mix. Iím biased. I also know the target, so that precludes me from doing any analysis. But as a trained analyst I can look at the sessions and say this, and Iím going to state it emphatically:

    There is no way any analyst under blind protocol could take the data produced on this target, and conduct proper low level consensus analysis using reduction, and conclude that the Los Angeles Airport will be destroyed by an earthquake. No possible way. I do not believe data in the sessions indicates the Los Angeles Airport is going to be destroyed by an earthquake, and I donít believe such an event is going to take place.

    It would be instructive to have a certified analyst take the data and run proper analysis and see what can be said about that target. Keep in mind reduction. Remember the viewers in my IRVA presentation that reported a man killed by gunfire, a man injured, and a man lying on the ground. All the analyst was allowed to say is a man is lying on the ground. It wasnít much, but it was correct and accurate.

    Look at the earthquake sessions for yourself. If you didn't know what the target cue was, if you had never seen Courtney's prediction, if all you had was the raw session work, could ever conclude that the work describes Los Angeles Airport destroyed by earthquake? Put through proper analysis the sessions may describe something else entirely. The data could just as easily describe a landslide.

    I believe Courtney made several mistakes in this prediction. He selected the target pool, and also worked the targets. Even though the targets were randomized, I donít feel anyone with any knowledge of the targets should be allowed to work them. This can be debated, and probably does not have any bearing on the failure of, or lack of analysis, which is the greater issue here. The bigger mistake, in my opinion, is that Courtney drew a conclusion from the work of one viewer, and then looked for data to support that conclusion. Rather than using reduction Courtney embellished the data, took the data to the farthest extreme. An analyst is not allowed to do that. This has been the downfall of many remote viewing efforts through the years. I wonít mention them by name, but there have been some spectacular failures.

    We will learn a lot from this project. And I think one of the lessons will be the crucial need for competent analysis. On the other hand, if there is a big earthquake in Los Angeles in the near future, hey- Iíll tip my hat to Courtney and to Daz. I wouldnít cancel my flight to Los Angeles based on what I see in these few sessions.


  2. Default

    Your point on proper analysis is very well stated! Thank heaven's the HRVG has the perspective and ability and know-how to really be able to take data from remote viewing sessions and keep it in it's logical place, or perhaps letting the data speak for itself, I'm not sure if I stated that correctly, but I'm sure you know what I mean. This is such an overlooked point, and yet stand's out as so very important.

    As you said in your report, amazing failures in the past have proven this to be a so crucial. I could not agree more.

    Anyway, I live about 15 min. from LAX and coincedentally I've been thinking about moving inland about 50 miles or so to a particular area. I almost feel guided to make this move from some "higher" place, and yet, the reason I wanted to move, from my everyday point of view, is that my present apartment house is not doing so well, and I wanted to find better housing.

    Now with this report from CB's website, it does make me wonder about my initial urges to move, and where and why they came to me. I'll be thinking about this much more in the days to come, and also pondering that move inland.


  3. #3
    Dick Allgire Guest

    Default Daz Smith replies to Earthquake

    This post is under my name- Dick Allgire- but it is written by Daz Smith. Since our website problems we are not able to sign on new members. (We're working on it.) In the meantime Daz sent this to me via email and I'm posting it for him. Data produced by Daz is the catalyst for Courtney Brown's AIRPORT EARTHQUAKE prediction.


    Here is what Daz sent me:

    I'm a good consistent remote viewer but only as good as the team around me
    of both viewers and RV admin. Anyone of these people can and do affect the
    whole experiment, I've seen it happen time after time. I do also have off
    days just like anyone else.

    I have made many correct predictive Rv targets - but I'm not sure my data
    says earthquake - although it does seem to match yours and other data for
    some kind of land related movement/emergency/event. And I am at a loss to
    explain why I didn't pickup on any airport qualities?

    I'm actually more interested in the climate outcomes as this for me has more
    relevance - as I find the double 2013 timelines thing confusing and don't
    yet understand this part of the experiment and how it will work.

    Please post these comments for me until I can get access sorted again

    I hope we can do more projects like thgis in future - its about time we all
    started working together more.

    All the best...


    I have a few questions with the analysis.

