Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 13, 2012 - Project Camelot

03:40:20

06/13/2012 - Courtney Brown - remote viewing developed by United States military for espionage purposes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	There is a Jaguar outside my
	door stretched out in her waiting for more dream she does cat I agree no way to escape no one here's my screen is going to be we're going to be interviewing Courtney Brown and Courtney why you introduce yourself to the audience because they will be watching and we've got a chat room here as well sure that's great you You can see my video fine, is that right?
	Yeah, you look great!
	Perfect.
	Okay, well, I'm, as you nicely introduced, I'm Courtney Brown, and I am a couple things, but I'm the director of the Farsight Institute, that's F-A-R-S-I-G-H-T, and we're an institute that studies the subject of remote viewing.
	Remote viewing is a mental procedure That uses procedures that were developed by the United States military and used for espionage purposes.
	And I am the leading scholar, the leading academic, I can say that clearly and I'll explain why, that studies remote viewing as it is done using the procedures that were developed by the U.S.
	military and used for espionage purposes, but now we use them for scientific experiments.
	Or procedures that are derivative of those methodologies.
	The reason I can say that I'm the leading scholar is because I am the only academic that studies remote viewing from the perspective of those procedures.
	And I have published numerous books on the subject, including a science book called Remote Viewing the Science and Theory of Non-Physical Perception.
	And a number of DVDs.
	In particular, the science projects that we do at the Foresight Institute are so widespread, so encompassing, that some people when they go to our website Uh, they're a bit overwhelmed with the amount of material that's there.
	So we have a DVD called The Farsight Experiments that helps to summarize, gets people on the ground, uh, really quickly on the ground running so that you can get an idea of the types of things we do.
	Again, we do scientific experiments, uh, of the projects that we've done recently.
	Over the last few years, we've done a project on multiple universes.
	Believe it or not, that's the reality that we live in, and we're not going to be talking about that tonight, but we have a large project that clearly shows that we do in fact live in a multiple universe environment, very similar to what you see when you saw the Old Star Trek films with multiple parallel universes or even the new Men in Black 3 movie that just came out.
	And so we also have done a study on an actual operational base on Mars with a clear NASA, Malin, JPL, A picture to go on with the clear anomaly of a spray nozzle pipeline leading to a dome.
	And we've done a huge remote viewing study on that.
	We've also done a project on an exploding planet that was originally proposed.
	Actually it was proposed a long time ago, but it was really solidly defended with a huge amount of planetary data by the late astronomer Thomas Van Flandern.
	Who was head of his Department of Celestial Mechanics at the Naval Observatory in the United States and we did a remote viewing study on that and the planet we call Maldek and it's between the orbit or was between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter and it did explode and so our data exactly corroborate the huge amount of planetary data that support the hypothesis that was developed that was accumulated By Thomas Van Flandern.
	And then we did something that was what we're going to be talking about tonight, which is the so-called post-2012 Earth changes, which we were looking for.
	What we originally were looking for is small climatic differences between the years 2008 and 2013.
	And it's found huge things that were totally unexpected.
	But that's what we're going to be talking about today.
	And all of those projects, plus the sciences associated with that, are on the DVD, The Farsight Experiment.
	So, as we go through the project tonight, and you want to get a little bit more, the DVD is really designed to get you on the ground and running.
	The experiments that we do are very unlike anything you've ever seen before.
	And it's very unlike people who just come on to the late night radio and say, oh, I had a bunch of remote viewers and they're the best in the world and they were and this is what we found.
	So we don't do that.
	What we do is the Farsight Institute is the only science shop anywhere available.
	There is no other place where you can go and you can see all of the sessions yourself, all of the explanatory information.
	Full descriptions of what happened.
	The track records, going back many years, of the remote viewers, the remote viewers that we work with, have generally been trained in the use of these military or military-derived procedures for a typical average of 10 years or more.
	They're really good at it.
	There's only like, there's fewer than 20 of such people on the whole planet.
	And we do experiments with these people.
	And these people were primarily trained by Glenn Wheaton and Lynn Buchanan.
	Glenn Wheaton is out of Special Forces Intelligence.
	And he came out of what is essentially a movement within Special Forces Intelligence that was later called the First Earth Battalion.
	And the other person we work with is Lynn Buchanan.
	And Lynn Buchanan came out of Defense Intelligence Agency, both out of the Army, but a different branch of the Army.
	And Lynn Buchanan is the leading trainer in CRV, or Controlled Remote Viewing.
	And Glenn Wheaton is the leading trainer in HRVG, or Hawaii Remote Viewing Guild Procedures.
	And those two groups are literally the best anywhere for doing these types of things.
	Again, I got my PhD Yeah, with a focus on mathematical modeling in Missouri, at Washington University.
	And Missouri is very useful in this context, because Missouri is the so-called show-me state.
	So I'm never asking anyone to believe me, saying something's going to happen.
	I don't make any predictions.
	I simply show you what the data are, and explain how we got the data, and describe what the data say.
	And then I let you draw your own conclusions and then I say these are the viewers, these are the track records of these viewers, all of that information is available for free on our website at www.farsight.org.
	That's F-A-R-S-I-G-H-T.
	I have heard from a number of people that they are overwhelmed a bit when they come to the website because there's so much there.
	That's why we designed the DVDs like the Farsight Experiments to Make it sort of OK.
	But anyway, that's a basic background of me.
	I am the leading scholar that studies remote feeling from the perspective of that.
	It's a mental procedure that allows viewers to transfer information across time and space, past, present and future.
	Now, the physics of this is very, very different from what you're taught in school, in high school and college.
	You will have to wait about 20 years before they teach this stuff casually in colleges, but that's the normal process.
	Everything that you're taught in college is the dominant stuff that the people who are 45, 50, for example, years old, developed when they were in graduate school.
	So, you know, it's the young people that are in graduate school now that are going to replace the older people, and there's a time lag for that type of stuff.
	But the physics we do now understand, and I went into a little bit of the physics in an interview I had with Carrie Cassidy.
	I don't do remote viewing research at my university.
	So that recording is still available.
	So if you are interested in some of the physics that we talked about then, that's a good place to go.
	Also, if you're the type that reads, a lot of people don't read these days.
	I mean, I'm a college professor.
	I don't do remote viewing research at my university.
	I teach math courses in a social science application.
	But nonetheless, a lot of college kids across the country, they don't read these days.
	But if you are a reader, my book, Remote Viewing the Science and Theory of Non-Physical Perception, is a good place to get a lot of the physics that's associated with this.
	So anyway, that's a basic introduction, Gary, unless you'd want me to add something more?
	No, that's great.
	Thank you very much for that.
	I think that people might, before we go into all of the sort of data that you're going to cover, people might like to know the distinction between what you do and what the military does.
	In other words, how the methods might be different.
	Well, for controlled remote viewing, which is done by Lynn Buchanan, who came out of the D.I.A.
	That's pretty much the way the military did it, exactly.
	And very similarly with the procedures that are Hawaii, when what we were called procedures, came out of Special Forces.
	They had different people that were the sort of the creative genius behind them.
	For the Special Forces stuff that Glenn Wheaton teaches, That was, the genius behind that was Dr. Richard Ireland.
	He was a natural psychic, but he was also brilliant.
	And he came up with, that's the genius behind those procedures.
	The procedures for controlled remote viewing, they were essentially developed by Ingo Swann.
	And he worked with the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency in coming up with those procedures.
	So, Glenn Wheaton and Lynn Buchanan pretty much followed the same guidelines they had earlier on, but it's in the application of these procedures that everything differs between what we do and what the military did.
	In the application, the military used those things operationally.
	Now, officially, the governmental programs, when they became public, they were closed down.
	Now, they were closed down in the mid-90s.
	The military knew.
	I was not in the military, so I don't try to give a lot of history about the military projects, but nonetheless, the basics is that when they knew that the program was going to become known to the public, they basically declassified it and let it be openly known.
	And then they said that they closed it down and won't ever do it again because it was a bit of a scandal doing psychic stuff in the military.
	But many people, including myself, are beyond 100% convinced that they opened up a new project and they have a very active remote viewing project going on now.
	Some of the information I heard is astounding with regard to the types of things they're trying.
	But, you know, that's not available to the public.
	And if and when it ever does become available to the public, I am certain they will close it down immediately and say, oh, that was some rogue unit.
	We don't know how it ever started.
	We missed that one.
	Don't worry, we won't do it again.
	And then they will immediately open up yet another one.
	The remote viewing itself, the military has never The U.S.
	government has never walked away from the value of the process.
	What they have walked away from is trying to deal with the public with things like that.
	They actually don't want the public to be really conversant, especially mainstream, about the remote viewing phenomenon.
	It's, you know, they think of it in terms of espionage purposes.
	I think of it in terms of science purposes.
	But from espionage purposes, there are no longer any secrets.
	But from science purposes, it's really fascinating.
	So we cover, we use these things not for spying.
	We use these things for investigations on the nature of physical reality, the nature of parallel universes, the nature of time.
	And next week, for example, I'm going to the University of Colorado at Boulder.
	For the Society of Scientific Exploration and giving a presentation on the physics.
	Now, I'm a mathematician, and I've spoken in university settings and prestigious settings among groups of physicists, including Nobels, across the world, across the country.
