Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 27, 2012 - Project Camelot

02:06:14

04/27/2012 - Courtney Brown

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	And very happy to be here tonight.
	I have a very interesting guest with me.
	Courtney Brown is going to be on the air with me just in just a moment.
	I'm going to make a few announcements and then he will be live on the air with me here.
	First of all, I want to say that for all the supporters that were out there last night when I was given my 15 minutes of fame on Coast to Coast, I just want to thank you for listening and for supporting me, etc.
	etc.
	with your emails and so on.
	That was a very interesting dynamic that went on.
	And so, I just wanted to say that, indeed, I was rudely hung up on behind the scenes there.
	That wasn't over the air.
	And I don't believe George Norrie actually knew what was going on.
	They gave him a cover story saying there was something wrong with my audio.
	However, if you listen, the link's on the front page of my blog on ProjectCamelotProductions.com.
	You can hear that there's nothing wrong with the audio whatsoever.
	So that was a cover story and that is life on the air with Camelot.
	It's a very good thing that places like Revolution Radio and American Freedom Radio allow me to have the freedom to speak my mind from time to time here on the radio as well as the other people.
	Out there who do interview me for their radio shows and obviously we are too much competition by far for Coast to Coast, which is actually good news.
	So anyway, I want to say here that I'm also getting a behind the scenes message for what it's worth that, and this is still unverified, so don't everyone, you know, leap out of their windows or whatever.
	But no, they're just saying that the bankers in Zurich and Geneva and London are being supposedly called back to work right now.
	And what that kind of means is that there might be something going on, on the air, actually going on with respect to the dinar revaluation and/or something else brewing over the weekends.
	So I have that as unverified information.
	One contact who is in a position to know this kind of thing has been given some intel by another contact.
	So it's basically word of mouth at this time.
	So don't everyone go crazy.
	I'm just letting you know that much.
	Anyway, I want to say that Courtney Brown is here with me and, you know, I actually have done remote viewing.
	I've been trained in remote viewing.
	I don't know if Courtney knows that.
	Courtney, are you there?
	Yeah, I'm here.
	Can you hear me?
	Yes, I can hear you very well.
	Perfect.
	Awesome.
	So, basically, I was just saying that
	I am a trained remote viewer and I have done remote viewing and I've been quite successful on my own doing that and you know in no big way but just on the side there and had some interesting experiences along those lines and I've also delved in very deeply into Ingo Swann's material on remote viewing and I was often on your website years and years ago just so you know.
	Following some of the information there and also sort of trying to teach myself some remote viewing skills way back when, way before Camelot.
	Yeah.
	It's actually very important what you said.
	Don't belittle the fact that you I've done some remote viewing but it may not be like world fames with regard to that because the reality is there are seven billion people on the planet earth and very few of them have actually tried remote viewing and most of the people who debunk remote viewing or talk against it say that it doesn't exist have never tried it and so it's hard for people to
	Get to the point of acknowledging that it's real if you're not even willing to consider that they themselves might be able to do it.
	So the very fact that you dove in is putting you in a leadership position that others should follow.
	Meaning you don't have to think that remote viewing is something you need to believe in if it's something that's a real phenomenon.
	Give it a shot.
	Try it out.
	And it is true that on our website, I'm the director of the FAR Sight Institute, and that's F-A-R-S-I-G-H-T, like seeing FAR.
	And we do have a lot of instructional material that's free, including an 18-hour, 24-lesson audio course and a free printable text and so on.
	And most everybody that starts with remote viewing starts with that.
	And so it really is something where Remote viewing is an experiential thing.
	It's not something that you just hear about and then believe because you heard it.
	Yeah, I would agree.
	And I can tell you that if you do try it and you have any luck at all, it's very, very persuasive, let's say.
	Now, what I want to do is, first of all, have you been a military remote viewer originally?
	No.
	Did you bypass that?
	No, I actually was introduced to remote viewing way back in the mid-90s, when the military group was coming out, was just being released.
	The original idea of remote viewing was, within the military, was that they knew it was going to come out, and they wanted it to be contained within the New Age bookstore community.
	So they officially released people to go out and teach it, hoping it would be well-contained.
	They didn't expect someone like myself, who is a university professor and academic, to bite into it so hard.
	But I don't like to talk much about the military history of remote training, because I was not one of the military people.
	So even though I know a lot about the military history, there are a lot of military people that talk about that.
	So since they were there in that capacity, let them deal with that.
	What I am is, I am the leading without any ambiguity now, I am the leading scholar, academic, who studies remote viewing as it is performed using procedures that were developed by the United States military for espionage purposes, or procedures that are derivative of those procedures.
	Meaning, there are many people who have studied and written about remote-viewing scientists, but they almost always use untrained college kids, people that have no training whatsoever.
	And actually, if they say they're trained, they're talking about talking them For an hour and a half before the sessions to let them know what to do, which is different from real training, which takes years and years and years.
	It's like you can tell somebody to go up to a piano and say, look, if you hit these keys, you will make some noise.
	And indeed, they can make some noise.
	But that person is not going to be playing in Carnegie Hall.
	So if you want them to play in Carnegie Hall, you let them practice for 10, 15 years till they get good at it.
	And the quality of remote viewing is so much different from people who are good at it.
	And I am the leading scholar who studies remote viewing as it is performed using those procedures.
	In fact, I can say that without ambiguity, because there is literally no other academic on the planet Earth that is in a tenured position at a university who studies this.
	However, with this said, let me say that I do not study this at my university.
	I studied this outside of the university.
	We have not gotten that far that we can actually talk about remote viewing within the context of coursework and graduate students and so on.
	However, I have spoken at many prestigious university settings to a large variety of people, including the Nobel physicists on down, about the subject of remote viewing.
	So I have spoken at universities about it, but I don't do it at my university.
	At my university I am an applied mathematician and I work in a social science department.
	I teach the statistics and nonlinear equations and chaos catastrophe models and things like that.
	But I nonetheless am the only academic that studies remote feeling as it's performed by those military or military-derived procedures using trained people.
	Okay, well very interesting and let me say that one of the things that I noticed immediately, even years ago, was that you seem to have an ability to consider just about anything.
	In other words, you have a very open mind and you don't seem to discount things out of hand just because they sound outrageous.
	And I think that's maybe a strength in being a remote viewer is having an open mind.
	Actually, it is a good point that you raise.
	It is a strength in being a remote viewer.
	However, even my remote viewing colleagues get upset with me with regard to what I'm willing to consider.
	So, for example, at the Farsight Institute, we have four directors, and they are Glenn Wheaton, who is a retired military remote viewer, and he runs the Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild, and Lynn Buchanan, who is the leading remote viewer training CRV, or Controlled Remote Viewing,
	And then Bruce Kaufman, who's a leading economist who works at Georgia State University, and myself, who's also an academic.
	And so, often when I tell my own board about some of the things I suggest that we do, they get as shocked as anyone else.
	Like, no, this is just too traditional.
	We can't go against this.
	But I see, you know, there is so much that is wrong With the human interpretation of physical reality, as well as the history of humanity, that it only makes sense from a curiosity's perspective to question virtually everything.
	And that's fun.
	That is actually good.
	And so one of the important things that I really want to emphasize is I do not do this to create theater shock.
	I'm not Eminem trying to shock people in a theatrical sense.
	I'm also not doing this in order to promote things.
	I'm doing this because I'm curious, and once I do these projects, once I leave these, I'm the leading chief investigator of all these projects that we do at the Institute, and when we do these things, I then, we have the data, and what are we supposed to do with it?
	Are we supposed to be like Barbara McClintock, who was one of the greatest geneticists ever, But she got so tired of confronting academic peer-review stuff, battling each time just to get a new idea into the journals, that eventually she just started to do these absolutely path-breaking genetic studies on corn, no less.
	Carrie, we're talking about corn!
	Genetic studies on corn.
	And rather than battle the hard-nosed academics that just didn't want to think of Anything outside of the box.
	She started just putting them in her file cabinet.
	So, after her death, people opened up the file cabinet and saw these studies, and they were absolutely path-breaking.
	I mean, they were just incredible.
	So, I don't want to do that.
	I say, look, if I'm going to publish these things, let it be under the condition that what we're doing is just sharing.
	We've done this.
	We've considered these ideas.
	We've done a study, and, oh my gosh, these are what we found out.
	So, rather than file it, publish it.
	Let it be seen.
	Absolutely, well I thank God that you do do that because it also opens up the field of remote viewing so that other people can participate and get more involved.
	It takes it out of the sort of military milieu and opens it up to the general public in many ways and I think that you're probably your Farsight Institute has been maybe one of the leading Institutes or corporations or organizations that has done that.
	That's a good point.
	You know, there we are.
	This is not a happy thing, I'm going to say, but it is a true thing.
	We're the only real place that you can find repeated scientific studies, projects, investigations, one after the next, after the next, where the data are shown publicly.
	You know, you hear people sometimes talk about remote viewing on late night radio.
	But where are the data?
	How are they collected?
	Who are the viewers?
	What are the controls that were put in?
	So people sometimes just talk.
	And what we have done is learned, we've mastered the realm of having public participation in our demonstrations, in our experiments, so people don't have to believe what we say.
	And then we put up all of the data.
	And we use all types of interesting scientific controls, such as encryption.
	One of our favorite things, for example, is to We've really pioneered this and it's really so fun.
	It really makes people's heads turn.
	I hope later on in the show you ask me more about it, but we have mastered the realm where we do remote viewing sessions where remote viewers are supposed to describe a target in the future.
	But A, the target hasn't happened and B, it hasn't even been chosen yet, meaning they're doing a session And there's nothing.
	But if our theories are correct with respect to time, and time is irrelevant, then it doesn't really matter if the target is chosen in the future.
	So we do the sessions, and then we take them, and we encrypt them in 256-bit military-grade encryption, put them up on the website, tens of thousands of people download them, and hold them so we can't cheat.
	And then we wait for the future event to happen, and then for some person in the future to pick the target.
	Could be anything, and if you're wrong, they pick it.
	And then we put out the passwords, and we see what happened.
	Oh, and our results are so great!
	But that way we have a situation where we're not going to the old scientific method of saying, having a scientist step up and say, I did this in my laboratory, trust me.
	This idea of trust me has got to go.
	There are ways that we can do these experiments now and then put everything up and then say, look, trust has nothing to do with this.
	These are our data.
	You decide for yourself.
	So I hope you ask me more about that later.
	But the point is that getting this public participation is important.
	I have seen your data on that sort of thing and I think it's quite fascinating and I do want to discuss that.
	Absolutely.
	And so once we get through some preliminaries here, I definitely want to go in that direction.