    Courtney being involved as analyst with knowledge of the targets etc does
    muddy the waters and probably affect the entire project. Also I understand
    where Courtney is coming from and fully respect what he is trying to do and
    achieve and I know it's wrong to dwell on the past but his reputation for
    predictions of catastrophes also isn't good to date. And I am worried that
    the 'mutant effect' didn't get enough independent evaluation before release.

    I'm primarily worried that because the tasking 25, 26, 27 were additional
    and requested sessions form the viewers that just by being requested this
    generates a certain level of unconscious frontloading by the nature of being
    required and that this may have affected the data we supplied. I also
    believe from my Rv experiences that tasker intent is a primary factor in
    determining the actual viewer data and m kind of wondering if this was an
    involvement in this case and to what effect.

    I believe that all data should be treated as equal at the start of every
    Target - just because A viewer (in this case myself) was on more in previous
    sessions - I don't not feel this has a bearing on new sessions because as we
    all know this skill is fickle and you may be on target one day and the next
    be off. So I agree the leading session by which all others are compared to
    should not have taken place. Just an equal analysis of data overall to
    generate a cohesive picture of the target.

    Saying all this I do agree that there is a lack of overall Physical airport
    data in the sessions - what this really means I do not know. There does seem
    to be a theme of some kind of 'event' I don't know if this is an earthquake
    as my use of this word was as an AOL but my data and others did seem to
    support some kind of land/movement, emergency situation. This could be many
    different things from a pothole in a runway to a landslide.

    On another note but supportive to a degree I did get this today form an RV

    Check this out from Joe McMoneagle's Ultimate Time Machine bible of

    Page 210

    " I can tell you with near certainty that there will be significant
    earthquakes over the next one hundred years in south Alaska, the san
    francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego areas of California -

    What do I mean by 'signficant' ? They will register at least 8.5 - 8.8 on
    the Richter scale.
    They WILL be killer quakes.

    Attaching years to them, I can say that in all probability they will occur
    within five years, plus or minus, of the following dates : LOS ANGELES =
    YEAR 2013 - 2015 !!!"

    Do I believe that something may happen at LAX - probably not - I would
    personally have run a whole lot more sessions on the viewers on this first.
    But I am questioning why there was a lack of physical typical airport data
    in the sessions and this is where I am at, at the moment, trying to think
    how and why we went awry.

    All the best...

    Daz Smith

  4. Default Pow Pow Pow!!

    Aloha Dick & All,

    Critique is perhaps one of the most valuable post-project activities. While I am supportive of the project I believe in the learning curve gained from "Hot-Waxing" the results. I also believe that we will get better at joint projects if we continue to work together and maintain our integrity in evaluating it. In a traditional Military Style Hot Wax you better check your feelings at the door because candor is required and there are no sacred cows. In a recent discussion with Dr. Brown I mentioned the need to be able to defend the work. This includes the collection process, the analysis, and any statements or assessments based on the work. This particular project is extraordinary in that approximately 180 sessions from remote viewers from different disciplines were able to be assembled in a common dataset that will be subjected to several analytic models. Review and analysis of the work is by no means complete. I would also expect at a later date for there to be an independent review of the project efforts in its entirety.

    Continuing to Hot Wax this a bit, it is obvious that a lot of work has been done in the course of the project. The support provided by Dr. Brown and Farsight in managing the effort is commendable. I believe the publication of the raw data is far more than most project managers would ever do. While we have always published the raw data I would challenge you to find any raw data from the fabled RV projects of Yore. They ain't gonna let you see it. This project has brought big gains in the areas of data disclosure and openness.

    As with most efforts of this size there will be problems associated with specific details here and there and some will be very valid and indefensible. Dr. Brown does not expect to emerge from this unscathed but is more than willing to enter the arena and endure both critique and criticism to promote the forward movement of a field too long stagnated.

    I would encourage everyone to once again check your feelings at the door and get ready to become part of our solutions and not our problems. If you see some aspect of the project that seems to be amiss then by all means follow Dick's excellent example and get it in the discussion pool and be prepared to stick with it to a conclusion. Dr. Brown will certainly give ground to the plausible but is an earnest defender where he is sure he is correct. Participation does not require the compromise of standards or ethics. Seldom will remote viewers get the opportunity to work with an academic of Dr. Brown's caliber and have him hang his credibility on our work. I have no doubt that he will learn as much from us as we from him as we take on the challenge figuring out what exactly we have assembled.