	And I often present information with respect to the mathematics.
	Well, I'm giving a very intense presentation in Boulder.
	On the mathematics of remote viewing, on the level of quantum mechanics.
	Don't worry, we're not going to be doing that today.
	But, again, it's because I'm a mathematician that I can get into the understanding of how it could work in the first place.
	And it's also really fun.
	If you know anything about math, you can really get into the quantum mechanics itself and realize where the quantum mechanics people, the greats, I mean people like Niels Bohr and Werner Heisberg, Where they made mistakes.
	You can actually say, oh gosh, that's where they messed up.
	And when you have an experience like that, it's so great.
	It's so fun.
	I mean, you look at people like Einstein, for example.
	And Einstein, of course, came up with two great relativity theories.
	One was a special relativity theory, which is dealing with time and space.
	But the other was general relativity, which was gravity.
	And he made a mistake in the gravity and the general relativity stuff.
	And it was a simple mistake.
	It was actually a derivative mistake.
	It was a simple screw-up.
	He just messed it up.
	But in this huge level of mathematics that was very complicated, other people then went through it.
	And eventually somebody found out, saw the mistake and corrected it.
	And then they said, well, hey, if you follow things through after fixing that silly mistake it must have been like a typo.
	You get black holes.
	Well, Einstein was so upset that he made a mistake that for 10 years he denied it was a mistake and tried to defend it.
	His ego was at fault.
	But it's so great when you make a discovery like that.
	By the way, 10 years later, he finally confessed he made the mistake and said, OK, so what?
	There's black holes.
	Let's go on.
	But anyway, when you look at quantum mechanics and you look at it and you realize the mistakes that Werner Heisberg made and Niels Bohr made, other people who support the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and then you put two and two together and follow the dots and connect everything and you come up with a perfectly reasonable explanation for why remote viewing works on the So exciting to do stuff like that.
	But again, we're not going to be talking about that today, so you don't need to worry your viewers and listeners.
	We will be talking about the post 2012 stuff, which is incredibly interesting.
	Okay.
	Well, thank you, Courtney.
	That's great.
	I have to say that I would like to go down that road discussing a little more of the background in terms of the physics of why remote viewing works.
	But what we'll do is, because we have a focus for this particular live stream, let's follow our agenda, and then if we have time at the end, maybe we can go into that.
	Sure.
	And you can, you know, I've got a good relationship with you, Carrie.
	Anytime you want me back for another interview that goes into any particular aspect, be it on the radio, the internet, video, whatever, livestream, you can always just ask me.
	Excellent.
	Thank you very much.
	That would be great.
	Okay, so what would you like me to start with?
	Okay, well, first of all, I guess we want to talk about the question at hand, and for some reason my Skype sort of pictures have just done something very strange, so I apologize for that, everyone.
	I don't know what's going on here.
	Can you still see me?
	Uh, no.
	There you are.
	Okay, great.
	I'm not sure what happened there.
	Okay.
	I'm still moving, correctly?
	I think what's happened is you might have lost one of the radio stations.
	It's like they're there.
	It's hard to say.
	Okay, we'll just assume that everything's working.
	So, at this moment, what I'd like to do is set up the problem, so to speak, that you guys, you know, how you began to set up the whole situation, how you use a blind kind of, I'm not sure how you do it exactly, but I assume you use kind of this numerical Yeah, I'll explain how we set it up and then you'll understand why it really takes a scientist to do this type of stuff.
	That's why we get trained as scientists to set these things up.
	But this was a novel experiment that we really had to do.
	Now, understand, back in 2008, We had a desire, I had a desire, to look at, to see if remote viewing could be possibly used to discern subtle levels of climate change.
	Maybe a little extra inch in the rise of the sea level.
	Perhaps a little bit less or more snow on the top of Mount Kilimanjaro.
	Things like that.
	So we did an experiment between June 1st, 2008 and June 1st, 2013.
	Five years.
	2008, and June 1st, 2013, five years.
	And we just, I was hoping to be able to see anything.
	Well, if we saw any little difference at all, I'd say, well that's something.
	We made an observation and let's wait till June 1st, 2013 and see what happened.
	But we got huge, huge, huge stuff!
	And so, this is how we, so in order to understand how huge all this stuff is, you have to understand how we set, or how I set up the experiment.
	Okay, so this is it.
	We have a situation in which all remote viewers absolutely must, must, in order for the process to work, they must work blind.
	They cannot be told remote view the Eiffel Tower.
	Their memory and everything else would come back in, their imagination.
	So they must be totally blind.
	They must simply know that there's a target.
	That's it.
	Nothing else.
	They go into a room with a stack of paper, a pen.
	An hour later, they come out with 20 pages of data exactly describing the target.
	The target is a thing that they're supposed to perceive.
	They don't know anything about it.
	If they know even the slightest amount, it can throw off everything.
	So it's very important that they work in what we call blind, blind conditions, knowing nothing.
	If they don't know anything, then we can get really great data.
	So, and this is not a situation where someone can say, oh, but if they get really good, then they can work with, you know, knowledge of the target.
	No, it doesn't work that way.
	If they're really good, they don't want to know anything about the target, because then they can trust the stuff that's coming through using the remote viewing procedures.
	Okay, so what I did was I set up an experiment in which we had A variety of targets across the large part of the globe.
	Those targets were Vaitupu Tuvalu, an island in the South Pacific, right at sea level.
	You know, if the sea level rose a little bit in five years, I thought maybe we might be able to notice a little bit of change in Vaitupu.
	Fort Jesus.
	That's a Portuguese fort on the coast of Kenya in Mombasa.
	It's a museum.
	It's an old fort that's been ruined.
	People go, tourists go to see it.
	The Sydney Opera House in Sydney, Australia with that distinctive architecture.
	Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania.
	Well, we wanted to see if there was a little bit of a change in the snow levels on the tops of that mountain.
	The United States Congress Building in Washington, D.C. Mali, by the way, the United States Congress Building is essentially at sea level.
	Well...
	Mali International Airport in the Maldives.
	The KITV building in Honolulu, Hawaii.
	One of our great remote viewers, Dick Allgaier, works as a celebrity newscaster in KITV in Honolulu.
	The Vehicle Assembly Building at Launch Complex 13, Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, Florida, Cape Canaveral.
	And finally, Key West in Florida.
	So those are the targets, and those are the places that the viewers were supposed to look at.
	And they didn't know those targets, of course.
	And then there were two years, 2008 and 2013.
	2008 and 2013.
	Now, 2008 was June 1st.
	2013 was also June 1st.
	So a clear five-year gap.
	However, we have been concerned at that point with this idea that there might be multiple realities.
	We know there are multiple realities now, but back in those days in 2008, we were concerned with trying to be able to control future realities.
	Now, I'm going to say something that I'm not backing up with the discussion of physics, but if we were talking about the physics of remote viewing, trust me, I would go on for a number of hours talking about the physics, and I would explain it to you.
	You can get a lot of that explanation on the DVD, The Farsight Experiments, if you want it.
	But for right now, I'm just going to give you the results.
	And the results is that if you're going into the future, there, and please, everyone listen to this, there is no such thing as predicting the future.
	You cannot say that X is going to happen.
	Because we do live in a multiple reality context.
	That means there are other realities in which, um, well, you know, Carrie, I'm not seeing your video picture, so can you just tell me what is the color of your blouse?
	Um, uh, well, I guess, um, sort of deep pink.
	Okay.
	Well, there is another reality in which you're wearing, say, a purple.
	Or another one in which it's scarlet, or another one in which it's blue, and another one in which you get the idea.
	And so, there are multiple realities in which every possible thing actually does happen.
	Now, we don't have trouble reviewing the past or the present, because in our minds, we know where we are in the present.
	In the context of multiple realities, we don't need to worry about all of them, because they are all as legitimate and as real as the one we're perceiving now.
	Now, this may seem hard to understand, but there is physics behind it that we're not going into, but it does all tie together.
	So you can sort of say, well, why is it that the present is so easily discernible as one?
	Well, it's discernible as one because we are locking on to one reality.
	Our brains are actually connecting to one particular reality, the here and now that we see.
	And we also have one perceived past.
	That means we have a timeline that goes from our present now that goes into the past.
	So when we remote view the past, we know where we want to be.
	We know that we want to be at some point in the past that existed in our timeline.
	So we don't worry about these alternate timelines.
	But, in the future, we haven't gotten there yet, and the alternate timelines are all very real.
	So, when we remote view the future, it is impossible to say, this will happen exactly.
	Only thing that can be said is there are probabilities for such a thing to happen.
	Some things are more probable than others.
	And one of the things that's really tripped up physicists with respect to understanding this mathematically, they said, they're very aware of this problem of multiple realities.
	And it's very mainstream now.
	Even Brian Greene, the very mainstream physicist, just wrote a book on the hidden realities.
	So, the idea of these multiple realities is very current.
	Young graduate students in physics are really excited about these ideas.
	And so the basic idea is if everything happens, how can there be probability?
	If everything happens, everything should just happen.
	There should be no probability.
	They don't quite understand the nature of timeline momentum, in which certain things are more likely to happen based on the momentum of the history that you have in your particular timeline.