	It is, you know, very interesting because it dovetails with some of the things Project Camelot is often dealing with.
	But, so you do make this available to the general public and many people can go there and learn and I'm sure have done so.
	The other thing is, you know, I know you're working with Lynn Buchanan, so he was an ex-military remote viewer, correct?
	He's retired, yeah, but he's probably the the absolute leading trainer in remote viewing.
	And one of the reasons I can say, there are other people who train in controlled remote viewing.
	However, he trains and professionalizes.
	So he trains people and then works with them for years and years and years and years until they become really good.
	So that's a lot different than training for a one-week period and then letting them go.
	So he's, in my view, one of the absolute leading trainers in controlled remote viewing.
	And that was a style of remote viewing that was developed originally by Ingo Swann, who you mentioned earlier, which is different than the style of remote viewing that is done at the Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild.
	Okay.
	Do you want to talk about the distinction?
	Yeah, the Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild is run by Glenn Wheaton, and Glenn Wheaton came out of Special Forces Intelligence in a loosely organized group that has now become popularly known as the First Earth Battalion, and that was what the GOATS movie, or the Men Who Stare at GOATS movie, was all about.
	And Glenn Wheaton has an intellectual heritage that goes back to Dr. Richard Ireland, which is different from Ingo Swann.
	So Ingo Swann is the really sort of creative originator of the CRV, or Controlled Remote Viewing, style that was used in the Defense Intelligence Agency, Fort Meade branch, where Lynn Buchanan came out of.
	And Richard Ireland, Dr. Richard Ireland was the creative genius out of the style of remote viewing that was in that very loosely organized group that was in Special Forces that Glenn Wheaton came out of.
	Now the difference was that the Defense and Intelligence Agencies group in Fort Meade, that was an official program on the books.
	The group that was done in special forces, the 1st Earth Battalion, was loosely organized, but it was nonetheless organized, and they did have remote viewers there, and they did a different style.
	And it had a chain of command going very high, but it was a different approach.
	And part of the military's idea behind this was just to let the creative juices go in different directions and see where they would end up.
	It was very interesting.
	Again, I'm not one of the people who was in the military group.
	I mean, I could talk about it at length, but I really prefer other people who were in the military to talk about that.
	I'm really an academic, a scholar, who talks about the remote viewing as it's done now.
	Not the historical stuff that was done in the military.
	I mean, I could talk about it, but it's not my place to talk about it.
	No, I understand that, and I'm not going to put you through that.
	I will ask you a couple questions in defining things.
	First of all, I don't know if you remember this, but I asked you for an interview quite some time ago, and you said no, and you said not yet, that you weren't ready.
	Or something like that.
	And I was just wondering, why are you ready now to do an interview?
	And was it because you didn't want to do an interview with Project Camelot at the time?
	Or was it because you weren't coming out in public doing interviews?
	What was going on back then?
	Do you know?
	We're all human beings and we all have interesting contributions to make.
	And I particularly like the contribution that you're doing with Project Camelot.
	So, I was honored that you asked me to do it.
	But, you know, a lot of people, when you ask them for an interview, they jump at the chance.
	And it's their time of fame that they get.
	And they want to be able to do it for that recognition.
	That's just not me.
	So, if I don't have something that I'm ready to talk about, There's no reason for me to do an interview.
	And when you asked me to do the interview before, we were deep in the middle of many projects.
	And I really wasn't ready to talk about them.
	And I had to proceed with that first.
	So I didn't really have any reason to do the interview earlier.
	At the current time, however, there's a number of things going on.
	We've completed a number of really important projects.
	They're done.
	They're finished.
	It's over.
	I'd like people to know about them.
	This is the time of sharing.
	And also, we have some data for the post-2012 period that's very interesting, and it's nice for people to know about that data, so people can be involved in the experiment to see how it turns out.
	Well, that's very enticing.
	Yeah, this is a very pregnant time for us to do the interview, and so if I ever say, not yet, it has no reflection on you.
	In fact, it's the opposite.
	I deeply respect what you're doing.
	The real issue is that when I do go on the radio, I'm not looking for 15 minutes of fame.
	I've really got a bunch of stuff in store that we've been doing.
	It's time to talk.
	And if I ever say no, it's because my head is buried deep in all of it and I'm trying to sort it out and I'm just not ready to talk about it yet.
	Right.
	And actually, you know, I picked up on that.
	And I was just interested to hear what you had to say, whether it would match the impression that I got at the time.
	And thank you for that very good explanation, and it does match what I had come up with.
	And what I'm wondering and that is so interesting as you say that you're ready to kind of come forward at this time and indeed it is an important time to come forward I would say and I'm very happy that you are sort of here now and what I'd like to do with that in mind then is kind of give you the floor to go through the various things that you do want to bring to the fore so that I don't
	inadvertently not ask you a question that you need to be sort of asked but at the same time you know if you don't mind once in a while me interjecting or trying to clarify something but I'd love to hear for example I definitely want to hear about what you've seen for beyond 2012 because that is a very interesting dilemma you know I've I've I've
	I've known, sort of known, I was going to say I've known many of the remote viewers, but I've gotten into many of the different remote viewing camps and their work.
	And I know that there has been a sort of a block around 2012, actually beyond 20, you know, December 21st, 2012, supposedly.
	And I was curious because you said you had evidence for beyond 2012 and that is really excellent.
	Now I dream the future.
	So I have seen the future beyond 2012 myself, at least a version of the future.
	And I never know which reality that is.
	And I'm also very happy.
	You know, I've actually studied some of your presentations ahead of time.
	I just didn't just not even as preparation for this just because I was always interested and so I know that you know that there is multiple realities and that there may be information coming into this reality that we think is this reality but when in fact it may pertain to another timeline so to speak and so I wanted to
	sort of talk about all of that and also get, you know, what you've been getting along these lines, and then also talk about the nature of reality, you know, the nature of time, how we perceive it here on Earth, et cetera, et cetera.
	Sure.
	Let me say, Kerry, that I'm willing to come back.
	This is a very pregnant time for this whole, all of humanity, and we have lots of results.
	So feel free to interrupt me and to take me off in any direction you want.
	And if you want me back to talk about something that we don't get time to talk about, I'd be more than happy to do it.
	This is a very nice time for me to cover this information.
	I sort of have a nice thing to throw out to start the ball rolling, if you want.
	Okay.
	One of the things that your listening audience should be most concerned about is how remote viewing could work in the first place.
	Because if you have people coming up, and you often have in late night radio, doing theater shock, Where they're seeing this happening and that happening and you get all types of excitements about it.
	But often in those situations you don't see the data and you wonder where it is and should you believe the person.
	This whole idea of belief gets involved.
	So the real thing about what I do is to try to understand not just if the remote viewing phenomenon works and whether we can transfer information across time and space, but also Physically, how could it work when it completely violates the law of physics, the law of both Newtonian and relativistic physics?
	It shouldn't be able to work.
	We're transmitting information at speeds that are way beyond light, virtually instantaneously, and we're transmitting information across time, both past and into the future.
	So, how could that actually work?
	So, what I'd like to start you out with is An understanding that I have developed, sort of as a mathematician, that can speak the language of physics, and that's why I often interact with physicists who speak the same language, that it can explain how remote viewing works.
	So, you ready for it?
	This is what's going on.
	This is what's going on.
	Okay, yeah, we're coming to the end of the first half hour, and so at the bottom of the top of the hour we have a short break.
	So this is a great place to stop, and we'll come right back with Courtney Brown.
	Okay, so we are here with, I'm sorry, Courtney Brown.
	And Courtney, you were sort of just about to launch into explaining why remote viewing works.
	Yeah, I know.
	This is so important, because when you hear
	me or someone else talk about remote viewing findings the traditional mainstream scientific community will simply say you're deluded why you're thinking about it you shouldn't be talking about that because remote viewing is impossible in the first place so it's just crazy stuff so it's very important for you to know how it actually can work so that you know that the mainstream science people are the ones who are got the delusion problems so let's start out with an with an
	Everything that happens on the quantum level, at the smallest possible realm, happens because frequencies interact.
	Basically what happens is there's a huge bed of frequencies that go throughout the universe.
	The whole universe is made of frequencies.
	And when you have a particle, what you have is those frequencies add together.
	in what's called a superposition which is literally frequencies just combining and they produce a bump in reality in physical reality and so what you have is something like a snake that's eaten a rat So you know a snake that eats a rat and the rat is somewhere in the middle of the snake and you see a bump, a lump in the middle of the snake.
	That's what a superposition looks like in physical reality.
	It looks like a bump.
	Now that bump is actually made up of just frequencies that go up and down like sine waves all throughout the universe from one end to the next.
	And so when these frequencies combine you get This bump called a superposition.
	That superposition is later called what they call a wave packet, which is a bunch of those waves in a state of superposition producing a space that is known as the particle.
	Meaning, when we find a subatomic particle, we're actually not finding a hard physical thing.
	No one in physics has ever, ever, ever discovered A solid billiard ball type particle thing.
	So everything is just these waves that group together or bunch together in this process of superposition to form these wave packets.
	And when a wave packet Such as a photon bumps into, say, a photographic plate, it makes another superposition, because the photographic plate is made up of superpositions.
	And so, if you add a lot of superpositions together, you get a whole bunch of subatomic particles.
	You add more, you get an atmosphere.
	You add more, you get you and me talking on the radio, on a planet, in the sun.
	And so, what we are, are vast and complex Ensembles of superposition.
	So we can say that we are superposition ensembles, very complex ones.
	Now, this is the key.
	Since there is nothing physical in the universe, we are all superposition ensembles.
	What physicists have not yet been able to get their head wrapped around?
	is how what they do know for sure goes on on the quantum level could affect what goes on in the macro level.
	So they have an imaginary line called the line of decoherence.
	And that imaginary line of decoherence states that what goes on in the quantum realm goes on there.
	And you have all those superposition processes going on producing these wave packets.
	And then beyond the line of decoherence you have us, the macro world.
	And there we have Newtonian and classical Physics and relativistic physics, and this is where we are.
	And the two realms don't match.
	They don't meet.
	They go by different rules.
	And that's where physicists are right now.
	Now, that is absolutely absurd.
	Even Roger Penrose has said that's not sustainable.
	The macro realm is built up from the quantum realm.
	And if the quantum realm is built up these wave packets, frequencies, then the macro realm has got to be the exact same thing.
	But the quantum realm displayed a lot of different processes, a lot of phenomenon that are very well known dealing with time and prediction and retro causation that we don't acknowledge in mainstream science on the macro.
	The thing is that with remote viewing we can now replicate most of the stuff that we see in the quantum realm in the macro realm.
	So this is what's going on.
	I have to say in my scientific opinion this is what's going on.