  5. Default A New Post from Daz...

    Guys another post for your boards if I may ask you to post - can't wait till
    I can post myself again.

    All the best...


    I totally agree this was an amazing opportunity and one that I felt was a
    long time coming, I've been wanting to see different groups and styles
    working together for many years now.

    The experiment its structure and administration must have been huge - all
    those sessions taskings, organisation and analysis. I applauded all involved
    and am honoured to work alongside everyone involved on this one.
    I am in no way personally complaining or questioning Courtney who I feel is
    brave in putting this thing together - In my comments I am merely relaying
    why I have already seen written in a few comments about 'LAX' so far Based
    on the history of RV and people like elephants don't forget. I do think he's
    brave in coming forward with this LAX interpretation and wish him all the
    best and hope it all doesn't backfire as we know people will and do use the
    past as comments to attack RV, and I fear it may happen here.

    I do think that although valid in presenting the LAX part of this
    experiment, It may be used against and may harm the Climate Change part of
    the experiment and maybe the LAX thing could have been put to one side and
    looked at on its own/later or something. At the moment I fear it may become
    the focus. I guess Courtney had his reasons for presenting this data first
    and we can't and shouldn't try to second guess them. I just feel that maybe
    we should have all discussed this first. But never mind it's all out there
    so I guess lets discuss it all now.

    Analysis of Rv data has always been a strange and difficult art and I have
    encountered many situations over the years. I work full time in a multiple
    method Rv group (TDS, CRV, freestyle and TRV) and it has taken a long time
    and many discussion over analysis approaches to come up with a workable
    model - I'm sure we will see the same with this project.

    As I said before - I'm much more concerned with the climate change part of
    the project and hope to see the data on this ASAP as it's a long term
    interest of mine and one that affects everyone on the planet. I'm curious to
    see if as a group we concluded any great changes and what these might be and

    I do feel that this was an excellent project, very well organised and run
    and a great kick start to hopefully create new and expanded communication
    between all of the rv groups and personalities as together we can accomplish
    a lot more than we can on our own.

    I await in baited breath the climate change goodies!

    All the best...


  6. #6

    Default LA Earthquake

    Hi All,
    I will post something after our RV class this evening. A lot of work went into this project and I sincerely feel we need to conduct analysis and allow the data to reveal the actual content of our collective work.

    More later..


  7. #7
    Dick Allgire Guest

    Default Our Bulletin Board Problems

    I just want to let everyone know that our website is undergoing changes and there are some problems with bulletin board logins. Daz has been posting by emailing his posts to Glenn and to me and we put them up.

    So here in this thread I raised a bunch of questions about Courtney's methods in making the LA AIRPORT prediction. Dr. Brown is on the road living out of a suitcase, using a laptop with questionable connection, and our bulletin board may not allow him to post.

    That is pretty unfair.

    I wanted to immediately put my concerns on the record, and I did that. We know that Dr. Brown will have a lot to say. I'm sure Courtney will stand up and defend everything he has done, and we'll have some spirited discussion. If you don't hear from Dr. Brown right away it is because of OUR bulletin board problems, and because Courtney is on the road and very busy. We will hear from him, and it will be an interesting conversation that will hopefully advance remote viewing.



  8. #8
    Courtney Guest

    Default Great Discussion!

    Hi Everyone,
    I just got back from Montreal, so I truly have been living in a suitcase for the past few weeks, which is why I have not posted earlier. Please rest assured that I enjoy a great deal when people involved in our Climate Project offer criticisms and suggestions. It is a good way for me to learn.

    About the analysis discussions, Dick's points are very well taken. Let me offer my defense of why I handled the situation about LAX the way I handled it, and notice that I am handling the 2008 and 2013 climate-related data much differently. The issue with LAX is that an earthquake is one valid interpretation of those data. Dick is correct in saying that something else could be going on. But the key to my interpretation is that absolutely no one picked up anything resembling a functing airport. There were a lot of really good viewers doing those sessions, and I expected to see at least one jet, or runway, or tower, etc. Nothing.

    Thus, I made the decision to do an "at surface value" initial analysis of those data. Nothing else made sense in that situation, at least to me. The issue was further complicated because the data "at surface value" seem to suggest that the earthquake may happen (IF it happens) significantly before 1December 2008. Thus, I made the decision that I really could not wait six months to publish an initial interpretation of those data, especially if an earthquake happens this summer.