	And so, we have probabilities for the future, but we don't have a single deterministic thing for the future.
	And no one can solve that problem, not even the most advanced ETs, extraterrestrials.
	No one can solve that Some things are very, very subtle and very slight in the future.
	And really, they don't affect what happens in other timelines.
	But some things, some events are so big, they can affect other timelines.
	And some things can be really so big, that they affect almost all of the timelines.
	So if something really, really, really big is happening, Then it becomes like a juggernaut, and all of the various timelines have to funnel through it, because it's of such great magnitude.
	For example, this is not going to happen in our future, so I'm coming up with an imaginary thing, okay?
	Let us say that there is a civilization around a star, and the star goes supernova.
	The whole thing explodes.
	Well, there can be a zillion timelines for the civilization that's around that star system, But, you know, with people wearing different things and different timelines, doing different things in different timelines, but all the timelines have to go through the juggernaut of the star-going supernova.
	It affects everything.
	It's too big a thing.
	Now, let's go back to that same civilization and say they had a city in which there was an earthquake.
	Well, that's a big event, but it's lesser than the star-going supernova.
	So, that event Would affect a whole bunch of timelines, but you'd have sometimes some timelines having a huge earthquake that would be devastating for that city, but other timelines they would feel rumbles and maybe a couple pipes broke, but nothing devastating.
	And other timelines they'd feel maybe just a gentle shaking of the building.
	It encompasses.
	So what we think, what I think has happened with the 2013 data that we have across these various places, we have an attempt to look at two different timelines.
	And the experiment is that if we specify characteristics of the two timelines in advance, can we then see what's Ahead on those two timelines.
	Now neither one of those two timelines might be, would be ours, but they might be close.
	And so we want to say, well if our timeline does more, is more like X, Y, and Z, well what does that timeline look like?
	Well what if it's more like A, B, and C?
	What does that timeline look like?
	And so if we sort of say, if we say this timeline with these characteristics looks like that, and the other timeline with those characteristics looks like that, we then offer ourselves the opportunity to change our behavior so that we can end up like Timeline A or Timeline B. So what we did was we specified two different timelines for 2013 for all of these targets.
	And then these two different timelines were The first one was the timeline in which the leadership of the mainstream global scientific establishment continues to ignore or deny the reality of the remote viewing phenomenon and existence of life not originating from Earth.
	The idea is if they did acknowledge anything like that, like remote viewing and any aspect of extraterrestrial life, even microbial, it might make humans react to the planet differently and we might do things differently and we might improve our climate.
	And the other timeline was in which the leaders of the mainstream global scientific establishment do recognize the reality of remote viewing and the existence of life not originating on Earth.
	Okay, Courtney, let me ask you a question here just to fine-tune this slightly.
	You're saying the members of the mainstream reality acknowledging the reality of First of all, remote viewing, and secondly, visitors from other... Well, no, any aspect of extraterrestrial life, even microbial.
	And it was the mainstream scientific community that we were looking... if they did this recognition, Would the climate be any different?
	You're only looking at the mainstream scientific community.
	You were not looking at, for example, governments.
	Right.
	In fact, I was basically assuming that the government responds to things that happens.
	It does not act proactively.
	So I was saying, let's see what happens if Someone brave in the scientific community steps up and says, hey guys, let's get over it.
	This remote-viewing stuff, it really happens.
	Let's just acknowledge it and move on.
	And then of course it would cause a big stir, and we'd have to do some demonstrations of remote-viewing.
	People would ask for demonstrations, which we can do now, and so on.
	But the idea is if they did acknowledge the reality of remote viewing, then everything else that we've discovered with remote viewing would become known.
	And then people might say, oh, wow, we really have to then protect our planet.
	We have to do something.
	That was the original idea.
	Again, we were not expecting major Earth changes at all.
	We were expecting subtle things.
	But very fortunately, from the perspective of our experiment, the changes were huge.
	And that was really great, because then it gave us a binary result.
	If we got subtle stuff, You know, people could always say, yeah, but it's just some just by chance.
	But by getting major stuff, we set up the experiment really nicely just by chance to test the idea.
	If there's major change, then it can affect a whole bunch of timelines, including our timelines.
	So now the other thing I want to do is just to be able to tell your viewers and then we can get into the actual results.
	I want to tell your viewers and listeners how we actually controlled the assignment of targets to the sessions.
	Now this is going to twist everyone's head around a little bit, so just bear with me.
	Remote viewing really works independently of time, so you can really transfer information across time and space.
	Now scientists, physicists, are terrified with this idea because It's been known since the advent of information theory in the 1970s that information is identical to mass, real things.
	In fact, there's been a thought experiment that's been around for a long while, and it was just recently confirmed experimentally that you can actually translate information into energy.
	You can actually... and now, that may seem non-obvious to the non-scientists, but... Well, actually, Arthur C. Clarke did that in one of his books.
	Yeah, but now they've actually done it in laboratories.
	So, actually, information is a different form of energy, as oddly as that may seem.
	So, when we're transferring information with remote viewing, it's the same as if we're transferring mass or energy.
	So, the physicists are really disturbed by the remote viewing implications.
	But the basic thing is, what we had is, we had all those targets, nine targets, and we had three times, June 1st, 2008, and June 1st, 2013, two separate timelines.
	So, what we did was, we said, okay, everybody start, do your sessions first.
	So, everybody did sessions.
	They didn't know anything about the timelines.
	They didn't know anything about the The locations, the targets themselves, they didn't know, for example, Malé International Airport or KITV building, they knew nothing about that.
	But they did these sessions, and they did a whole bunch of sessions, but they didn't know, there was no way they could have known, whether they were doing a session for 2008 or 2013.
	You see what happened was, We had a rule.
	I developed a rule saying, let's say there's 17 or 18 sessions and 18 targets.
	That means we need each target has to be associated with each session, meaning a target and a session have to match up so you can look at the session data and compare it to the target.
	For example, you look at the session for remote viewing for KITV building and you look at the target for KITV building and see if the session looks like the target.
	Well, what we did is I created a rule such as Target 5 is associated with Target 3.
	I mean, sorry, Target 5 is associated with Session 3, or Target 7 is associated with Session 1, and so on.
	And that rule, associating all of our targets with the various sessions, I came up with 999 randomly jumbled versions of that rule.
	So, there were all sorts of different ways you could match up a target with a session.
	I put all 999 plus another rule at the top of those 999 on an encrypted file in the internet on the website for the Farsight Institute, Farsight.org, F-A-R-S-I-G-H-T dot org, O-R-G, And that 999 possible target associations was put up on the website and literally tens of thousands of people downloaded it.
	Well, that rule that was at the top of that file said, which rule of these 999 will actually be used will be determined by the last three integer digits, the last three integer digits of the Dow Jones number on Friday, June 4th, 2008.
	So, all of the sessions were done months before that.
	They started early in 2008 and by May, actually by around April, all of the sessions were encrypted in 256-bit military-grade encryption, put up on the website.
	Tens of thousands of people around the planet were downloading them, holding them so that we couldn't cheat.
	We had to wait until June 4th.
	And on June 4th, I posted the password for the file that had all of the target associations.
	And then people looked at the top line and they said, oh my goodness, the Dow Jones number tells us which one of these works.
	So they looked at the top line and they saw the Dow Jones number.
	I believe it was 243 or something like that.
	So they looked down at the Rule 243, whichever number it was, and that was the rule that associated which target with each session.
	So while the viewers were doing their sessions, which was months earlier, there was no possible way, in any manner, not even me, nobody could have known, which session was going to be associated with which target.
	So it was totally, totally squeaky clean, blind, squeaky clean scientific.
	It was perfect.
	And so, it was basically an absolute perfect randomization of the targets and the sessions, so that we can say that, you know, what our analysis of the sessions is, it was not based on any type of predisposition for me.
	Because the sessions were randomly associated with the targets.
	So then we now looked.
	We then clipped them together.
	Which target is associated with which session?
	And we looked at the results.
	Now, Carrie, if this is enough background, perhaps I should sort of summarize what we found, and then we can go into details.
	What would you like me to do?
	Okay, well, I mean, I'm appreciating all of this explanation.
	I don't know if other people are.
	It's hard to say, but I do appreciate it.
	So, if you were going to go to the next step logically, what would be the next step logically?
	Well, the next step logically is simply to start presenting some of the differences that we found between the 2008 and 2013 targets, both timelines for 2013.
	Because, remember, we cannot predict the future, but we are experimenting to see if we can describe two timelines and then to see if our particular timeline matches Either one of those timelines or be or is sort of close to not matches exactly but it's sort of close to The results are so astounding that it may not matter Which timeline we are on?
	But when you see the actual results one of the things that you should say immediately is Wow, you know if it was totally random Why did all of the huge change in?
	Happened only in the 2013 targets, on those sessions.
	Why didn't any of the big change happen in the 2008?
	Now, we all know what happened in 2008.
	The tourists were still going to Vaitupu Tuvalu and Fort Jesus and the Sydney Opera House.
	It was still a sunny day.
	Malcolm and Jara was still sparkling in the sun.
	The U.S.
	Congress building was still there, the Mali International Airport was still there, the KITV building was still pumping out news stories, Key West was still filled with surfers and snorkelers and everything like that.