	What we have is a situation in which the superposition ensembles that are very complex that create you and me and the radio and the internet and the planet earth and so on like that are superpositions that also interact with a very narrow band in the electromagnetic
	Meaning, within that visible light, there's a certain set of frequencies that's very narrow compared with the entire range within the electromagnetic spectrum that goes all the way up to cosmic rays that are very, very powerful, very high frequency.
	So, everything that you see when you look around your house is all stuff that forms into states of superposition with light that you can see with your eyes.
	So it's all frequencies that are compatible.
	Compatible frequencies.
	Now, the range of frequencies that are in the electromagnetic realm are absolutely huge.
	It goes from lower frequencies than us to really, really high frequencies that go beyond visible light but into x-ray and beyond that gamma ray and beyond that cosmic rays.
	So, what mainstream scientists have been basically claiming Is that the only superpositions that can occur are those that occur as ensembles in the visible light spectrum.
	And that superposition ensembles like you and me can't occur anywhere else.
	That they can't occur in the higher realms.
	So what they've been basically saying is that only the things that you and I can see with our physical eyes actually exist.
	And what we do know now is that that is a great leap of faith that the physicists have made without any data to back them up.
	The reality is the entire spectrum of electromagnetic frequency could have octaves in which Realms of life aggregate.
	So you could have what you might call places where the frequencies are higher.
	And that would mean the frequencies are tighter together.
	You might call those higher density frequencies.
	So as you go up in the electromagnetic spectrum, you could have literally like floors going up in a skyscraper, where you go up a floor and you're at a place where life and other superposition ensembles aggregate.
	And all sorts of stuff goes on there.
	And those things that go on there would be totally invisible to us because they are, as a matter of frequency, out of phase with us.
	Now, this is the key.
	You see, if I have a quarter, and I put a quarter in my hand, That quarter is a superposition ensemble, and it has an equation.
	A quantum equation.
	And that quantum equation specifies not only location, but also time.
	Now, if I take that quarter and then put it in my other hand, that quarter is actually a different quarter.
	You can say, well no, it's the same quarter.
	What are you talking about?
	I just moved hands.
	But no, that quarter is defined from its quantum equation in terms of time and space.
	And when you put it In your other hand, or when I put it in my other hand, it had a different equation with different values for time and space.
	It's a different quarter.
	It's not the exact same quarter.
	So, you see, the original quarter that you had in your hand the first time, or I had in my hand the first time, is lost to us because it's back in time.
	Because the quarter we're looking at now is in my other hand, and so the original quarter is invisible to us.
	But you know it existed.
	So what we have found out is that remote viewers are capable of adjusting their minds literally like a radio can adjust the frequencies on a dial and tune in different targets or different places.
	And what basically is going on is inside the mind of the remote viewer, they are able to adjust the frequencies at which their minds are creating superpositions with.
	So, by intent, they are able to create states of superposition in their mind where they actually can perceive very vague, foggy images, but when they get good at them, they can really describe what's going on, of things that are not in our current now state of superposition, but in a state that's previous.
	That means their minds have literally adjusted the frequencies that they're resonating with, and they're resonating with the frequencies of something that happened in the past.
	And thus they become in phase with that thing and images of that thing come into their minds and they can actually describe it.
	So their minds are actually being used as radio receivers in that type of a sense.
	The best way to think of the human brain is very much comparable to the Star Trek idea of a hologram.
	So that you have the holodeck and you go into a holodeck and you have a reality created around you.
	But now imagine that the human brain is the hologram generator.
	So what it does, is it picks the frequencies out that it wants you to see.
	And it is very selective, just like a radio is very selective of what frequencies it's going to receive, so you hear only one station, and not the station that's further up the dial.
	The mind selects out the frequencies that it wants you to perceive, and those frequencies, and only those frequencies, will it allow into your perception.
	Yes.
	Remote viewers are simply different because they have trained to learn how to use the dial a little bit and to be able to tune in to other frequencies, which is how those things actually come about.
	Anyway, so much for my story about, it's an interesting story on the level of physics.
	Well, it's actually, you know, it's very good and you actually, you say it, you describe it very well.
	I would say that, you know, it is probably one of the best explanations in terms of I guess you might call it understandable modern day physics for what is spoken about in, you know, sort of metaphysical terms as, you know, as density, as, you know, higher frequencies, as, you know, different
	Different dimensions even so that there's there's a lot there but but I I totally I mean I can resonate with what you're saying and I think that it's it's quite accurate in terms of what you call packets of What you're calling packets of... Wave packets.
	Waves.
	Maybe, you know, someone else who some people know of my work with Asiana Dean would refer to as Partakai.
	And so there's also the issue as to when a particle becomes a wave and all of that sort of thing.
	And there's also, you talked about the ability as a remote viewer to go back, but you didn't refer to the ability to go forward, but that also exists.
	Well, what basically this implies is that since everything is based on frequency, that this is a frequency determined universe.
	It means that anything that forms into states of superposition can exist.
	And thus, what you see, what is this for you, is what you put yourself into a state of superposition with.
	That means that there can be multiple realities, multiple futures, multiple paths, in fact, because anything that you put yourself into a state of superposition with Can exist.
	Basically, if you can imagine it, it can exist.
	So when we talk about remote viewing the future, it's more challenging than remote viewing the past.
	Because when you're talking about remote viewing the past, you have a very clear idea of which sequence of events you want to go back in.
	Let's call it a timeline.
	So you have a very clear idea of what timeline you want to fall back on.
	So if you want to see Napoleon's battle at Waterloo, but you have a very clear idea of exactly where you want to be, and you get, in the remote viewing session, Napoleon's battle at Waterloo.
	But if you go into the future, you don't know what you're going to get.
	And so any prejudices, ideas, thoughts that come about That can lead you to a different future.
	Now, we have managed to figure out a way to get around that, but there are some constraints to what we can do.
	We have figured out that we can reliably remote view the future under the following circumstances, and it is so reliable that it is absolutely no different than remote viewing a target on the present or the past.
	Remote viewing the future has always been more dicey, but now we can control it.
	What we do to remote view the future is we do our sessions first.
	Always everything is done totally blind.
	The remote viewer is never told anything about what they're supposed to remote view.
	It simply doesn't even work if they're told any information at all.
	So they do it totally blind and they do a session and there's no target.
	There's nothing that's been determined yet that they're supposed to remote view.
	You're just going into a room, spending an hour, doing your session, coming out with 20 pages of pieces of paper that describe something.
	Then what we do is we take that and we lock it up.
	Typically we scan it in and encrypt it and then distribute it so no one can say we cheated because we distribute it on our website and tens of thousands of people download it and save it.
	So cheating is impossible.
	And then what we do is we have a period of time in which a target is going to occur and that will be say the next month.
	So if the sessions were done in January But it's not been chosen, but it will happen.
	And it can be anything that happens in February.
	And then we have it arranged in advance that some person who has agreed with us will, in March, Two months down the line, pick a target from anything that happened in February.
	So the sessions were done in January, something in the universe happens in February, and that something, some verifiable thing that we have accurate information about, is chosen in March.
	And when that thing is chosen in March, we then distribute the passwords, decrypt the sessions, let the public see what was on there, and we get really great descriptions of exactly what the What the target was.
	Now the target actually happened in the future, a month in the future, and it was chosen a month in front of that, meaning two months in the future.
	And so when we do it that way, we can predict the future each and every time in a deterministic way really well.
	And this experimental design was created by myself because we wanted to test for the idea of multiple realities.
	If there are multiple realities, that could explain why it was so difficult to predict the future.
	If we have multiple realities, the only way to get rid of the problem is to have somebody in the future cooperating with us to pick a target, because the target for that person in the future would definitely have happened.
	And so for that person, this person's called the Tasker, that person would be selecting one timeline out of an infinite number of timelines.
	And our sessions would describe it perfectly because that person in the future, who we would call a temporal outbounder, someone in the future cooperating with us, would be selecting something that definitely happened for him or her.
	And so under those conditions, we can deterministically and accurately remote view the future.
	When you come up to situations like 2012, we have a problem because we don't have a temporal outbounder who can pick a target.
	We tried something different.
	We have a project called the 2012 Climate Project, and what we did in that particular setting, by the way, the experimental design that I just described to you was called the Multiple Universes Project, and those data have just, they're up on our website of course, plus a presentation, but those data have just been published just this last month in the Journal for Scientific Exploration
	And it's the leading mainstream journal, peer-reviewed, and it's the first time that remote viewing sessions done by military-grade remote viewers have ever appeared in print.
	These are second-generation remote viewers that have been trained by some of the original military people.
	And this is the first time that These very highly trained second-generation remote viewers have ever appeared in the journals.
	And this is a mainstream journal, peer-reviewed setting, and it was a very notable event.
	There's zillions of remote viewing, but they're always untrained college kids or something like that.
	So that was, it was a big event.
	This is an achievement of a sort in terms of crossing over to the mainstream.
	And just do you, do you know what the, I mean, obviously it made it into the journal, but do you know what the response was?
	Well, it's just come out, so it's going to take a while before the response gets out.
	But the very fact that it got into the journal, got through the peer review process, it was a very long peer review process.
	So the very fact that it did that is a huge milestone.
	And the article itself is called Remote Viewing the Future with a Tasking Temporal Outbounder.
	And a copy of it can be found on the Farsight Institute's website, which is www.farsight.org, because we're a non-profit.
	And there's a link right on the website for the article on the homepage.
	And the basic idea is that that allows us to see the future but it's not a very practical solution because if we really want to know about something that's going to happen in the future well we don't have a temporal outbounder and we would like to know when the sessions are done what they're describing.
	So the problem with the experimental design that we now know how to do To accurately describe the future is when the sessions are actually finished, completed, we don't know what they're describing.
	In fact, we lock them up.
	No one can see them until after the event happens and the tasker chooses the event.
	So from a practical perspective, it's useless.
	From a scientific perspective, it's extremely interesting.
	But when you talk about the post-2012 period, you're talking about a situation in which we would like to have information
	about the post 2012 period but we don't have a tasking temporal outbounder that's somewhere in 2013 and also the sessions are done now and we'd like to know now what they say rather than to wait till after 2013 to find out you know if we were correct in describing something so we have another experiment going on that's going on right now
	And that is an experiment in which we did sessions that were for June 1st 2008 and sessions that were for June 1st 2013 and they were for a large number of targets geographically spread over the entire planet for both 2008 and 2013.
	In addition we said If there are multiple realities, then let's try to pick two realities, two timelines in the future.
	Let's see if we can select out in advance by describing the nature of certain realities that we would like to be.
	We would like to describe some events that are on a certain timeline.
