Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: IRVA 2010 - 2012 Farsight Climate Project I

  1. #1

    Default IRVA 2010 - 2012 Farsight Climate Project I

    IRVA 2010 - Courtney Brown - 2012 - Farsight Climate Project Part-I

    Remote viewing is a non-local phenomenon that operates in the macro world, so unlike quantum world which requires special equipment capable of measuring minute effects, we can use people to study the nature of reality in different ways than are possible with classical physics.

    Dr. Brown believes that experiments and theories being developed by the members of his working group may indicate the actual existence of multiple, “parallel” realities. Issues with multiple realities include: based on e=mc^2 physics, the energy required to create more than one reality is enormous, and how would the universes fit together without bumping into each other? Physicists have been talking about this possibility for a long time, but the concepts are difficult for people to grasp.

    Remote viewers have a different perspective. The past still exists because we can remote view it. The future exists now because we can remote view it. Remote viewing suggests that the entire universe is static; that it all exists simultaneously and our understanding of time is illusory to us.

    The experiments and theory described in the presentation originate in his book:

    Remote Viewing – The Theory and Structure of Nonphysical Perception by Courtney Brown - Farsight Press, 2005-2006.

    Note: This book works with the process of RV in operational remote viewers vs. most of the scientific texts which study the process using untrained viewers. Studying Remote Viewing using trained, experienced remote viewers has only been possible recently thanks to people like Glenn, Lynn, and others who have taught others who have become available to the scientific world.
    The study described in this presentation was done with the help of two primary sources: The Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild, led by Glenn Wheaton coming from Special Forces and the CRV group led by Lyn Buchanan coming from the Army Intelligence Group.

    This project has been successful at “describing” the future, not “predicting”, but “describing” events that occurred a month after the viewings. This was done successfully 11 times over a year, hitting every target without any aggregate misses.

    The premise behind the study is that if you have multiple realities, it should be impossible to predict the future because for any point of “now” you have any number of realities branching off. The problem at hand is to select a single future, one time line, and remote view that. The only way to do that is to have a “temporal outbounder”, someone who cooperates with your experiment in the future who picks targets.

    The approach, was repeated for 11 months:

    1) The first month, the viewers would view “the target” …but the target hadn’t been picked yet.

    The viewers would encrypt their sessions then post the encrypted sessions to the web to make them available to the world during the “pre-event” period.

    2) The next month, the group would wait, i.e, do nothing. The target was -some event- (any target any event) that would occur during that month.

    3) The following month, Glenn Wheaton alternating with Lyn Buchanan as taskers, would pick some event that had occurred during the middle month so the tasker would have experienced that event so the future would be a “select” future. The selected target is posted to the web along with the unlocking code for the sessions so that the world can see if the descriptions are accurate.

    Using this method, you get a correct aggregate description of the future target every time as long as you use “military grade” remote viewers. This indicates a mastery of “Target Time type A”.

    The problem is that you can’t take advantage of the “prediction” because you don’t know what the target of interest will be at the time you describe it.

    The next effort is to be able to get predictions using “Target Time type B” which requires describing a target that is in advance of the tasking and the viewing, e.g. “What is going to happen in Los Angeles in six months?”. Dr. Brown believes that the problem as written is impossible because of the problem of multiple branching futures, but has come up with a work-around in what has been called “The Climate Project” (now called the “2012 Project”) as follows:

    Suppose timelines are considered that branch from one central point, such as a time in 2008. While the multiple timeline theory would prevent a specific timeline prediction, it would be reasonable to look at alternate timelines – not necessarily our timelines, but somebody’s timelines. The idea is to look at the future choices and select which timeline you would prefer to follow and make decisions in order to steer in the chosen direction.

    The “Climate Project” was designed to span five years, from 6/1/2008 to 6/1/2013, looking at relatively small changes in climate such as differences in snow levels, storms, and so on. It is an experiment in progress, looking at two timelines with relatively opposite outcomes.

    There were 999 randomly assignable target combinations and a rule that would assign each session to a target after the session was completed.
    Each viewer worked 18 targets without knowing the where (physical location) or when (2008 through 2013) the specified target would be.

    Target Assignment

    All sessions were done, a target selection rule was appended to the session data, and all session data and paired rules were encrypted and published on the web before the end of May 2008. On June 4th 2008, the target date location rule for sessions was locked with a key using the last three integer digits of the Dow Jones industrial average (a number between 000 and 999) as a verifiable random event. The key number was 390.

    (Part II continues in the following post.)

  2. #2

    Default IRVA 2010 - 2012 Farsight Climate Project - Part II

    IRVA 2010 - Courtney Brown - 2012 - Farsight Climate Project - Part II

    The Targets

    Typical targets included places that might indicate some slight variation in weather; places such places as Tuvalu, the opera house in Sydney Australia (water proximity), Mt. Kilimanjaro (snow caps), the US Capitol building (at sea level), the Mali international airport (at sea level), KITV building, Honolulu (as a salute to a great HRVG viewer, Dick Allgire), the vehicle assembly building at Cape Canaveral, Florida, and so on. Each target was depicted with a representative image, the target name, latitude and longitude, the target’s elevation above sea level, and a designated target time such as: June 1, 2008 – 12:00 noon.

    Differentiating Between Two Timelines

    The targets for 2013 were written to differentiate two possible timelines using the same place and time targets but with the additional target qualifiers to distinguish between two progress paths that people might follow.