    Finally, I decided that most people would look at those data and discern an earthquake signature given the reality that LA resides in an Earthquake prone region. There are also lots of micro quakes on the LA region currently, and there have been for the past couple of months. It is a very actively seismic region. For example, look at this link:

    These micro quakes may not be "precursors" for a big one, but the entire scene looks suspicious given the RV data.

    Thus, to summarize, yes, some other event could explain the RV data, such as a terrorist nuke or the aftermath of a hurricane combined with landslides. But an earthquake seems a more likely event, especially given the faulting stuff in the RV data. The big problem is that time seems important to this target, and we may not have the luxury of being able take more time to figure out what is going on with those data as we are taking with the other Climate Project data. The final point is that IF there is a big LA earthquake, and if we sat on those data while we tried to figure out what was going on with more detailed analysis, two things would happen. (1) We would be blamed for hiding data and interpretation that someone may have used to save a life (or many lives), and (2) squandering the best example of a future prediction the RV community has been offered in a very long time.

    If the LAX prediction goes wrong, I will assume all the blame for interpreting those data incorrectly. But as it stands now, given that it is a near future tasking, and given that not a single viewer found anything resembling an airport, and given the fact that the 1 June 2008 sessions went to well, it seems like offering up an "at surface value" interpretation for those sessions is the only viable option. That was my choice.

    One last thing. When I saw the LAX stuff, understand that I was concerned that those sessions could initially over-shadow the really great 1 June 2008 results. From a physics perspective, those 1 June 2008 results are proof positive that our current understanding of relativistic physics is seriously flawed. I cannot emphasize the importance of this enough. I will certainly be writing about this in the near future. Those results are squeeky clean. I am modifying the SAM computer program to be able to analyze the data. But when I saw the LAX data, I also realized that the LAX sessions could diminish the interest in our 2013 results if the LAX earthquake does not happen. So do understand that there was significant risk to my own research agenda in publishing the earthquake prediction. But again, for the reasons stated above (moral, practical, "at surface value" content, and time-constraint dependent), I felt a decision had to be made to interprete those sessions quickly. Yes, there have been analysis bloopers when sessions were interpreted "at surface value." But remember that there have also been analysis successes in this regard as well. If the tasking was for 1 December 2013, we could have argued about how to analyze those data while taking the time to consider all points. But 1 December 2008 is not far, especially if an event happens sooner rather than later.

    Nonetheless, Dick is not wrong in his thoughts. It is just that I believe there is more than one way to look at this difficult situation. Sometimes it is better to take a chance at being wrong than to play it safe. Scientists love to play it safe. They seem to be genetically inclinded to safeguard their reputations at nearly all costs. One needs only to read the way they tend to couch their results (regardless of field) in ambiguity and jargon. This is a generalization, but true, in my view. In my view, most scientists in my situation would have held back publishing both the LAX data and the interpretation for fear that the subject raised by the data is simply to dangerous to their careers. But this would be true of any future prediction. That is, most scientists would simply not make any future predictions using RV data even if they were convinced that RV is a real phenomenon and the interpretation is clear. Fear would drive their choice, not science. You see, the reality is that science thrives on failed experiments. It is through the failed experiments that you gain insight that leads you eventually to the successful experiments. Most scientists only want you to see their successes. But RV is particularly challenging because you have to rely so much on a data collection process that seems mysterious to most scientists. With each datum that you enter into a session, you have to take the risk that it may be incorrect, and on the conscious level, there appears to be so much uncertainty. The best sessions are when viewers follow the rules and don't second guess their data. But scientists love to second guess as a means of protecting their careers. For this reason, RV research is not particularly easy for scientists to conduct. The idea of collecting data and immediately putting these data up on the web for the world to see is an anathema to most scientists. Again, it is fear that drives this, not science.

    Where are we now? We have a valid experiment. We have only to wait to find out how it turns out. Regardless of how it turns out, we will learn a ton of stuff. My fear of failure is far weaker than my desire for knowledge. What drives me is that fact that we will learn so much from this experiment. From the perspective of learning about the RV process, this experiment can only be a success.