	So we say, let us find out what's going to happen June 1st, 2013.
	Under the conditions in which X, Y, and Z happens.
	So we're trying to specify in advance a specific timeline.
	And then we say, let's say A, B, and C happens instead.
	Let's see what happens in June 1st, 2013 if A, B, and C happens instead.
	So we're trying to, in advance of 2013, describe what happens in two separate timelines.
	And so what we did was we took all of the Targets for 2008 and two timelines for 2013 we jumbled them up and we put an encrypted file that had 999 possible random jumblings so that when somebody session was done they wouldn't know if that session was for One target or if it was for another target.
	And there were 999 rules that jumbled which session would be associated with which target.
	And then we waited until a date June 4th in 2008 after all the sessions were done.
	They were posted on the website.
	Everybody in the world was downloading them.
	And the first time period for the first group of session, for the first group of targets was June 1st, 2008.
	That had passed by a few days.
	And on June 4th, 2008, we had a rule that was designed such that the last three integer digits of the Dow Jones number, on that Friday, the closing Dow Jones number, the last three integer digits, would decide which of the 999 Rules would be used to determine which session goes with which target.
	So it was a completely unpredictable, random choice of which target would be associated with which session.
	So when anyone was doing a session, they not only had no knowledge of what the targets were, but even if they did, they would have had no idea what target they were doing at any point in time, because that wasn't determined until until the future, when a Dow Jones number happened.
	And pulled the rule out of the hat of 999 possible rules.
	And what we found when we did that was so fascinating.
	We looked at all of the data, and we found out that for June 1st, 2008, these were mostly targets that were near coastlines.
	No, Kilimanjaro was one that was not near a coastline.
	But most of them were near coastlines, ecologically fragile.
	We were looking for climatic changes.
	And what we found was essentially nothing out of the ordinary.
	Tourists were still going to the beaches.
	We found airports wherever they were supposed to be.
	Washington D.C.
	still looked like Washington D.C.
	It's on sea level.
	Everything was just normal.
	And the sessions for both of the timelines that we experimented with for 2013, Armageddon had happened!
	I mean, it was a binary result, meaning all the sessions for 2013 were, I mean for 2008, were just as we saw them.
	The reality of 2008 was, it was a normal world.
	were just as we saw them.
	The reality of 2008 was it was a normal world.
	But the sessions for 2013 was a total, a total, we're talking about a huge level of disasters, catastrophes.
	We're talking about things coming out of the sky like meteors hitting the water, creating huge tsunamis, weather-related changes, but mostly it was disaster-related stuff that seemed to have some type of events occurring.
	Yeah, it was fascinating.
	So we don't know if this is going to be correct, of course, but we have to wait until 2013 to see.
	But you've only chosen two timelines, isn't that right?
	Yes, but those two timelines are pretty interesting.
	Okay, so we're going to a break and we're going to have to hear the rest of the answer to that question when we return with Courtney Brown.
	Thank you.
	Okay, this is Carrie Cassidy, Project Camelot with The Bloor Radio and we're talking to Courtney Brown about remote viewing and specifically about remote viewing beyond 2012 and the results that he was getting and quite interesting already in terms of climate change first of all and I guess even some cataclysmic sort of events that at least on the two timelines
	That you remote-viewed, or in terms of this experiment that you did, going from 2008 and then remote-viewing, I guess, to 2013, you basically were getting this feedback, right?
	Yeah, let me say that the actual project, the 2012 Climate Project, is actually quite complicated, but I'm going to cover some of the results right now.
	But for those who actually want to get it There's a DVD that we just made available.
	It's called The Farsight Experiments.
	It's sold through Amazon, but you can see the link to it on our website, Farsight.org.
	The Farsight Experiments summarizes the research that we've been doing at the Institute, including This 2012 Climate Project over the last decade, and it's really the place to go.
	And so for those who want to do a little bit more about what we discovered, there's not just the Climate Project, but the other projects we've been doing.
	That's the place to go to get it.
	That DVD sort of summarizes it.
	But what I was saying about the future, the 2013 period, which is the post-December 2012 period, But the information we have is for mid-2013, June 1st, 2013.
	And we have a binary result, which is that all of the disaster sessions piled up on 2013, and none of them happened on 2008.
	And it was impossible for any remote viewer to know which session was going to be done for which target at the time.
	And they just happened to have all happened, and they just piled up on 2013.
	It is clearly a binary result.
	We really do have descriptions of really big stuff happening in 2013 in at least some timelines.
	Now, the theory that I've been developing is that if you have multiple realities, multiple timelines, then the differences between the timelines could be very minute.
	For example, what shirt I'm wearing or what blouse you're wearing.
	Those may be very small things and we could have multiple realities in which my shirt is a different color.
	Maybe I have hair in another reality.
	I could be wearing a bandana.
	But the point is different realities could have small different changes.
	But there are some events which are really, really big.
	And those events would have a larger what we would call spatial width.
	That means The probabilities, the multiple timelines that would be going into the future, would not necessarily have very many similarities with the small things, but the really huge, big things would be hard to miss.
	And so, large sections of the probabilities, the future timelines, would go through these things.
	Crashing into a barn door.
	You just can't miss it.
	It's so huge.
	If you're talking about a small pebble on the road, you may miss it.
	So, a small difference in a probable timeline, what kind of shoe you're wearing, that's like a pebble on the road.
	However, crashing into the barn door that you've got right in front of you, Almost every car that goes up that driveway and keeps on going is going to crash into that barn door.
	And the theory that we have right now is that the events that are in the post-2012 period seem to be of such a large magnitude, such a large spatial width, that they affect a whole host of probable timelines.
	And if we're correct, if I'm correct, with regards to this theory, Then it seems that this particular future may not be easily avoidable, meaning that this looks like we're going to be, we really are going to go through a period of very significant change.
	And we're not talking about the end of civilization, and we're not talking about the end of the world, but we are talking about a real GameStopper.
	We're talking about a real change.
	I mean, this is not something that's going to be small.
	This will be really big, if the data are correct.
	If the data are correct.
	Yeah, I appreciate that.
	Okay, so I have a couple questions for you now.
	First of all, you know, I don't, I don't know what your position is to people that are sort of naturally psychic or intuitive in, you know, because I do know that some remote viewers sort of try to sort of eliminate those people from the remote viewing people that they train on a certain level.
	In other words, they're a little bit exclusionary over people that are naturally psychic.
	And they have a certain reason for that, which is very kind of an interesting reason in terms of types of people and what their proclivities are and also their performance.
	Because especially at least in the military programs, people that are more psychic tend to also be...
	You know, they couldn't graph them as easily and their logic, their ability to be right on all the time, fluctuated perhaps more greatly than the people that tend to be less psychic naturally, but more sort of methodical and less emotional even.
	In terms of their performance as remote viewers and that's that's up to a certain level and then you get somebody like Pat Price and or Ego Swan who combines the two in other words a natural proclivity a psychic ability as an intuitive and an ability in the remote viewing area.
	Yeah actually let me let me add to that it's a very good description that you just said is that Pat Price, Ego Swan and Dr. Richard Ireland We're all intuitives of the type that you just described.
	And they are in fact the founders of the military structured data collection procedures that we now call remote viewing.
	So, but I do understand what you're saying that sometimes natural psychics are seemingly shunned by the military flavor remote viewers.
	But part of that is, there's two reasons, part of that is because with natural psychics it's difficult to institute the level of methodology controls that you can with remote viewing because with remote viewing you say you're doing X, Y, and Z and it's got to be at exactly this order and thus you can control the Both the quality and the type of data that come across.
	When with natural psychics, that structure isn't there, but the perceptual ability is there.
	So the data don't come across sort of the way you expect it.
	It's literally like reading a novel, but maybe not the grammatical structure is the way you want it.
	And so with natural psychics, the sort of formally trained remote viewers sometimes have that tension.
	On the other hand, that doesn't necessarily mean me.
	So I do recognize that the people who actually They're of scientific great value to the planet.
	And we can, in fact, use data that they collect very similarly to the way musicians who are extremely well trained can be put in venues to show what that can do, what you can do with a piano, what you can do with a violin, let them play in Carnegie Hall or the Boston Pops or the New York Philharmonic.
	That doesn't mean that everybody can't, on some level, play the piano or the violin and so on.
	So, the reality is that we are entering a time when the world has to understand that everybody has these natural abilities.
	And so, we should not be in a situation of shunning natural psychics, but we should actually be saying, formal remote viewing is evidence that All people have these natural abilities and that the natural psychics are in fact the way most people are going to want to be, which is to have an intuitive flavor for how these feelings come about that allow them to navigate.
	For example, in my own life, I very often face choices that I have to make, and I have to decide which choice I'm going to be doing.
	And that is really a choice of a timeline.
	Am I going to go down timeline A or timeline B?
	And it's inevitable now that I essentially look up or close my eyes or just think, which way am I supposed to go?
	And I sense the timeline.
	That is an intuitive type of thing that I learned how to do through my formal, for my sort of my formal study for remote viewing that I really didn't know how to do very well before that.
	On the other hand, other people who I have met who have never had formal remote viewing That's a very good explanation.
	automatically and I sort of envy them because they didn't have to go through all this type of structure that I they didn't have to learn all the grammar books they could sort of figure it out themselves and that's way yeah that's the way life is is turning out okay and I appreciate that that's a very good explanation uh so that the reason that was sort of a preliminary to the question or thing that I want to sort of talk about here and that is um well a few things
	one is that in terms of the future and seeing the future if you if you would sort of accept the notion that all time is simultaneous that we just perceive it as being linear in this in this dimension And I don't know if you accept that premise, but I assume that you would.
	I think that most physicists assume that, right?
	Well, physicists assume a linear progression.
	However, they acknowledge that the equations, the quantum equations, All have time cancelling out, so they don't understand time.
	Point blank, they just simply do not understand time.
	Going into the Eastern philosophy, which I studied a lot of as a younger person, the idea is that all time is simultaneous and it's actually circular.
	And so the idea there is, and it's actually one might say a more feminine view of reality, Yes.
	In that, you know, they're viewing things as a whole as opposed to breaking it down into its parts.
	Yes.
	And so one of the things that I've noticed, also as a natural intuitive, is that there's a tendency to go anywhere in time if you sort of let yourself slide that way.
	Yes.
	And that you can actually slide forward or back or one might say horizontally if you wanted to sort of have multiple moments in this moment or something like that.
	Yes.
	Alternative moments and then you know once you have that ability it's kind of I don't think that this analogy may be from a physics point of view may not be correct but I'm asking you this question.
	Wouldn't that be similar to seeing oneself as a wave in opposition to a particle?
	as a wave in opposition to a particle.