    The first timeline, “A”, was qualified as a path where “the leadership of the mainstream rule scientific establishment continues to ignore or deny the reality of the remote viewing phenomenon and life not originating from earth” by the end of 2009. If you assume that life did originate on planets not on earth (this could be ET’s, bacteria, or anything) then you might behave differently during those two five year spans.

    Timeline “B” assumes that the global scientific establishment publicly recognizes “both the reality of the remote viewing phenomenon and the existence of life not originating from earth” by the end of 2009.

    The idea was to see if the RV observable climate change was different between the two defined timelines.

    An Additional Target Timeline– Key West

    At the end, an additional (late branch) target was added, “Key West”, because Courtney was interested in southern Florida and wanted to know if it would make a difference if the global scientific community postponed the announcement (that RV and non-terrestrial life origins were real) until the end of 2011.

    Scoring the Sessions

    The sessions were rated with “clarity scores” ranked from 0 to 3 where 0 was no target contact, 2 was a solid contact with minimal decoding errors and 3 was a “perfect” session. The viewers were “military grade” so there were very few 0’s or 1’s in the series.

    Examples of the sessions were presented, the first from Anne Koide at HRVG. The target was Mt. Kilimanjaro 2008. Courtney commented: “Can you get better than that? She got the mountain, the snowcap, some water run-off. That’s what military grade remote viewing is all about. That’s a 3!”

    Another was presented from Daz using CRV. The target was Sydney Australia, the Opera House. Courtney commented: “He not only drew the opera house and had it adjacent to the water, but he wrote in Sydney. That’s good folks.”

    Clarity Scores

    Dr. Brown presented a table of clarity scores. There study included 113 sessions representing the two possible timelines.

    2008: 46% scored a 3; 22% scored a 2; (i.e. two-thirds of the sessions were very close or “perfect”.)
    2013 A: 55% scored a 3; 24% scored a 2
    2013 B: 39% scored a 3; 21% scored a 2

    (i.e. for 2013, 2/3 to 3/4 of the sessions were deemed close to “perfect”.)

    Note: To determine quality for 2013, a year that hasn’t arrived for feedback, analysts looked at things that weren’t going to change during that period, for example, Mt. Kilimanjaro will still be a mountain, Tuvalu will still be an island, etc.

    The Surprise

    During analysis, the analysts were going through the data expecting changes in sea level and such but found a lot of disaster stuff running through the sessions. A “disaster scale”, analogous to the clarity score was created to try to make sense of the results. A zero would be like a “beautiful sunny day”, a one is a bit of a disaster, two is –really bad-, and three is a “total wipeout”.

    Nobody was expecting disaster information, so Courtney organized it by times:

    2008 - no disasters (86% of the sessions had nothing that could be interpreted as disaster data).

    2013 A – 39% had a “total wipeout”; 13% had almost total wipeout (i.e. about 50% of the data for the pool represents total disaster across the global locations).

    2013 B - 34% had a “total wipeout”;

    Disasters Described

    The viewers reported impacts causing huge tsunamis. Some were so severe that volcanism was involved. Excessive coastal flooding was reported, extensive solar radiation, and storms and other severe weather.

    Courtney pointed out that he didn’t want to see anything like this because he didn’t want to be laughed at. This was supposed to be a sedate study!

    In terms of humans, the viewers described massive relocations of humans from coastal areas with a complete breakdown of any rescue activities.

    There were no rescue helicopters, national guard, or other such help was visible in any of these cases.

    There was a breakdown of the food supply and a massive loss of buildings near the coast.

    The sessions are all available at:

    Farsight Climate Results Download Page

    Courney pointed out that it must be remembered that according to theory these are not our timelines, but they are somebody’s timelines.

    Spatial Width of these Possible Futures

    Timelines that are most similar to each other should have the most similar effects. Global catastrophes have more spatial width than localized catastrophes and should appear in more timelines. A large spatial width is more likely to indicate similar activities in our timeline. The quality of the data and the statistical disparity between the 2008 series and the 2013 series is very significant which, if the theory is correct, indicates a phenomenon with a large spatial width.

    This is Research

    “If we knew what we were doing, we wouldn’t call it ‘research’” –Einstein

    There may be multiple universes or the remote viewing phenomenon behaves as if there were multiple universes. While we may not be able to predict our future, we may be able to describe possible futures given different scenarios and navigate to a preferred reality.

    Courtney Speculates

    If this is going to happen there must be some evidence of it now. Is our government recognizing the possibility and preparing for anything coming our way?

    Courtney described some “funny stuff” that is going on but hasn’t been quantified or analyzed in any scientific way:

    - Imminent shutdown of the space shuttle program without a replacement spacecraft in the works;

    - The US debt – everybody in the room owes a half a million dollars; Countries around the globe are spending recklessly- the economies are nuts.

    - The Svalbard global seed vault should be stocked and sealed by 2011. The chief of the United Nations went to inspect it the other day. It’s odd that it has become a high priority item.

    - People are digging everywhere. There are new large underground facilities under military bases and tunnel construction in many places is so extensive that the tailings can be seen on Google Earth. China is building around 200 miles of subways under each of its major cities –each year as a crash program working 24 hours a day, six days per week, non-stop all year until the end of 2011.

    - Since 2008, the mainstream astronomical community has been predicting that the weather on the sun is going to be really bad starting at the end of 2012 and going to 2013. In this event, electronics and electrical generation devices could be disrupted for up to a year. As a mathematician, since we can't predict the weather on earth a week away, Courtney questions what the prognosticators are using to make their uniform predictions.


    In answer to an audience question: "Are there multiple universes in the past as well as the future?", Courtney responded that with this theory, there must also be multiple universes in the past.

Posting Permissions

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