	So the 2008 sessions, which by the way are all up free on the Institute's website, again it's a little bit It's daunting to realize we have so much information.
	So if you go there and you get overwhelmed, start with the DVD, The Farsight Experiments, and that will get you on the ground running, and that will really explain everything and pull it all together.
	But the one question you should be adding is, why did the viewers find all things in 2008 so nice?
	And why did they find 2013 stuff so very different from nice?
	Okay, so let me stop you there just because I want to be clear here.
	Yes.
	You're referring to 2008.
	You've got two timelines there as well as two timelines.
	They both start with one timeline.
	They have a starting point of 2008.
	The two timelines branch off From 2008.
	So you don't actually get two timelines separately until 2013, but they both start at one point on 2008.
	Okay, and then let me ask you this question, which, you know, might be leaping ahead, but I'm actually... No, it's great.
	Okay, so we start with one timeline in 2008, the one we know, I assume.
	Yes.
	Then it diverges once you ask the question, which is the question you posed, Which again pertains to what happens to those timelines if one of these things is true and one of these things is not true in the other, meaning the thing that we're talking about which is scientists acknowledge these, the two realities.
	Exactly.
	Discussed.
	Which, okay, and then you're saying you've got information about 2013, but you've got timelines in 2013.
	Yes.
	So those timelines have to give you, one timeline gives you the answer with the scientists having acknowledged the reality of remote viewing and life on other planets.
	Was that a worse scenario or a better scenario?
	Slightly better, slightly better.
	Slightly better?
	Slightly better, which tells, which my interpretation is that it makes a bit of difference, but apparently the events that are This seems to be heading in our way, of sufficient magnitude, that it wasn't enough to make a huge difference, but it did make some difference.
	My own speculation, and we haven't yet discussed what the results are, but my own speculation is that with the scientific community acknowledging the reality of remote viewing, it then puts the entire planet on
	situation of open being open to new ideas and then people will start to realize that we have to change the way we think and the serving of self won't work in this situation like this we really have to talk about working together and so i'm assuming that the differences that we do see are results of people interacting coming together working as groups
	uh in a common in a common frame of mind to help getting through some of the troubled times i mean Okay, so... And if you don't have that, if the scientific community doesn't do that, then the possibility is that the civilization simply hits the wall.
	Okay, but I guess now we need you to say exactly how it played out.
	Okay.
	The information you received, and then we'll kind of delve into it from there.
	All right, fine.
	And I don't mind going back into the technical aspects of the study.
	I personally like that a lot.
	I just don't want to More people.
	But as long as you're thinking it's still good, you can have me dive back into that.
	And again, I do go into that a lot in the DVD, so if people want to go there, that's one place.
	But getting into the results, let me start with a summary, if that's alright.
	And then we can get into specific sessions so that you can actually see examples of what I mean.
	The remote viewing data I have organized in terms of two basic things.
	One are physical changes in many of the geographical locations by mid 2013.
	And then we have the changes that they affect humans.
	So how humans are reacting.
	So let's look at what the physical changes are.
	The physical changes.
	We have viewers who are really good and have extensive track records that are well published on our website.
	You know who they are.
	You see what they've done.
	We did, for example, a full year multiple universe project.
	Sessions done with projects every single month for a whole year.
	So you can look at how good they are as viewers for a whole year.
	Target after target after target.
	And what they seem to find are impacts of all things.
	From what appear to be large meteors leading to tsunamis and possible volcanism.
	If you didn't think I was surprised by that one, then you're really mistaken.
	I was really surprised by that.
	We also have the extensive and forceful flooding of coastal areas.
	I'll give you examples later, but I'm not talking about something small.
	Excessive solar radiation and storms and other severe weather.
	Okay, now in terms of the effects that these changes have on humans, we have massive Self-organized relocation from coastal areas.
	Essentially, refugees.
	The breakdown of rescue or other notable governmental functioning.
	The breakdown of the food supply system.
	The breakdown of the vehicular transport system.
	And extensive loss of buildings near coasts.
	So, it really looks from these data... Now, mind you, there might be a problem with our data in this sense.
	We were looking at a lot of coastal areas, so if we see a lot of problems in the coastal areas, that's where we were looking.
	We really didn't look in places like Iowa.
	So we didn't, we were looking, we were originally hoping to see if we could find some climate changes, and we thought that the coastal areas might be more susceptible to climate changes, so that's where we were looking.
	what's happening in the inner parts of places like the inner parts of Europe or the inner parts of United States or other places we really know a lot about the coastal areas well from these coastal areas we saw people leaving these coastal areas a lot of people having very difficult time the idea of looking for a safe haven going someplace is getting out I just want to reiterate this is on both timelines for 2013
	Yes, but it was a little bit worse for the timeline in which the mainstream scientific community continued to ignore or deny the reality of the rainbow viewing phenomenon.
	Very interesting.
	It was a little bit worse.
	I really would have loved to have seen it.
	What does it mean a little bit worse?
	Can you use an example for what a little bit versus a bad bit would be?
	Well, the best way to say that would be the actual percentages.
	And the percentages, what we mean by a little bit worse, Is that the percentages of the number of sessions that were really bad went up in the timeline in which the scientific community refused, continued to ignore or deny the reality of the remote viewing phenomenon.
	So essentially we're getting more than 50% of the sessions for 2013 showing complete wipeout disasters for those areas.
	Okay, what?
	Okay, and then this is again the specific areas that you selected, correct?
	Yes, yes.
	And again, we were not looking at places like Iowa and Kansas.
	We were looking at coastal areas.
	So our data are really quite focused on the coasts.
	I understand, and just to run down that really quickly, we've got somewhere in Africa, we've got, do you want to just run down that Key West?
	Yeah, okay, just in places, we have an island in the South Pacific, on the coast of East Africa, the coast of Australia, Sydney, a mountain that's not far away from Mombasa, Kenya, but this is the Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania.
	So we have two locations in Africa that are not far away.
	One's a mountain, one's coast.
	Well, that's the US Congress building, Honolulu, Key West, Mali and the Maldives, things like that.
	Okay.
	So, so, but the distinction, I guess I'm still waiting for the distinction between how bats So in other words, if you come up with, you said, better than 50% sort of negative reports of massive, massive earth changes in at least the coastal areas for 2013, and we're going to also be wondering when in 2013 and as a result of what in 2013, if any of this came through.
	But if you had 10 remote Viewing reports.
	Yes.
	And you've got, um, are you talking about 90% of them?
	Are you talking about 60% of them?
	Yeah, actually, um, there's no way I can do this except tell you the actual numbers.
	And those numbers, I wasn't expecting this question.
	So I will have the numbers for you.
	Maybe if we can talk about something else while I'm clicking on a couple things to get you those numbers.
	And I will have those numbers in about 30 seconds.
	I'm sorry, sure.
	You're asking very good questions.
	I just was not prepared for that.
	And so I will have those for you in Matter of moments, but you can I can talk I can talk while I'm getting that information.
	Okay.
	Well, then if you want to describe the changes because you're when when somebody says Earth changes, there's a list that you can go through and I guess what we would like to know also for if the people listening I would have assumed would like to know Um, what's on the list?
	Like, what are the most, the main things on the list?
	And one would assume things like volcanism, for example, or earthquakes.
	And then from there you go on the list, and I assume that also, um, kill shots from the sun, made notorious by Ed Dames, who you will be familiar with, is another one that you might have put on that list.
	But if it's not on the list, then, you know, maybe we should know why not, and so on.
	Yeah, actually, that Kill Shots thing is an example of stuff we don't do, because the problem with that Kill Shots idea is that we have absolutely no idea of who the viewers are, their track records,
	We've never seen the sessions.
	So that's the type of problem.
	Okay, what I'm saying is, did you factor the Sun and solar flares and CMEs into the Earth changes?
	No.
	We simply looked at what those places on the Earth looked like.
	Okay.
	And then By the way, I have the numerical data for you now.
	But we looked at what the earth looked like in these places and simply reported back what it looked like.
	So this is totally different from the type of thing that you're asking about with this kill shot thing.
	Because that's looking at a full explanation of what happened.
	That type of, from my perspective, that type of analysis is So, requires so much data, and is so advanced, it's not just to find the information of what happens at targets on the Earth, but you then have to do more, more, more investigations to find out where that, where those changes are coming from.
	To actually do that reliably, in my opinion, requires so much background and so much preparatory stuff And then to make any conclusions from that, you must be able to publish all the sessions, you must be able to see all the sessions, and you must know the track records of those people.
	You just can't have a person on late-night radio say, this is what's going to happen, and say, this is kill shot, you know, make a run for it.
	You just can't.
	The scientists can't do that.
	And so I just I consider all of that kill shot stuff to be hearsay.
	Okay, that's absolutely fine and I have no problem with that.
	But before you kind of go down that road any further, I'd like to go back to your data.
	Yeah.
	And sort of answer that question since you've got the data and then... Yeah, I've got the data up now and I can actually tell you the numbers.
	Okay, because the question I had been asking that before I sort of characterized it as the kill shot, actually really referring to CMEs and solar flares and that sort of thing... Well, actually, Carrie, you're asking a really good question and absolutely Understand that I am with you on the question.