	Because in essence, if, you know, what you're seeing is, if you can go from 2008 to see something in 2013, what you're really doing is extending your consciousness to sort of slide over to 2013 while you're still, maybe a what you're really doing is extending your consciousness to sort of slide over to 2013 while you're still, maybe a part of you is still in 2008 or a part
	But the point being is that you're just experiencing yourself more as a wave than a particle.
	Because a particle being in one place at one time type of thing, whereas a wave being everywhere simultaneously.
	Yeah, actually, physicists have never found a particle, an actual solid billiard ball type of thing.
	And the physicists who do still claim that there are such things are called particleists.
	And they're a dying breed.
	They're going out of existence.
	They're like the dinosaurs, they're finishing off.
	The basic issue of quantum mechanics is that there are no particles.
	There are only superpositions.
	There are only wave packets, which are groupings of waves in a state of superposition.
	And you only have frequencies.
	You don't have anything solid.
	Physicists then say, but we do have math.
	So you see, they're stuck in this polarity of saying we have a quantum realm and a classical realm and they're different and they go by different rules.
	So they haven't yet bit the bullet of how to generalize quantum mechanics, but the future is clearly going to have to include a generalization of quantum mechanics.
	Which means that what we know about the quantum level will also apply to the macro level, the classical realm.
	Which means that there will be no such thing as a physical thing.
	Now you could come back and say, but what do you mean there's no particles?
	We shoot radiation particles into cancers and destroy them.
	And to which I can say, yes, but what you're doing is shooting wave packets that are going in and creating states of superposition with the cancer cells and breaking them apart.
	And so you can say that fields resist displacement.
	You don't have to have physical solid things that resist displacement that can crash into things.
	Fields, fields like magnetic, electromagnetic fields, electric fields, they resist displacement as well.
	And so what we have is a situation in which You don't have to have physical things, solid things, in order to have the appearance of a physical reality.
	There's also, but there's also this notion that, and this is where, you know, some of the remote viewers in the early days were trying to go through walls, and what they had to do to do that was to resonate, or to sort of get themselves into a state that resonated with the particles, or the state, or whatever you want to call it, of the wall, right?
	So such that they could go through it.
	Yeah, the theory of that was actually sound.
	The practice of that was not.
	So they crashed into the wall and hurt their nose.
	But the theory is that if we are superposition ensembles, then technically we are creating ourselves by having our brain generate the hologram of us and our reality.
	So our brains are hologram producers.
	So technically if we changed the overall, you might call it, resonant frequency of ourselves, we would be slightly out of phase with the wall and we would be able to go through the wall.
	However, doing it is much, much different than knowing it in theory.
	So when people tried to convince themselves that they could go through the wall, they didn't really believe it.
	And their minds really did maintain the illusion of the physical apparatus and the physical structure that was surrounding them.
	And so when they crashed into the wall, they crashed into the wall.
	However, we do know that it is most likely The key to understanding alien technology, because we have a tremendous number of reports of aliens using technology, extraterrestrials using technology in which they do go through walls.
	And so what we have is we have a situation in which aliens ...have been observed during the so-called visitation or abduction phenomenons.
	I've never heard of a situation where somebody reported them to open a door.
	That they just blast right through the wall.
	And that ships themselves can be seen on radar and visually and suddenly they're not seen anymore.
	Interestingly, we have many situations in which particles Can be tracked, subatomic particles can be tracked, and they suddenly disappear.
	They're not there anymore, and then they reappear someplace else, and we pick up where they left off, and they keep on going.
	But there's a gap.
	That relates to Schrodinger's cat, does it not?
	And also signal-on locality.
	Yes, all that is connected to this.
	But the basic idea is that if you accept the generalization of quantum mechanics... Quantum mechanics itself is not in dispute.
	It's the generalization of quantum mechanics that has not...
	Gotten accepted yet.
	But if you accept the generalization of quantum mechanics, that the macro world must resonate, must follow the same rules of the quantum world, then all of us have to be frequency-based.
	And if you have frequency-based realities, that means that the past and the future are simply out of phase with regard to frequency.
	And multiple realities are out of phase.
	And you are selecting, you're being very highly selective of which reality you're actually perceiving.
	The trick with human viewing is to be able to train the mind to perceive those other realities.
	And in fact, when you are doing that, you're literally putting your mental thoughts in a state of superposition with these other realities, and that's being able to perceive them.
	Right, but by the same token, those things have to already, I mean, you know, I'm sort of asking this, they exist already.
	Yes, they objectively exist.
	And when I say all time is simultaneous, that's exactly what I mean.
	In other words, all of this is existing, otherwise you couldn't go there to begin with, right?
	Exactly correct.
	Okay.
	And there's also this sort of the notion that, you know, just as you might say, God is here, but God is everywhere, depending, you know, creator, whatever you want to say, source.
	Just as you can say that about source, you could say that about you or me.
	In other words, that we are here, but we are also everywhere.
	And so this is, it's that capability of us to do that, to be everywhere, which I call that we are time travelers.
	We are natural time travelers.
	Yeah, actually if you want to hear sort of a interesting, where is this heading spin to this type of conversation?
	It's heading in the direction of the full spectrum, you might call it the full electromagnetic spectrum, has probably octaves on it, where life congregates and we might call
	Where we see our three-dimensional reality, which is often called third density reality, that octave is apparently so different from the higher octaves that one of the characteristic aspects of this octave is that we essentially go out of a state of superposition with The higher octaves.
	So that there is very little left of the higher octaves in us.
	We're out of phase with the higher octaves.
	And the higher octaves are not so out of phase with each other.
	But we are.
	That's a characteristic of us.
	We're out of phase with most of them.
	Not entirely, but mostly.
	And that's why remote viewing is so difficult to do.
	We're picking up what's in the other places based on a very small level of overlap.
	But that explains why when people come into this three-dimensional reality why we forget who we were.
	Why we forget if we ever knew each other.
	Virtually everybody that you ever met you have known for an awful long time and you don't know it.
	You think you're talking to them for the very first time.
	And so where this is going is it looks like it's going as if everything in the universe is frequency-based.
	Then it's all based on the same collective soup of frequencies.
	That means all there is, or what you might call God, is literally the collection of all of these frequencies.
	And these frequencies are somehow constructed up, or manifesting, or they are consciousness itself.
	And if that's true, then this third density reality that we live in, Looks like it's an experiment where God wanted to see what it was like to forget himself.
	Pardon the use of the male pronoun when I say himself.
	But it's just the language difficulties we have.
	But this apparently is an experiment where God wanted to see what would happen in a free will universe where He could forget himself and not know who he actually was.
	And in the higher densities or the higher frequencies, apparently from what we get with E.T.
	reports, is that level of cutting off, where you go out of phase with sort of the rest, doesn't happen.
	And they have what you might call a more integrated perspective of personality.
	Right.
	But by the same token, what we're saying here, and this is, you know, you're saying in different words something that is commonly said, you know, in sort of spiritual texts.
	Yes.
	Right?
	About this reality, in other words, that this is their, another way of putting it sort of in a spiritual text would be to say that humans have lost their connection to Source.
	And by that, that's what they mean.
	The connection is not such a potent through line as it originally was or as it is supposedly for the higher dimensional beings.
	However, this is not true of everyone.
	So it's what it is, is that one by one, This planet even at this time and this is in part what we may be in call awakening is people are rediscovering their connection with And what appears to be an accelerating pattern?
	yes, and and and And so, yes, I mean, this forgetfulness is an interesting dynamic, but it's part of that lost connection.
	So, the two have to be simultaneously.
	In other words, you have to have a sort of semi-lost connection, and then a rediscovery of that connection.
	But there's the idea, I mean, I know this is getting really out there in terms of philosophy and probably we want to pull this back to some other discussions before we end, but I just want to say that if in that process of forgetting and then rediscovering, what has to happen is there has to be something new added.
	So this is the key to going on with God's source or whatever, having gone through this exercise, if you will, that if you put beings or you put part of yourself into this sort of soup in which you forget, then in coming back to source, you must come back with your remembering, you must come back with your remembering, but remembering plus something else.
	Something else may be a sort of form of growth of God's Source, one might call it, or awareness.
	Actually, that's exactly how I would state it.
	I don't think I could say it better.
	Oh, well, thank you.
	So yeah, I mean, it's quite fascinating.
	And then there's this whole idea of artificial intelligence, which is said to be the opposite, where they don't, they have the inability to add anything new to the mix.
	And so they are constantly repeating, replicating, replicating, replicating, after they reach a certain level, and they stop, they are unable to go further.
	And some people will classify this as a lack of ability to have a soul.
	No, yeah, I don't think it's, I think what we're facing is an understanding of reality that we're nothing, nothing exists that isn't alive.
	From the subatomic particles that you want to call particles, I call wave packets, whatever they are, all the way up to the macro level sub-planet.
	It's a question though, it is a question.
	If everything is made up of the same soup of frequencies, Then in reality the frequencies are alive and that everything is alive.
	And we may not say that a rock has the level of consciousness that we have, but on some level it is made up of the same super frequencies and on some level it has some level of awareness.
	And that may seem ridiculous from a normal perspective of walking around and looking at a rock and kicking it.
	No, I mean, an occult, a person in the occult would have said that that's true because, you know, they're constantly dealing with that, those energies.
	We'll be right back with Courtney Brown.
	Okay, this is Carrie Cassidy, Project Camelot, Whistleblower Radio, and we are having a fascinating discussion with Courtney Brown.
	So, Courtney, right before the break, I was sort of broaching the subject of what would be And I don't know if you and your group have have delved into this.
	Well you know this this this great just breaks us into a new subject because AI or artificial intelligence is something we're at the very preliminary stages of understanding in our society because technological revolution really just started.
	It changes the direction of the interview in a very interesting way, because we can then say that this is something where aliens or extraterrestrials have, in fact, much more experience with.
	And that enters the realm of some of the things that we have discovered.
	with remote viewing.
	See, it's one thing that we've discovered, that we've discussed so far, some of the implications of remote viewing to the way we look at natural and physical reality and spirituality and so on.
	But the other thing is, in making these discoveries and in talking scientifically about it, we've actually applied these remote viewing procedures to a great many interesting problems And it might be worthwhile, just to summarize in a sentence or two, some of the major milestones, the major projects that we've undertaken.
	And so to give you an idea of how wide and how broad spectrum the level of discovery is with this new field of remote viewing.
	Would that be okay?
	Absolutely.
	Well, we have, of course, the project we had talked about so far, which is the Multiple Universe Project.
	Many of these projects are summarized on the DVD called The Farsight Experiments.
	However, another one is that there is an A base on Mars that is a technological base on Mars that is currently occupied.