  9. #9
    Dick Allgire Guest

    Default Analysis vs. Interpretation

    Courtney writes:

    Quote Originally Posted by Courtney
    Hi Everyone,

    The issue with LAX is that an earthquake is one valid interpretation of those data. Dick is correct in saying that something else could be going on. But the key to my interpretation is that absolutely no one picked up anything resembling a functing airport.

    But RV is particularly challenging because you have to rely so much on a data collection process that seems mysterious to most scientists. With each datum that you enter into a session, you have to take the risk that it may be incorrect, and on the conscious level, there appears to be so much uncertainty. The best sessions are when viewers follow the rules and don't second guess their data.

    I think you are still confusing analysis with interpretation.

    In our (HRVG) protocols neither the tasker nor the end user may conduct analysis. In this case you are both the tasker and the end user of the data so it is our view that you cannot possibly conduct valid analysis. The analyst must be blind to the target. The analyst can only report what is corroborated in the data, reduced to most basic terms.

    I still say this. Using only the data produced by the viewers, using consensus analysis and reduction, it is not possible say the data indicate Los Angeles airport will be destroyed by an earthquake in the near future.

    Let me also respond to one more point, about viewers not editing their session or second guessing their data. It is true the viewer must put everything down without editing, and that's why analysis is crucial to the process. Viewers can be wrong. They color the data, they even make it up. But very often the base gestalt produced by the viewer has some validity. That underlines the need for analysis. The analyst cannot accept what the viewer produces at face value.

    If the viewer says anything that comes to mind about a target, and a viewer is not 100% accurate, then how do you sort the good from the bad? It requires analysis, not interpretation.

    There is a formal and very strict method for conducting analysis (as opposed to interpretation.) It requires- demands- a person who does not know what the target cue involves. The person who designed and executed the project can't be the analyst. Anyone who selected the targets can't be the analyst. No one who worked the targets is allowed to be involved in analysis. This means on the Climate Project Courtney Brown can't be the analyst.

    This analyst must be totally blind to the target. This analyst takes the body of work produced by the viewers and looks at each gestalt, each description. The analyst produces what we call a "data extraction matrix." In the data extraction matrix only data corroborated by multiple viewers is allowed to be entered. If one viewer says "EARTHQUAKE" and draws a fault line and a second viewer draws a jagged line, here is what you are allowed to enter in the data extraction matrix: "IRREGULAR LINE OR FEATURE" It is very strict. No interpretation allowed.

    If one viewer says "earthquake" and a second viewer draws what looks like a landslide and a third viewer describes falling rocks... well, then what is it? It could be an earthquake, it could be a landslide, or it could be kids rolling rocks down a hill. You don't know. All the analyst can enter in the data extraction matrix is perhaps "movement of earth, " or "something in motion, possibly land." It would describe all three.

    After the data extraction matrix is created the analyst then creates "working notes." These are the most simple statements about the target that are corroborated by multiple viewers. From "working notes" the analyst may write out "scenarios" but every word, every innuendo in a scenario must be validated back to data produced and corroborated by multiple viewers.

    WHAT IF IT REALLY IS A MAJOR EARTHQUAKE? If the target actually involves an earthquake, then the good data will emerge from the reduction. The simple statements produced in data extraction, working notes, and scenarios will in fact describe an earthquake.

    Keep in mind the analyst does not know that the target cue involves Los Angeles. The analyst is not allowed to look up the history of fault lines in the Los Angeles area. The analysis may only report what the consensus of the viewers says, in the most basic and simple terms.

    Time and time again we have seen remote viewers interpret and take data to the highest possible meaning. They may have looked bad but if given proper analysis the data may have been very good.

    I enjoy the discussion and hope everyone else does too. We are having a great time working together and pushing the bounds.



  10. #10
    Dick Allgire Guest

    Default Legitimate Analysis is not possible for this target

    I want to state this for the record.

    Because the sessions have been posted, the "conclusion" has been posted, and there has been discussion up one side of the internet BB's and down the other, it is not possible for blind analysis to be conducted on this target. Whether or not a blind analyst COULD be found is moot. Because of the rush to post a prediction the chain of blind custody is in tatters.

    However, I would still like to task a trained analyst to go through the analytic protocol and show (according to strict structure) what could be said about this target. A demonstration of analysis vs. interpretation.

    I may send this out through the discussion list.



Posting Permissions

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