	I just don't have the answer to it, right?
	the the question you're asking and and this is so important is what's causing these changes and I myself have wondered is there something going wrong with the Sun or I've even wondered is there We it's now really very certain that we live in a binary star system and that the other star is a brown dwarf and And among really mainstream astronomers, this isn't really much in dispute anymore.
	What is sort of silly about this whole thing is that the mainstream astronomers are saying we're just about a year or so away from knowing exactly where this thing is.
	The idea that they don't know where a star, multiple times the size of Jupiter, Is in our own soul system.
	It's so absurd, it's ridiculous, but they say it and it's not challenged by anybody.
	They know perfectly well where it is.
	Okay, thank you so much.
	No, no, that's just so refreshing to hear.
	Yeah, but that doesn't mean that I think that I know that that's what's causing this thing.
	I understand, I understand, but thank you very much for that.
	Okay, so back to the actual data.
	We have We have the actual for for time for basically for timeline A and timeline B. I can say the following averaging numbers.
	Let's start with 2008.
	For 2008 there was only one spot.
	There's no two timelines.
	2008 there was only one spot there's no two timelines and the disaster sessions out of all 37 sessions for that target, for that timeline We had 37 sessions from the best remote viewers on the planet with published track records.
	Okay?
	Every week.
	30 sessions, 37 sessions, only 2 had information suggesting major changes like big disaster stuff.
	That's 2 out of 37.
	That's almost, that's pretty close to zero.
	Now, I'm just assuming those two were just, you know, even the best remote viewers can make mistakes.
	So no, you know, these things is not a hundred percent.
	But for Timeline A, which is the one where the, where the scientific authorities continue to deny or ignore the reality of remote viewing, Out of the 38 sessions, we had 38 sessions for that timeline, we had 20 out of those 38 describing essentially wipe-out disasters.
	That's a lot!
	The difference between 2 out of 37 versus 20 out of 38, that's not like a subtle thing.
	out of 38.
	That's not like a subtle thing.
	Now, for the other timeline, for timeline B, which is where the scientific community was brave and said, hey, guys, get over it.
	Remote viewing actually exists.
	That did seem to improve things a little bit, and what I meant by that is that there were 17 sessions out of the 38 sessions for that timeline that had total wipeout disasters.
	So, you see, 20 out of 38 for the first timeline, where the scientific community was obstinate and continued to refuse 20 out of 38 versus 17 out of 38 where timeline B with the scientific community sort of fessed up that remote feeling was real.
	So 20 went down to 17.
	So that seemed to me a little bit of an improvement.
	Now that doesn't mean it's statistically significant.
	Those still numbers are still fairly close to each other 20 and 17 but nonetheless they were in the direction that was expected.
	That knowledge of the reality of remote viewing, once it spread throughout the populace, we were expecting to have some basic improvement in the timeline.
	And so the movement, even though it was slight, was in the expected direction.
	Okay, but what you're also talking about, if you have 20 and the total number is 37, you have 17 That are not showing total wipeout.
	Oh actually, but that was 20 out of 38.
	So that's a good point.
	That means out of the 38 sessions, you have 38 minus 20, which is 18 sessions, showing essentially maybe some change, but not much.
	Not total wipeout.
	So that's a very, very good point.
	So the difference, now that, but that sometimes happens even when there is change, because sometimes some viewers simply don't like to look at that stuff.
	That's why a lot of viewers don't look at, don't do missing person cases.
	They just simply don't like to see that type of thing.
	So, so the issue is not, and this was, but you're raising a really good point.
	You're saying, okay, if 20 out of 38 are showing wipeout disasters, Then you're also saying that 18 out of 38 are not showing that stuff.
	So, I'm going to now say one of the fundamental principles of looking at remote viewing data.
	With remote viewing data, you cannot determine what is there by what is not being reported.
	You can only determine what is there by what is reported.
	It's like going into a room.
	You send somebody into a room and say, I want you to go into that room and tell me what you see.
	All right, they go into the room and they come back out.
	And they say, well, I saw pictures on the wall.
	I saw a bed.
	I saw a rocking chair.
	And I saw a carpet.
	OK?
	And I saw a chandelier.
	And they said, OK.
	But I noticed that you didn't notice that there were shoes in the closet.
	And now, can you say that there were no shoes in the closet because they weren't reported?
	So the viewers report what they report.
	And what they don't report, They simply don't report.
	So you can't say that a viewer went someplace and looked at something and did not report something.
	So that means that that thing does not exist.
	So you can't say that.
	That's a very good point and very well said.
	So at this moment, in terms of the remote viewers who gave you a timeline A and a timeline B for 2013, the ones that did report That we're reporting earth changes when you say what you seem to be surprised by is the amount of earth changes.
	Is that correct?
	Yeah, I was originally scoffing at the whole idea of this Mayan calendar thing.
	I mean, I just thought that was silly.
	And I said, well, You know, let's see if we can use this.
	And I needed a five-year period because I didn't want to wait 10 or 15 years.
	I just said, let's see if we can do it over a five-year period.
	See if we can see some subtle changes in the climate and then... So, that was originally going to be a very difficult project.
	I was thinking about how in the world are we going to analyze these data in order to come up with subtle things.
	Because the remote viewing is not very good with subtle things.
	It's really good with sort of big, blunt, basic things.
	And then we got these results.
	And from a scientific perspective, I'm not talking about a human perspective, but from a scientific perspective, this was wonderful.
	Because, remember, a scientist has to be okay with being proven wrong.
	So, I really enjoyed these results because they were so clear.
	And if I'm wrong, And these things don't happen, then I simply say, well, we learned a whole heck of a lot.
	That was really good.
	But if I'm right and these things do happen, I say, well, we learned a whole heck of a lot.
	I mean, because it was such a big level of change that we found, and I'll describe some of the sessions if you'd like later so you can really see it yourself.
	Because it was such a major level of change, That we got what I call a binary result, meaning it's either on or off.
	It's not like subtle.
	And that's perfect for a big demonstration like, actually not a demonstration, but a big experiment, experiment like this.
	Well, let me ask you this, because this is an interesting question that's coming into my mind, and this is the thing.
	Since 2008, right now we're in 2012, halfway through it, in fact.
	If you did the same thing, only you ended it at this point, June of 2012, I wonder if you would have gotten the same results.
	In other words, has the Earth changes already happened significantly?
	Well, the things that we described in the data have not happened.
	None of them had happened yet.
	And what we should have gotten is the same type of things we got in 2008.
	I'm going camping with my family sometime this summer and I'm expecting the beach to still be there and to be happy in the middle of 2012 and so that will be similar to what it was in 2008 and I'd expect the sessions to show the same type of... I'd expect us to get almost no disaster content in the middle of 2012.
	Okay.
	And what we're really asking is will there be This disaster content in reality, in 2013.
	I want to say one other thing.
	This is really important.
	From the theory of remote viewing, as it's developed, as I develop with respect to quantum mechanics, and the generalization of quantum mechanics to the macro level, the big level of you and I, it is impossible to think of anything Think or perceive does exist.
	So from that perspective, and again we're not going into the physics of it this time, but from that perspective, all of these results that we report in these sessions do in fact actually happen.
	The only real question is, is the event that is encompassing all of these things that actually happen sufficiently big that we will see it in our particular timeline?
	That's the only real question.
	Okay, that's very good, and that's very interesting.
	So again, I guess what I'm curious about is how these changes that you're describing played out again, which is kind of why I was saying, give me a list of what you are calling earth changes, because
	Were you seeing, in these coastal areas, as a result of volcanism, earthquakes, you know, tsunamis, in other words, were these the things that caused, were happening in these places, or did you just see, did you look at, you know, Key West and see nothing because something had happened, but you don't know?
	No, the viewers slip in time a bit, so they don't look exactly, this happens with viewing all the time, And very often they report that in their sessions.
	These are really good viewers and they can sort of sense when they're slipping in time.
	So when they see something on the ground, they also slip a little bit in time and go to something that may have happened a week before, a month before, two months before, that caused whatever they're seeing to happen.
	So if they're seeing the result of a tsunami, but it doesn't actually happen on June 1st, 2013, they see like the wreckage of what happened with that tsunami, then What they actually do is they move back in time.
	They move from a telephoto lens perspective of June 1st.
	They widen the angle until they eventually figure out what happened.
	Then they say, oh my gosh, there's a tsunami.
	And then they actually widen it a little bit and they see what caused that tsunami.
	So they see the cause of the tsunami, then the tsunami, then they see the actual impact on the coast, and then the whole thing sort of comes out.
	Because they're trained to do that.
	They're trained to actually look at something, find something, and then widen the angle of their perspective both in time and space until they can figure out what's actually going on there.
	And again, I have to say this.
	This is not hearsay.
	For example, let's say you take your car to a guy that has a gas station.
	And he has to replace some type of seals in the engine.
	And he does it and you drive it away and then it starts backfiring and doing funny things.
	So then you take it to a dealer or a better person and the person looks at the repair and says, the first guy put these things in backwards.
	How much did you pay for this?
	And they say, I paid $500 for this.
	Okay.
	So he says, all right, look, I'm going to have to sue the guy.
	So, will you write me a letter saying exactly what you found?
	And the guy writes a detailed letter.