	And we have a very good set of images supplied by NASA of an anomaly of a spray that was coming out on a hose that goes back to what looks like some domes.
	And we did a study where we had remote viewers go into that and actually look at, under totally blind conditions, The whole setup.
	And in fact, it is a spray.
	It's spraying off waste matter.
	And there's a really good picture of it.
	A good satellite image of it.
	With the shadow underneath it and so on.
	A good satellite.
	A good picture of the hose that's leading from it.
	And then we also had them and they did discover the domes and they went into the domes and it's apparently a group of beings.
	We didn't actually find out who the beings are.
	Some people think it could be anyone from a humans from earth in a black military project but there's other people like myself think it's most likely extraterrestrials but they're occupying a A facility that was apparently built long ago and not by the people who are currently operating it.
	A very fascinating study on life on Mars issue.
	Another project that we've done is of course the climate project that we've already discussed.
	The 2012 Or post 2012 period, which we've already discussed, which we hopefully will maybe come back to.
	And another one is that there was a planet that was between Mars and Jupiter that created the asteroid belt.
	And it actually exploded.
	And we have good solid data on that, the exploding planet hypothesis.
	And that was actually raised by a mainstream astronomer who was head of his department at the Naval Observatory, Thomas Van Flandern.
	And he proposed this And in fact, his theory turns out to be exactly correct, and our remote viewing data are very supportive of that.
	And again, that's another project that's described in detail in the Farsight Experiments DVD.
	However, there's yet other projects we have gone into, one of which I did originally thinking it would be something that we'd have at the Farsight Institute, but when the board met, it was considered too controversial for the Farsight Institute, so I had to release it as a completely separate project.
	a completely independent project, and that was dealing with the crucifixion of Jesus.
	And I released it as a DVD called The Crucifixion Ruse, and it has its own website, crucifixionrus.com.
	And it's a remote viewing study with one of the best remote viewers around, Des Smith.
	He does CRV and a version of it.
	And this was a study basically of the crucifixion because there was a set of books that were written by Jane Roberts, who was a person, an artist, and writer.
	Actually, she was a poet and writer who wrote a number of books channeling an entity, a personality called Seth.
	There are 11 books, and the Seth materials, all 11 books, the original manuscripts and communications are held within Yale University's Manuscripts and Archives Division.
	And it's been enormously influential, those 11 books, in the so-called New Age community.
	And I found that Seth's descriptions That were channeled in the 60s, 70s and early 80s.
	A physical reality exactly matched what we were discovering with our remote viewing studies.
	And so I said, well if Seth got all of that right, and there's no way Jane Roberts would have figured that stuff out before the time of remote viewing, then maybe he got some of the other stuff right.
	And one of the things he said was that Jesus was never actually crucified, but that somebody else was crucified in his place.
	And that Judas and Jesus, and maybe one or two other people, actually formed a conspiracy to They knew that Jesus was going to be arrested and crucified, and in the higher realms of existence, Seth says, dramatic confrontations between good and evil simply don't exist.
	And Jesus saw no reason to go through this, just because of a misunderstanding of having to combat evil that humanity had.
	But Judas and some others thought that this was something that humanity had to work through, that there had to be some type of sacrifice.
	And that there was another person who was mentally ill, deluded, who thought he was the Messiah.
	You know, in any religious or fanatical following that must have been following Jesus, there would have been people that would have come out that sort of were nutty.
	Well, this was one of those sort of semi-nutty people.
	And that he actually thought he was going to be the Messiah, this other guy, this mentally ill or deluded person.
	And he volunteered.
	And in fact, apparently Judas and maybe one others went up to him and said, You're right!
	You're the one!
	Do you want to volunteer for this?
	And he said, Yes, I'll volunteer for it.
	According to Seth.
	And he went through the crucifixion.
	And Judas, his role was to lead the authorities During the Garden of Gethsemane to that person to make sure that they didn't arrest the real historical Jesus to get that person arrested to go through that and he was also that guy was was drugged Which says why he couldn't carry the cross, why he didn't answer back when people were asking him questions, when he was being interrogated, and so on.
	It also explains why Peter denied this guy three times by saying, I don't know this guy, because in fact Peter was not in on the conspiracy and didn't know that guy.
	And a whole bunch of other things sort of came out of it.
	Anyway, but I read this thing in Seth, and initially I said, in Jane Roberts' accounts, and I said, this is just wild stuff.
	This can't be.
	But it gnawed on me.
	It just really gnawed on me.
	And so I said, what if it's true?
	So finally I asked Glenn Wheaton at the Hawaiian Removed Viewers Guild if I could task some of his best Removed Viewers with the Jesus Crucifixion thing.
	I've been a cantor.
	I'm not a cantor anymore, but I've been a cantor for many years in the Basilica here in Atlanta in the Catholic Church.
	And Glenn Wheaton was raised in an orphanage.
	He's a strong Catholic.
	And Glenn looked at me and said, Courtney, how can you of all people do something like this by even questioning such a thing?
	And so he refused.
	He said, no, he was not going to let his viewers do that target.
	So I had no other choice, but I said I didn't want to tell Len Buchanan about the project, about the idea of a project, so I sort of slipped it by him and just made an arrangement with a really good Remo viewer that has worked with us at the Forest Aid Institute for many years, and he has a really solid track record.
	A guy called Daz Smith in Britain, And I just said, would you like to do this project?
	And we did it.
	And lo and behold, I had six targets.
	They were all done totally blind.
	By the way, Daz had never read anything about Seth.
	And had no idea I would ever task him on anything dealing with the crucifixion.
	All of our projects over the past had been very verifiable type stuff.
	But I tasked him with six targets.
	One was Jesus at the moment of his physical death.
	The next one was Jesus at the time of the Garden of Gethsemane.
	Meaning, was he at the Garden of Gethsemane or was somebody else there?
	And then Judas at the time of the Garden of Gethsemane.
	And then also Judas at the time of his physical death and Jesus during the time of the crucifixion.
	Meaning where was Jesus?
	Was he up on a cross or was he someplace else?
	And then finally the actual person who was crucified.
	We wanted to see who that person was.
	And so we got all six targets really well done with a really great memo viewer.
	And I was triangulating the entire crucifixion event with six different approaches towards it.
	And they all smack dab hit right on the Seth story and nothing corroborated with the biblical account.
	And so the data came out totally supporting the Seth hypothesis.
	Jesus was nowhere near the Garden of Gethsemane when Judas was leading the authorities to arrest that guy.
	And Jesus was nowhere near the crucifixion.
	He was in fact hidden away someplace else in a dry area all by himself.
	He was an extremely advanced being, highly telepathic, and communicating telepathically with various entities, coordinating all of this stuff.
	He's a guy in charge.
	But he was not at those places.
	He was involved in this whole thing.
	That's great.
	I mean, I have to say that I read the Seth material when I was quite young and that, you know, I also am aware that Jesus was not crucified.
	However, there's also that idea that there is more than one Jesus.
	Are you aware of that?
	Well, there's all types of controversies, but the issue is we can start to get at some of these things with remote viewing.
	Let me just add one last thing, which is for those who are interested in this particular thing, understand that it was not done at the Farsight Institute.
	I'm releasing it just independently, and it has its own independent website, crucifixionruse.com.
	And it has a DVD that explains all of the results, which is called The Crucifixion Ruse.
	It's sold on Amazon.
	So for those people who would like to have an open mind and look at it...
	It is there, but that gives you an idea of how broad spectrum some of our explorations have actually gone, and even how people on my own board of directors at the Farsight Institute sometimes think, you know, are sometimes shocked by how far you can actually take this thing.
	So that was, that really rocked them, and they really said, oh, that's too much for us.
	Okay, now we're actually, I mean, we are running out of time here quickly, so I want to kind of go through a few things here, Courtney, and thank you for all of that.
	I have got people who are asking questions and one person who asked even questions.
	ahead of time for me to ask you.
	And so I just want to run a couple things by you.
	And then I also if there's any time at all at the very end, I still want to come back to my AI question.
	So, so basically somebody wants to know, have you guys communicated with other beings, other intelligences in your remote viewing sort of travels?
	Well, two things.
	Yes, and in those cases where I think you're talking about which are, you know, like extraterrestrials, aliens, things like that, some of those things have not been verified.
	So with regard to our remote viewing stuff, there are two types of remote viewing.
	Ones are things that can be verified.
	And we can say, this is the session, these are the data, this is the target, look how everything matches.
	And other times where things are, we have data, this is the session, but we don't have yet verification that that actually occurred.
	So, for example, with our Mars project, where we actually found a base.
	Now a lot of people said there are bases on Mars, but no one's ever found one.
	Here we actually have the exact location, the picture, And all the remote viewing results just sort of describe exactly what you see in the picture and what's inside the domes.
	And that, everything that's visually apparent on the surface of Mars in the picture, that we can say is verified.
	The remote viewer has found a spray, there is a picture of a spray.
	The remote viewer has found what looks like a pipeline, there is a picture, it looks like a pipeline.
	So that part can be verified.
	The domes can be verified.
	But what's inside the domes with the beings That cannot yet be verified.
	In that sense, I'd have to say, yes, there have been lots of experiences of remote viewers perceiving non-physical beings, aliens, things like that, but those Reports are entering the realm of the not yet verifiable stuff.
	Okay, let me ask you this.
	What about, you know, I've read Inga Swann's book, Penetration, about his experience remote viewing the moon, and I myself have remote viewed the moon and found some very interesting information.
	That I've actually verified or sort of have verified and you know that there's not enough time to go into that but what I would like to say find out is if your remote viewers ever remote viewed the moon and whether their information matched Ingo's you happen to know that?
	Well when Ingo did his remote viewing of the moon that was described in penetration which was sort of a setting that was More extreme than you find in a James Bond novel.
	Very interesting set of experiences.
	He did it with a very crude understanding of how the removing phenomenon itself worked.
	He thought he actually had to follow a line of sight with his thoughts going up to the moon.
	Also, he was knowing that the target was the moon and he was trying to get to some location that the monitor who was in front of them knew about.
	So when we do targets of the moon, we understand how the process works better now that we're farther along in the science of it.
	And we do under totally blind conditions, solo sessions, no monitor, no one to lead, and the targets are determined by some random selection process.
	So, I mean, we really control all the settings.
	And, yeah, there are weird things on the moon.
	But not only are there weird things on the moon, we have weird photographic evidence of things on the moon as well.
	Actually, two of my original books, which were in the speculative non-fiction realm, Most of the stuff I do now is straight science, but in the early days I was just experimenting and playing with, and I came out with two books.
	One was called Cosmic Voyage, and one was called Cosmic Explorers.
	And those are available as free downloads because they're out of print from my personal website, CourtneyBrown.com.
	Great, I'd love to read them.
	Yeah, and those books did dive into remote viewing sessions under blind conditions on the moon, Mars, and the past history of Mars.
	I can say, I normally talk about what we do know, what we've actually discovered with remote viewing, so I normally stick to the science stuff, but I can give sort of an overview of where I think we're going to be ending up.
	And so this is a bit speculative, but all the information I have really looks this is where we're going.
	And that is that there was a civilization on the planet that blew up between Mars and Jupiter.
	And I think we'll eventually determine that that blew up as an act of warfare.
	And that Mars also was destroyed.
	It had a It was destroyed partially as a consequence of the blowing up of the first planet, but also by warfare that included nuclear weaponry that occurred on the surface of Mars, which finished off the atmosphere.
	The Earth, I think it's going to turn out to be that we both had a situation of normal Darwinian evolution that's been taking place over a million years, just the way mainstream science talks about it.
	But I think we're also going to see that we've had a parallel situation of extraterrestrial genetic manipulation to produce humanity for us.
	And so, because humanity came about much too quickly, and really what we have is a situation in which it would have taken hundreds of millions of years to be what we came, but we sort of popped out of thin air really quickly.
	And I think what people are going to eventually find is that the extraterrestrials not only are here, but they've been here for a very long period of time.
	I also think that what it's going to turn out is that the idea of reincarnation of souls coming to the birth process to reincarnate is a natural and ongoing phenomenon.
	And I think what we're going to be seeing is eventually discovering that what's going on on Earth now, the drama of what's going on on Earth now, is actually the end of a story that started in the Orion system.
	You know, when you look up in the backyard and look up and you see the Orion constellation.
	I think what we're going to be seeing is that there was a major conflict That occurred Star Wars style and that it probably ended about 100,000 years ago and that souls or beings that were in that conflict were coming to Earth as a place of sort of refugees, a place to get here.
	And I think what's going to eventually turn out is that since then, since the end of that conflict, we've become essentially a prison colony.
	For people, souls that were involved in the creation of that conflict that happened in the Orion system, the only way they could get peace there was to banish those people so that they wouldn't keep reincarnating there, because they still had this polarity, this fighting stuff in their system they couldn't get out of, and that they're here, and that really what's going on now on Earth is the final resolution of the Orion stuff.
	Now totally, this is This is totally speculative, but based on everything that I've been seeing coming in over long times, I really think, in a nutshell, that's where all this remote viewing research is going.
	It's a huge, much bigger picture than anything you've ever imagined before.
	Well, actually, that's not so much different than what we talk about at Camelot, you know, just as a matter of course.
	Talk about the Orion, you know, coming from the Orions, the various beings that come from the Orion system, the various factions that are here on Earth now, that is all very much talked about by the various whistleblowers that we interview.
	So along those lines, are you aware of something called the U.S.
	Space Command?
	And in your remote viewing, are you remote viewing some of the secret space program that's actually operational now?
	No.
	We try to steer away from... We know that there are secret stuff going on.
	And we consciously at the Institute try to steer away from poking our nose into U.S.
	military operations.
	And the reason we do that is because in the very early days we ran into serious problems.
	The DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, has enormous resources.
	And They basically let us alone because we let them alone.
	We don't poke our nose into them.
	There are so many other things we can go into that are so interesting.
	We don't have to go into those.
	So we purposely stay away from those in order to not get their wrath.
	One thing I can say is the following.
	If you're ever wondering, you're listening to late night radio, for example, And you notice that there's sort of one person on one coming after the next and they're talking about all these crazy things.
	What I mean by crazy things is not things that are not real, but things that are just, you know, really out there.
	Everything from Bigfoot to anything else you hear.
	And you notice that nothing really happens.
	No real response.
	It's one person after the next talking about these things.
	And every once in a while somebody will come on and at first glance they seem just like everybody else.
	They're talking about one new crazy thing that seems really out there.
	But that person produces a huge result, meaning they're involved in a huge scandal, a huge type of blow up and it looks like they're involved in something that's, you know, showing that they shouldn't be involved in and they're scandalized and so on.
	Most of the time when that happens, that's an indicator that that particular person was stepping over the balance of something that the military didn't want to have come out.
	And so normally when those scandals come out, it's normally a situation of sort of indicating that there was something there there.
	Oh yeah, absolutely.
	And so when you're hearing all of these people, if nothing really happens and they just come on the show next week and the week after that and the month after that, then you can be guaranteed that the military is just sort of saying, We'll watch them, but we don't really need to bother with them.
	If you ever see something blow up on somebody, you'll know that, you know, why did it blow up?
	Well, they can make things blow up, and so one of the reasons we stay out of looking at U.S.
	military stuff is it's a surefire equation for getting something to blow up right in your face, and you have no control over it because they have tremendous resources, so we just stay away from it.
	Okay, I appreciate that.
	Okay, now we have got, you know, I'm sorry to say we've got like five minutes or even less.
	Okay, I'm grabbing a question from the chat.
	We have a chat room that goes on during the show and one of the questions here is asking about the Akashic Records, the Hall of Records.
	And also, well, I'm going to extend that to say, you know, the Sphinx.
	Have you guys ever remote-viewed that or tried to?
	No, but I think, well we have had many remote-viewing sessions of the pyramids and the Sphinx and things like that, but the idea of the Akashic Records I don't really completely understand from a remote-viewing perspective and that doesn't mean that what's said about the Akashic Records is wrong or right, it means that we just really haven't wrapped our heads around that yet.
	The idea, I think more in terms of frequencies, I think more in terms of superposition principles of wave packets, and somehow that relates to the idea of Akashic Records, but I don't know how to sort of connect the vocabularies yet.
	So, with regard to ancient civilizations, well, you know, we only have a few minutes left.
	I know.
	Are you going in that direction?
	We'll leave that for the next time that you invite me on your show.
	Would that be alright?
	That's wonderful.
	Yeah, and let me suggest a target for you.
	All right.
	Okay.
	Which would be the stones, Stone Circle down in South Africa, which I've actually made a documentary about with Michael Tellinger.
	And it's called the Stone Circles of I've been there several times.
	There's tremendous energy there.
	I highly recommend it if you guys decide to use it as a target.
	Well, first of all, I think it's an excellent target, but I also would like you to go there.
	I have a lot of psychic impressions.
	I'm not going to front load you or your group, but I would love it if you would choose that target.
	Lots of people go to Stonehenge and lots of people think about, you know, geese and all of that.
	This is an area that has been kind of untouched and not really talked about until Michael Tellinger and a pilot who discovered it made it more public.
	I'm sorry, yes?
	Hawkshead, you can go over a little if you'd like.
	I can say that I'm really big on African things.
	I used to live in Africa and I have a lot of African family members and I travel back and forth there all the time.
	So anything you say that says Go to Africa is a huge deal.
	I mean, I love that type of stuff.
	OK, excellent.
	So if you, you know, and of course, I have to put a plug in here for my documentary, which is really shot on site and all over the area.
	And so and my discussions that are ongoing on location with Michael Tellinger during the documentary, it's on the front page of Project Camelot, which you can projectcamelot.org.
	So, why don't you plug your website, and I guess they're saying we can go over.
	I don't know what that means, so I'm not sure, you know, I guess if we were able to go over, I guess I'd need to know how long we could go over, because we certainly have people's questions.
	Let me mention the website again, so people can see.
	The two things, and I'd be more than happy to come back.
	But the two things I'd like people to know right away is that the main website is www.farsight.org, F-A-R-S-I-G-H-T, like seeing far.org, O-R-G, because we're a non-profit.
	And the two DVDs, which are the easiest ways to get into what I'm doing, The first one is the Farsight Experiments, which is available, you can actually see about it on the Farsight Institute's website, farsight.org.
	The Farsight Experiments covers a lot of the practice that we've been doing, really keeps you up in terms of all the science and all the exciting stuff, including the exploding planet between Mars and Jupiter.
	The base on Mars, as well as multiple universes and multiple realities, and the Climate Project, which is the 2012-2013 stuff, if you want to see what actually happened and how all that data lines up.
	We barely touched the surface on this show yet about that particular project, and that project is only a few months away from being realized, so if those data are correct, it's very interesting.
	And then the other one is the Crucifixion Ruse, which is www.crucifixionruse.com.
	And the DVD is The Crucifixion Ruse, and if you have any real interest in taking a look at what we think actually did happen...
	During the crucifixion, at least that I think really happened based on my own study.
	That DVD is worth taking a good look at.
	Go ahead.
	Okay, well we are told we could go over slightly here and I'm just gonna, because you talked about 2013 and you talked about what in essence sounded like something of a cataclysmic timeline that you were able to get information on and it sounded like even maybe an Aggregate of timeline information for that period of time.
	Can you, are you able to, in this short period, I don't know, say next five minutes, maybe delineate some of the other things that you saw in 2013?
	Sure.
	Let me tell you what we basically did.
	We looked at these targets, and both, we looked at them in 2008, as well as 2013.
	Two timelines.
	2008 as well as 2013 Two timelines 2013 June 1st.
	We looked at Vaitupu Tuvalu which is an island Fort Jesus in Mombasa, Kenya, which is right on the coast.
	It's a ruins in Mombasa, Kenya.
	The Sydney Opera House in Sydney, Australia.
	Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania.
	The United States Congress Building in Washington, D.C.
	Mali International Airport at Mali in the Maldives.
	KITV Building.
	One of our great remote viewers, Jake Allgaier, is a celebrity newscaster at KITV in Hawaii.
	So we were interested to see what his building was going to look like in 2013.
	The Vehicle Assembly Building at Launch Complex 39 at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral.
	And then Key West in Florida.
	And what basically we found is in general, in terms of physical changes, And in terms of 2008, all the sessions were exactly as you saw them in 2008.
	Tourists were going to the beach and things like that.
	But in terms of the 2013, mid 2013 sessions, we found extensive impacts Of what appear to be large meteors leading to tsunamis and possible volcanism.
	That was really quite a surprise.
	I was not expecting anything like that.
	And we've got extensive and very forceful flooding of coastal areas because of these big waves.
	Excessive solar radiation and storms of very severe weather.
	In terms of the effects on humans, we got what appears to be massive self-organized relocation from the coastal areas.
	Refugees on foot.
	They weren't driving.
	Apparently the electrical and gas systems finished.
	the breakdown of rescue or other notable governmental functioning, the breakdown of the food supply system, and the breakdown of the vehicular transport system, and extensive loss of buildings near the coast.
	Now, I'm not saying I'm predicting this to happen.
	I'm just saying that these are what the data show, and we're in an odd situation of saying, I'm afraid we have to simply wait until mid-2013 to see if we got this correct.