	The seals were put in backwards, causing backfiring and so on, and he signs it.
	Okay?
	And then, you go and you sue the guy, and you go to court.
	And the judge says, okay, here you are, Mr. So-and-so who owned a car, and you said it was repaired badly by this guy.
	What proof do you have?
	And then you show him the letter.
	And the letter is from the other mechanic who fixed it and put the seals in correctly.
	And it details all the changes.
	You know what the judge does?
	He throws the whole thing out and he says, you can't tell me this.
	This is hearsay.
	You're just you're just telling me that someone's saying something.
	It's I have to actually have that person in front of me.
	You have to bring the other mechanic in so I can interrogate that person to figure out who's telling the truth.
	So with these data, this is not hearsay.
	This is not me saying, you know, We have all these massive changes in 2013, trust me.
	I'm saying, these are the data, here are the actual sessions, look at them yourself, you'll figure it out, and then, these are the track records for these people.
	Again, I know it's hard for people to do all that stuff, so that's why we put it all together in that DVD, but nonetheless, all the data are there for you to look at.
	And so, it's not a matter of faith, it's not a matter of trusting me.
	It's a matter of simply me reporting to you what I find in these data.
	And if you'd like, I can actually show you some examples.
	For example, we can start with the Sydney Opera House, if you want.
	All right.
	Would you want me to do that?
	Sure.
	Why don't you do that?
	Let's go down that road.
	Okay.
	Well, looking, for example, at the Sydney Opera House, we can look, for example, at one of the... well, actually, at the sessions that were done By Daz Smith.
	Now, Daz Smith does CRV, that's Controlled Remote Viewing, and he works with Lynn Buchanan.
	And he did sessions for 2008 and the two timelines for 2013.
	and the two timelines for 2013.
	Now, for the 2008 target, this may be a little bit hard to believe for some of your listeners or viewers who are new to remote viewing, but these viewers are really good in the but these viewers are really good in the sense that anybody can go up to a piano and bang on it and make noise, but if you're going to be in Carnegie Hall and do a concert, you've really got to study with this stuff and practice it and have a couple, you know, 10 or
	you've really got to study with this stuff and practice it and have a you know a couple you know ten or more years of work with it well dad Smith He had described Sydney, Australia, the Opera House, perfectly.
	He has perfect sketches of what the Opera House looks like.
	You know, it has a very distinctive architecture.
	And it's right on the coast, right next to the water, with a little sidewalk around it.
	He draws everything.
	And then he actually writes in the session, and this is somewhat unusual for someone to do it, but he does it, he says, This is Sydney Harbour.
	This is the opera house.
	He actually identifies the place as the opera house in Sydney.
	Okay, and so he does this, and I'm assuming you're saying in his 2008.
	Yeah, and it's a good day.
	It's a nice day.
	He describes a nice day.
	The boats are out, and everything's good.
	And then it was his job to look at it again in 2013?
	That's right, with two other sessions.
	Remember, we have two other timelines.
	Right.
	And so he looks at the, you know, and for the other sessions, and What he finds, let's look at the first timeline, where a scientific community refuses to acknowledge the reality of remote viewing.
	Again, he draws the topography of the shapes of the actual opera house really nice.
	The three peaks, and he identifies them not as mountains, but this is a structure, but they have this peak structure.
	He sketches them really nicely.
	But then he says that something's wrong here.
	They're all beaten up.
	They're weathered.
	Something's impacted people a lot.
	And then he writes, I don't feel any people here.
	Now remember what I said earlier?
	You can't go on what remote viewers don't see.
	You can only see what they do see.
	But this is something he did see.
	So if he came back that he consciously saw that there were no people that's real data okay so he he didn't see any people in this place and in the other timeline in 2008 rather he did see people and so um uh there was something that was very impacted
	they're very weathered very beaten up buildings no people and then let's go to the um that structures were highly exposed to strong winds the structures were um uh really being beaten up by the winds uh and and no people What about water damage, inundation by water, anything of that?
	All types of stuff, just beaten up buildings.
	And by the way, in the 2008 session, he similarly draws the buildings, but they're not beaten up.
	They're really nice.
	They're in pristine condition.
	So here he draws the exact same topology or the topography, the shapes of the buildings, describes them, notes that the people are gone, and then says these buildings are all beaten up.
	So that's sort of an indication to me that something's, you know, he has that huge contrast between 2008 and the first timeline of 2008, Now let's look at the second timeline.
	This is where a scientific community eventually acknowledges the reality of remote viewing.
	Okay, and so what he does is he again finds, he goes to the same target, but you know what he sees?
	This is the thing.
	This time, he actually sees people.
	That's why I decided this was a little better than the first timeline.
	Because at the first timeline, he didn't see any people, and he noticed.
	It's real data.
	It's not that he just didn't observe any.
	He actually noticed.
	He observed that he didn't see any.
	But in this timeline, he does see people.
	And they're moving.
	There was some type of major earth change, like a quake.
	They're in tremendous fear.
	The people are moving as a tide and they're all moving in one direction.
	They're leaving behind them.
	They're leaving wherever they were.
	It's his exact words.
	A strong relentless motion in one direction away from wherever they were.
	And then he has really good sketches of people slowly moving and almost everybody essentially is on foot.
	Meaning the vehicular traffic.
	They're not like driving out or taking buses or planes.
	They're walking.
	They're hoofing it.
	So my interpretation for that is that the vehicular transport system is broken down.
	And then he says this is a vast tract of flat land that they're walking on and this is an exodus.
	And then he widens his angle, okay?
	He widens his angle.
	He again has a sketch of that peaked structure, the Opera House.
	He has that peaked structure on the edge of the coast.
	And then he has this huge sketch of this wave.
	Something hits and then produces this wave, this bubbling motion, a tsunami type thing, that causes tremendous pressure from down below to rise up This is an ocean wave he's sketching.
	So you have this tremendous, I'm reading from the session actually, tremendous intense upward rising pressure.
	Something moves up in the movement and I'm talking about water movement right now.
	He's clearly describing water and he's sketching water.
	And so what's happening is something in the water is impacting Sydney and that's causing people to leave.
	But at least he's seeing people.
	So I sort of interpret this, and you know, you may interpret this differently.
	I interpret this, and he's saying that none of the people are happy.
	He's writing, his exact words are, no happy people.
	And he says, just joint surrender.
	Escaping, relocation, leaving.
	Those are his words.
	Let me ask you a couple of things.
	One is you're looking at these reports and I'm also wondering whether it's possible to show them visually on the screen.
	Can you?
	I mean, I can do that with Skype.
	I can actually capture a window.
	Would you like me to do that?
	Yeah.
	That would be interesting for people to see drawings of the remote viewers of the various sessions we discussed.
	Okay.
	And the other thing is that I also want to know is whether or not you went through all of the reports, all 38 of them, and sort of made a checklist like in other words of Yes, I did.
	You know, water damage, you know, in other words, Vulcanism, this one had, you know, and how many were Vulcan?
	How many were this?
	And how many were that?
	You know what I mean?
	Yeah.
	It didn't do that much of, no, I was more blunt than that.
	Okay.
	By the way, tell me... And we can also, people, I can pull up like, for example, a web page.
	So if you have it on a website and you want me to show it on the screen, I can do that.
	If that's easier for you.
	Tell me if you're seeing it now on my video.
	No, what I'm seeing is you at the moment.
	Oh, you're seeing I'm having I'm actually sharing a screen.
	I'm actually sharing a window.
	It's slower.
	Yes, we now we are very good.
	Okay, so I'm good.
	So this is this is the people.
	The vehicles, um, see there's only that one vehicle and everybody else is walking.
	Right.
	Now I'm scrolling down, let me see if you actually can see what he's written there.
	A vast tract of land, flat land, A-O-L, exodus, see the word exodus?
	That means it's a feeling of an exodus.
	Yes, I got it.
	Okay, okay, let me, can I scroll down a little further?
	Let's see if this works.
	Okay, now do you see how he widens the angle now?
	Now, he has this peaked structure, of course.
	This is what I'm interpreting as the Sydney Opera House.
	He has really good sketches of the Sydney Opera House and some of the other places.
	But this nonetheless is still capturing the peak.
	He's very far away from it at this point.
	He's still capturing the edge of land, a peaked structure, which is what the Opera House is.
	And can you see this big bubbling up of a wave?
	Yes.
	And underneath that you see bubbles, upward pressure movement, From below?
	Okay, and let me ask you, I'm sorry here, but I want to know whether or not any of these people pinpointed when in 2013 they thought that what they were seeing was happening or had happened.
	Carrie, you're asking the million-dollar questions.
	You're really good.
	You're really, you know, I'm serious.
	As an interviewer, you're really good.
	No, I don't have that information.
	But at least I do have this information.
	I do show that there's, I'm really, The type of analysis I'm using here is very crude analysis, very blunt analysis, looking for major changes between 2008 and 2013, and to see if I can see any difference between the two timelines in 2013.
	You're now asking more subtle questions, which is the different types of change, in an attempt to actually find the cause of this.
	Well, I mean, because it's interesting that they widen back to this point, and in essence they are looking for a cause, so they're finding one cause, but it's not going back to the planetary level.
	No, how about we move to Fort Jesus, if you don't mind?