	But we did get a binary result, meaning when the sessions were done, there was absolutely no way for any person to know if they were doing a 2008 or 2013 session, because that wasn't determined until the Dow Jones number picked it after all the sessions were done and downloaded by the universe, because that wasn't determined until the Dow Jones number picked it after all the sessions were done And in addition to that, they didn't know which timeline they were looking at.
	They didn't know anything about that.
	They didn't know the timelines.
	They didn't know what year they were remote viewing.
	They didn't know what the targets were.
	And a random number found on the Dow Jones, Dow Jones at some future point in time was the one that determined which target would be associated with which session.
	It was squeaky clean from a scientific perspective.
	And sort of the disaster results all piled up on June 1, 2013, both timelines, and nothing happened disaster-wise in 2013.
	And the fact that we got the 2008 stuff correct means I'm wondering, did we get the 2013 stuff correct?
	Well, right.
	And there are so many questions that could go in here.
	And, you know, if we talked all night, I might be able to get some of the questions in.
	But let me ask you this.
	Since you named, I don't know, the Sydney Opera House, these various locations, can you very quickly, at least Sure, sure.
	Well, the data for the Sydney Opera House had the Sydney Opera House still there.
	It had the idea of a tsunami hitting Sydney and washing things up, but the buildings were battered, but still standing.
	But there were no people, and one of the remote viewers actually said in one of the sessions, where'd all the people go?
	There's no people.
	And the person came in with really good descriptions, really good sketches of the Sydney Opera House.
	Of course, the person didn't, the viewer didn't know it was the Sydney Opera House.
	They didn't know anything about the park, but they drew the Sydney Opera House.
	And you know that very unique geography, the topography, the shape of the Sydney Opera House?
	Yes.
	It's so unique.
	So when you see the sketches, you say, wow, the guy was really on target.
	He really described the Sydney Opera House.
	That's what it looks like.
	And then he found people screaming out of Sydney in the desert by foot.
	With regard to Key West, we had basically people there, you know, foraging for food.
	With regard to Washington DC, it just doesn't look like it's a city anymore.
	It looks like it was destroyed.
	It's right at sea level, right on the coast.
	In terms of... Is it flooded with water, for example?
	Because we've got... No, but it looks like by mid-2013, according to these data, and I'm not predicting this, I'm just saying this is what the data say, the data seem to suggest that by mid-2013 a wave had gone through it and left the buildings a ramshackle, but they were still there.
	But the people were not, is that right?
	The session didn't have any people there.
	They had buildings there.
	And what about, let's see, there were a few other locations you looked at.
	Buildings that were a total wreck.
	Yeah, Vaitupu Tuvalu had people, well it was basically, actually that had less of a, they had people trying to find their way off the island.
	Okay, when you talked about volcanism, did you see, for example, at Yellowstone, or do you know?
	No, we didn't get anything like that, because we didn't target that.
	We were mostly targeting coastal areas.
	From Mount Kilimanjaro, we got, actually very interesting, when we got Fort Jesus, which is in Kenya, and Mount Kilimanjaro, which is very close by, but in Tanzania, we got tsunamis that hit the water in the Indian Ocean, near the coast of Kenya and Tanzania.
	And that not only smashed right up through Mombasa, but got as far as the base of Mount Kilimanjaro, which is about a hundred miles in.
	So, that's a big wave!
	I mean, if these data are correct, that's a really big wave!
	I mean, people are going to kill me, and regardless of the time, if I don't ask you about the California coast, did you look at that?
	No, we didn't do that.
	We, we, I did, we, there was only so many, I would, I literally took Google Earth, and I just sort of scanned it, and I picked a bunch of places, all scattered around, and one of the places we didn't do for 2013 was California, so we just simply don't know.
	I used to live in California so it's a place dear to my heart.
	We did the KITV building and it was just like Key West.
	Honolulu was before that in 2008.
	We did the KITV building, and it was just like Key West.
	Honolulu was, before that, in 2008, what we got is the KITV building in Honolulu was operating as a TV station.
	You should see the nice session.
	I mean, there's people operating the cranes and the cameras.
	It was great under totally blind conditions.
	It was spectacular.
	Really good session.
	And then for both timelines for 2013, we had people foraging for food, um, people trying to grow gardens.
	It looked like a big, things weren't, things weren't okay anymore.
	But there were still people there.
	So you're not talking about the end of civilization or the end of humanity or the end of the world, but Looks like it had gone through a bad day.
	But we don't see like cars running around and stuff like that.
	In all of these sessions you don't see electricity and cars.
	That's what you don't see.
	And you absolutely don't see any type of like helicopters, rescue equipment.
	It looks like the government's just gone.
	Again, I have to emphasize, I'm not predicting.
	I'm saying these are what the data say.
	I have to wait to see what's going to happen.
	This is a blind look at beyond 2012, and this is two possible timelines, but there was an interesting sort of what you said was an aggregation of data that indicated that there seemed to be, you said, something that was In other words, it was a larger event horizon.
	I don't know.
	Yes, if I were to interpret this with my current theory, it is that whatever is happening in the post-December 2012 period is of such large magnitude that it has such great spatial width that most timelines coming out of our current now intersect with it.
	It's hard to miss it.
	And so they're all just sort of plowing through it.
	So it's an event that seems to be, if the theory is correct, look, if 2013 June comes around and these things happen, what I will then say is, we now figured out a way to predict major events in the future.
	If they have a large spatial width, We can go after those events, and at those events, most timelines are going to have to go through it in the first place.
	So, it looks like there's a juggernaut of timelines, that all timelines from the past are converging into this juggernaut of 2012, December, and post.
	And they're squeezing through here, and then after that they fork out into timelines that branch out into multiplicities again.
	But they seem to be converging on this time period.
	So it's like, well, it's like Terence McKenna talked about.
	What you're describing is actually sort of chaos theory, right?
	And it's where they have an event horizon that narrows down so that there's the least amount of, what does he call it, something like the original occurrences in other words narrows yeah actually it's more like mathematically what you'd call catastrophe theory which is what mathematically you say we're arriving at a bifurcation point or a singularity or point in time in which small changes make a huge difference I
	I do think that's one of the reasons that so many extraterrestrials have sort of a hands-off status right now.
	They're not messing with us.
	They're observing us, watching us, guiding us, helping us, things like that.
	But there's not much direct intervention.
	And I think the basic reason is that so much is going on right now with this planet, with humanity.
	That they basically have a hands-off type of situation.
	By the way, I do want to leave this particular talk, and I hope you do invite me back, we've only scratched the surface, I do want to leave it with a very positive thought.
	And that is that the reason it's so important that we understand these issues is that if it is true that humanity is working out
	Some of the problems that are being resolved in the Orion conflict, and if it is true that we are in a level of existence that feels mostly cut off because of the lack of much of a overlap in our own superposition formations with other higher-level frequency dimensions, other densities, then it really matters that we learn about ourselves, that we discover ourselves, because
	That would mean that we came from other places where the transparency with other densities and other realms was easier.
	That we came here voluntarily to see if we could experience a reunification of ourselves from Yeah, I would agree with you, totally.
	In fact, I would say, this is actually something that, again, Asiana Dean talks about, but I've also said to crowds, which is, we're actually down here in a great experiment to see if we can all finally get along.
	Yeah, that's a good way of putting it.
	One thing you might add to that is that, if we succeed, And apparently we do.
	Then everyone everywhere everywhere in systems near us all throughout the galaxy and other galaxies could say that if humans did it under these circumstances anyone can do it.
	And in a very real sense what's happening here has great implications for the rest of the galaxy and other galaxies.
	This is a very crucial Experiment.
	And so everything that you and I are talking about tonight, we're not fringe.
	It may be fringe in terms of mainstream science on Earth, but the rest of the galaxy is looking at us and saying, Do it!
	Do it!
	Do it!
	If you can do it, that gives everybody hope that we can all do it.
	Because the conditions of being cut off are less in other places.
	If we can do it, humans can do it.
	Then everybody can do it.
	And I believe, I believe what I was told one time, Which is, this is the origin of what eventually becomes known as the Earth Legends.
	And that in the future, the far future, people, beings from other places, other realms, even other galaxies, will seek us out because they will wonder if it's really true.
	Could it really be that these humans that we've heard about actually existed?
	And that they discovered themselves under those circumstances?
	And if we can do it, anybody can do it, the origin of the earth legends.
	Carrie, you're on the cutting edge of something bigger than almost anybody could imagine.
	And I think that's what we're really, really talking about.
	Well, I think that's a beautiful way to put it.
	And I certainly appreciate you coming on, Courtney Brown.
	And I think that people are just thrilled with listening to you, with hearing all the various sort of ins and outs of what you guys have gone through, your group has gone through, in terms of your explorations as remote viewers.
	And I think it's quite fascinating.
	I'm getting people who are begging me to ask you back already.
	I've even been given a date.
	Someone in here said something like May 4th or something.
	I mean, you can certainly consult your calendar, whatever you want to do.
	Someone else wants to do a whole conference with you.
	There's a lot of interest, so I just want to say to you,
	That this is a fascinating topic, and you know, I don't know how much you've gotten out and talked about it yet in other places, but I can tell you there's an audience for you and for this subject big time out there, and you're very, very open-minded again, and so it's your lack of prejudice for one sort of point of view or another that I think really lends itself to this discussion and keeps it open.
	Yeah, actually, thank you very much, Kurt.
	Actually, I am just now starting to find places to talk about this.
	In other venues that I talk about, scientific conferences, for example, I just came back from the Towards the Science of Consciousness conference that happened in Tucson, Arizona, run by Stuart Hameroff, the professor at the University of Arizona.
	And he's worked with people like Roger Penrose and everybody who's in it, everybody who shows up there.
	Anyway, I just, I spoke there.
	Those are sort of just strict scientific discussions, and I'm giving some talks this summer at the Society for Scientific Exploration, for example, in Boulder, Colorado, at the University of Colorado Boulder.
	And again, those would be sort of scientific.
	So very narrow in their focus.
	So these opportunities to talk with you with a more wide angle view are rare for me, actually.
	And I actually appreciate it.
	And you know, should you ask me back, I would make the time.
	Thank you so much, Courtney.
	So, I guess we'll close down here.
	We've certainly gone over whatever time we're allotted, and they've been very, very generous to us on the radio station.
	They are clearly in support of hearing more from you.
	So, thank you very much for joining me here, and everyone, I guess, will be visiting.
	You'll probably get a huge upswing in visitations to your website, etc.
	And please stay in touch and let's do this again soon.
	Thank you, Carrie.
	You're welcome.
	Okay, so good night everyone and thank you for listening.

▲