	That would actually help a little bit.
	All right, fine.
	Okay, so actually I'm going to do two things now.
	I'm going to stop sharing my screen, and tell me when you see me again.
	I see you now.
	Alright, so let me get rid of this session.
	Let me ask you really quickly.
	Would it be useful for your viewers, your listeners, to see the session where Daz Smith actually describes Sydney when it's in good shape, so that you can actually get an idea of the quality Of these sessions.
	Would you want to see that?
	I think that it might be good as a point of comparison.
	So, if you can show it easily and without a lot of trouble before we move to... Because I know a lot of people are going to have huge curiosity about, you know, the next one.
	Yeah, you want to see, is this thing really, you know, like, are these... Like, how good... The real thing is, you want to say, how good are these viewers really?
	And so, 2008, you know what the Sydney Opera House used to look like.
	So, you want to be able to see, did he describe it?
	So, this is the same exact viewer.
	Okay, I'm going to show a number of different pictures here.
	And you'll see how it gets better.
	Sharing the window, and that window.
	Now, you tell me when you see it.
	Okay, now.
	Okay, now let's show you a number of pictures.
	You'll see that I'm actually taking the liberty right now to show you a little bit how this remote viewing actually works, how they get an initial impression and then they fine-tune it as you go along.
	So this is one of the early impressions that Daz Smith had.
	So notice he had the water on the right-hand side and then these buildings on the edge of a built-up artificial surface.
	Yes.
	And he's clearly identifying it.
	You see the words water and sea and man-made organized structures of various all sizes and shapes.
	Okay, now let's let him get a little better as he moves on a little further.
	Now he fine-tunes this a little bit more and hopefully you can see now that he's got the water and he's showing the edge of the water how it's a liquid interface with the edge.
	And he says that there's a port.
	Do you see the word port on the right hand side?
	So he knows that he's looking at the spot where the two meet, where land meets and artificial land and water.
	And then he notes, he actually writes that he feels that the water might be deeper than it should and so on.
	And now look at this picture.
	Do you see the opera house?
	Yes.
	And notice what he writes right next to it.
	It's a side view.
	And notice what he writes on the right-hand side.
	Sydney.
	Do I need to say much more?
	No, that, yeah, excellent.
	Uh-huh.
	So this really, so the question is, if these people can do this, well, you know, are the 2013 data accurate?
	So, anyway, he goes on.
	I'll get rid of this now.
	I think we've demonstrated the point.
	Okay.
	Now I think we should go on to another session to show Fort Jesus Mombasa.
	Would that be okay?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Because that does get at a little bit of your question.
	Which, what might be causing, what might be causing this?
	And then if you want, later I can get into Washington, D.C.
	That's sort of fascinating.
	But last thing, I don't know, is this a two hour interview?
	Are we ending it?
	No, we actually are not, it's not a limited thing here.
	What we want to do is, we want to, I don't want to exhaust you completely, but I'd like to go on for a round.
	Two hours, until we can cover this sufficiently where it feels like we've got the information out there.
	Okay, good.
	I wanted to open it to questions after that.
	Oh, that's fine.
	That's fine.
	Yeah, alright.
	So, let's actually go to 4Jesus.
	And the reason I was asking is, if this stuff is on our way, Then government clearly knows about it.
	I mean, we organize ourselves on the lines of secrecy.
	That's how humans work.
	We work with secrecy.
	Our congressional meetings are often in secret.
	Our presidential meetings are always in secret.
	The Federal Reserve Board is in secret.
	Corporate meetings are in secret.
	Everything is secret the way we govern ourselves.
	If something big like this was happening, you know that the very first thing that the government would do is say, you know, don't let anyone know, because it would cause panic, especially if they couldn't do anything about it.
	And so there should be obvious things that the government itself is doing that we should be saying is anomalous by itself.
	So if we have time, we can go into some of these anomalous governmental behaviors to sort of indicate that They know something's coming and are preparing for it.
	But let's first go to Fort Jesus.
	Well, of course, Camelot covers that extensively.
	And so, obviously, it would be lovely to bring that into the whole mix.
	That's why I brought it up.
	Yeah, it's great that you bring it up.
	But let's still do some more nuts and bolts here.
	That's actually great.
	Okay, so let's actually go to Des Smith's session for June 2nd... I'm sorry, June 1st, Timeline A for Fort Jesus.
	Now, remember, it's the ruins... Fort Jesus is a fort that's in ruins, and it's an old stone fort, an old Portuguese stone fort on the coast of East Africa.
	And he has a session where he describes the location.
	Now, mind you, the fort is surrounded by Mombasa.
	And Mombasa is a major city.
	So, you know, you're not expecting just to see the fort itself, but you'd also be expecting people.
	What's happening with people?
	So, um, oh, you know, I have a bit of a problem here.
	I can fix it.
	I can fix it easily.
	And let me do that.
	And so the session that I'm looking at in particular, I have to put on my desktop and open it with Acrobat, which I just did, because the sketch I want to show you Was rotated 90 degrees and that wasn't the best.
	OK, so.
	Here is this page.
	This is the exact page that you really want to see because it really shows what you wanted to see here.
	So let me.
	And just let me say thank you very much because, you know, we don't often get a person who's able to sort of troubleshoot and handle this stuff with the visuals without very much Preparation and people are going to be fascinated to see the actual, you know, sessions themselves.
	I personally have done remote viewing.
	So I'm very familiar with only doing the session, but also feeling, seeing what they look like.
	But I think it's quite fun for people to see.
	Yeah, it is.
	It is fun.
	So let me actually share this window.
	And share the window.
	And the window I'm going to share is that one.
	Let's see.
	Tell me if you see a window with a lot of remote-viewing writing on it.
	Yes.
	All right.
	This is a beginning part of a session.
	And this is for 2013.
	And remember, it's in Mombasa.
	Mombasa is a really big city.
	I mean, it's not as big as New York.
	But it's bigger than Cincinnati.
	I mean, it's a big city on the coast.
	And then the fort is a small thing, right on the edge.
	Okay?
	So, notice on the right-hand side, the first thing he's noticing is he's noticing these really tall structures, and he's also getting this sense of a disaster.
	That's just initial impressions.
	Now let's scroll down a little bit.
	And he's getting the idea of some buildings, if you're seeing, having sort of a pancaking motion, downward motion in some of these buildings.
	And he sort of says it looks a little bit like the Twin Towers type of stuff.
	And then he has another picture here where he has, you see these big structures, really tall structures?
	Yes.
	Now you see that swirling motion around the structures?
	Yes.
	That means something's hitting those structures and swirling around it.
	He can't figure out what it is.
	But then he says, down at the bottom, many differing man-made structures, buffered, hit by speedy energy.
	Okay?
	Interesting, yes.
	And now he's got this page, and I am going to rotate this page clockwise.
	And you see what happens here.
	He has water.
	He has the ocean at this point.
	And do you see how he has an arrow coming in from the top and he says, something from above hits.
	It's speedy and with force and hits it and causes a big splash.
	Do you see that?
	Yes.
	Okay, and then this causes a wave, and we'll show the wave later on in another sketch, but then he says that he has here on the edge, on the right-hand side, there's a long man-made structure, strong curved components, and so whatever is impacting happens in the water, and then impacts it later.
	Now I've got another thing and I'm going to have to rotate this one counterclockwise so you can see it.
	Will you see the tall building?
	Yes.
	Let's go to the bottom of the tall building.
	See all the bottom people down there?
	Yes.
	And there's lots of people and they're arranged around the base of this tall building and he's noticing he's drawing in a lot of wind, so lots of People, so he's getting this idea of a disaster.
	Now, let's go down to the next page.
	You see these dark buildings with clouds and all everything?
	Yes.
	Now, this is a really good outline of what Mombasa skyline is like.
	Dark, destructive, black in shadow.
	It's a battered city, stormy, angry clouds, battered structures.
	Now, today, Mombasa is not battered.
	If you were going to Mombasa, it would be, like, beautiful.
	I mean, the tourists are great.
	Yeah.
	But this city is all beaten up.
	I'm thinking exactly that.
	I'm thinking, oh, man, why haven't I gone to this place before?
	No, but this place is all battered up.
	Yeah.
	And OK, now let's actually go to his There's actually a lot of words that he writes here at the very end, but I think I want to stop the sharing and go on to the next session where we can look at the other timeline.
	By the way, I'll just read some of the words here, although your resolution might not be big enough to see this, so I'll just read some of the words in this summary at the end.
	He writes here about life forms, he said, some are outside the structures and feel bunched, some are inside the structures and some feel trapped.
	In terms of the energetics, he's getting a fast-moving energetic, it's building, it's erratic, it's intense, it's impacting to the location, it's a surprise, causes chaos and damage.
	You know, so I scored this session As one of showing significant damage, significant change, as compared with a session that doesn't have that type of a change.
	So let me go now and look at the second timeline.
	again, as compared with a session that, you know, it doesn't have that type of a change.
	So let me go now and look at the second timeline.
	This is for the timeline for 2013.
	Timeline B with the scientific community does fess up.
	And you know, I think I just should do the same thing I did with this other session, which is to save it on my desktop and open it up with Acrobat so that I can rotate these pages and let you see them a little better.
	OK, so let me scroll down to a telling While you're doing that, is it possible for you to answer a question in regard to... Absolutely.
	In other words, you have, again, we're saying around 20 sessions that are like Daz's, for example, right?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	And in those other 19 sessions for that exact city, do they match?
	Yeah, there's a lot of... not everything matches.
	Some viewers see Things that others don't.
	But in general speaking, with these particular viewers, you get a close match of this type of stuff.
	Okay, what about this idea?
	Is it possible that you get people that would say things, in other words, one sees inundation by water, another sees inundation by wind, or hit by a meteor, or another person sees fire?
	I don't see a lot of information in these data that conflict like that.
	Okay.
	I think the next best thing is, after I show you Daz Smith, let me then go to Dick Allgaier, who's also one of the best viewers on the planet, and show you his sessions of the exact same target for Jesus Mombasa, so you can compare the two and that will answer your question.
	Okay.
	Would that be okay?
	Okay, so let me actually Share this window again.
	And the window I want to share is that one.
	And tell me when you're seeing the remote viewing session.
	OK, now it's come up.
	OK, so here we have.
	On the right hand side, he's clearly identified land hit, buffered, impacted, moved, mixed with.
	Stuff their structures and Vegetation and stuff.
	And on the very bottom, do you see it says island tidal wave?
	On the lower right hand side?
	Yes.
	Mombasa is an island, and he's describing a tidal wave.
	So that island characterization is 100% accurate.
	So now notice he has the liquid, the ocean on the left hand side, and waves moving in to hit it.
	Hit the land on the right hand side.
	So the ocean is on the left and that side and he's clearly saying this is an island and there's an idea of a tidal wave.
	All right, now let's move down and get another picture of this exact same thing.
	Let me scroll down and I am going to have to rotate this particular picture clockwise.
	There we have it.
	Tell me when you can see it.
	Okay, now.
	Okay, so here we have the movement of waves.
	Do you see how he's actually drawn the waves?
	Yes.
	And he says there's movement in one direction.
	Fluent and forceful.
	And then he writes messy, moving, thick.
	Okay, but let's get back.
	This is supposed to be timeline B in 2013.
	B in 2013 the slightly yeah so both timelines both timelines have a both timelines have a tsunami type of a thing now I'd like at this point if there's okay I'd like to go to dick algaris sessions where he actually observes what causes the tsunami I'm I think that's what you're really interested in.
	So, would that be okay?
	Can I do that?
	Well, it's one of the things I'm really interested in, but go ahead, yes.
	Okay.
	No, go ahead.
	What were you saying?
	No, no, no.
	I'm just saying that there are many things I'm really interested in about all of this.
	Yes, that is one thing I'm definitely interested in.
	In what cause is the ultimate cause and how far, whether the viewers were able to sort of, as you say, pull back the lens to a certain degree.
	I think the best role that I can do right now is simply show you the data And this is one of those great things.
	By the way, do you see?
	This is not hearsay.
	This is simply saying, these are the data.
	These are the actual things I was looking at.
	And that's why I concluded this.
	And this is the track record of this person.
	And it's publicly documented and on our website.
	You can see zillions of his sessions.
	So anyway, do you see a session now in front of you?
	Yes.
	With blue ink?
	Yes.
	Great.
	Here we have, this is the same target, Fort Jesus Mombasa.
	And this is for, he, I believe, this is for Timeline A. Okay?
	Which is the scientific community refusing to acknowledge.
	There really wasn't that much of a difference between Timeline A and Timeline B. But, again, this is the one where the scientific community continued to refuse to acknowledge anything.
	So here he has, I'm starting here with, he clearly describes, this is right in the beginning of the session, a shoreline, and he has a huge tsunami-hurricane, meaning in the beginning of the session he can't figure out what it is.
	It's either a tsunami or a hurricane.
	And he writes, it hits the shoreline with force, and the water moves inland.
	And he clearly draws the shoreline and describes it and labels it as a shoreline.
	And then he draws a mountain, and he actually labels it Kilimanjaro.
	Now, this is why this is so interesting.
	Kilimanjaro is 70 miles away from Fort Jesus.
	It's not that far away.
	I mean, you don't walk to it, but it's not very far away.
	He noticed that there was a mountain, and this is what you get with this level of military-grade remote viewing.
	He not only noticed a mountain, but he identified which one it was.
	And this is extraordinary.
	So your viewers, I'm so grateful that you asked me to show you these data because you have to see this to believe it sometimes.
	Okay, so then he notices the mountain again.
	Now he starts looking around at where he is.
	And he notices that there's a lot of water.
	Now let me scroll down to this sketch.
	Okay.
	And he actually shows where there was once water on the right, and then land on the left.
	And he says, this land was wet in water and is now dry.
	So he has Kilimanjaro in the background, and then the coast to the right, which is exactly the way it's supposed to be.
	If you're looking at this from the south looking north, which is the way we normally look at a globe.
	And if you look at a globe, With the North positioned at the top and the South positioned at the bottom, the Indian Ocean is on the right-hand side and the land is on the left.
	So what he's basically saying on this particular picture is whatever that water was that impacted the land on his first sketch, it got to the foothills of Mount Kilimanjaro.
	Do you see how I was able to make that conclusion?
	Meaning that first sketch... Oh!
	OK, let's go back to the first sketch so you can see.
	Yeah.
	Here's the first sketch where he has this tsunami hitting the shoreline.
	And then let's go down to the bottom.
	He has more in this section where he has this, where the water has receded and you get dry mud, the mountain in the distance.
	That means that water.
	Now, this is the conclusion that I draw.
	And look, I'm willing to say I was wrong.
	I mean, I'm showing you the data.
	You can interpret it yourself.
	But I guess I'm not understanding in the sense of the timing.
	Is he saying that water is going to come and it's going to get up to the level of the mountain and then it's going to recede again?
	Yes, that's how I'm interpreting this session.
	He has clearly, in the very beginning of the session, he has a tsunami hitting the shoreline.
	And as you follow the session, and I'm only showing you sketching snapshots, Uh, because those are so easy to describe.
	Over a show like this, and it's also so easy to show, because I can actually show you the pictures.
	Does he tell you when, like, in the span of time?
	No, no, Perry, it doesn't go like that.
	What happens is, time really doesn't exist, and so really what happens is, he's getting all of these images and pulling them all together.
	Alright.
	So, it's a very non-linear type of arrangement, and the job of the analyst is to put all these together.
	What I look for is evidence that he's on target, first of all.
	And then I see he's identifying a mountain and calling it Mount Kilimanjaro, which is right next to Mombasa.
	Right.
	And I'm saying, OK, he's in the right spot of the globe.
	And then I'm seeing a tsunami.
	He's clearly saying something hits the water, causes a tsunami.
	And then he follows the water to see how far it goes, and then he has a picture here of it falling back.
	Now notice that the tsunami doesn't actually get to the mountain, Mount Komajaro, nor does it go over the mountain.
	So remember the Sony pictures 2012 where the tsunami actually went over the Himalayas?
	Yes.
	That's not happening here.
	Right.
	But the very fact that it gets a great many miles inland tells you that that was a big tsunami.
	That was way bigger than the one that hit the Fukushima plant.
	This one actually went a number of miles inland and got sort of within eye range of stone, you know, stone-throwing range of Kamala Kilimanjaro.
	That tells you that it must have really impacted Mombasa.
	And that helps me to understand Daz Smith's session.
	Because clearly, according to, if I put Daz Smith's sessions together with Dick Allgaier's sessions, Whatever the wave was, it really battered the buildings inside Mombasa.
	It didn't just hit the edge of the island where the fort was.
	It actually got into the buildings.
	That's how I interpret both sessions together.
	Okay.
	And this looks like it's a sketch of when the water is receding.
	You see, he says very clearly here, the land was wet.
	And now it's dry.
	And then he says it was covered with water.
	And there's rutted patterns, dried mud.
	The water's receding.
	And it's really great, the mountain, he shows the snowcapped on the top, vegetation at the bottom.
	I mean, this is really good stuff.
	So anyway... Okay, so at this point, what I want to do, and since people are getting a picture of sort of the individuals, Take some things.
	I'd like to kind of start to group the data a little bit in people so that again we can get an idea whether or not what is being said is in essence something to take very seriously for the people that are listening.
	You know what I'm saying?
	Because ultimately that's kind of where this is going.
	I mean, it's not just idle data.
	It actually could affect people's lives.
	And it could affect them fairly soon because we're only six months away from 2013 beginning.
	But you do have to say, remember what I said in the beginning, this is not a, and I know this is going to upset people, but I have to say it because it's true.
	It's not a prediction.
	Sure.
	What I can say is in a context, especially The theory is that if some event is sufficiently big, it can affect so many timelines that it could be something that we could run into.
	It has to do with the probability of the event, depending on how big it is.
	But I guess what, so I'm still trying to determine whether or not your data, because I'm looking at 20 reports as being fairly significant earth changes as you describe them and you have described, you know, a couple of them.
	And then you've got, that means there's 18 reports that are not like that.
	But what does it mean that they're different?
	Are they positive?
	Are they wonderful?
	Are they exactly like they are today?
	In other words, you know, what are we talking with the other 18 at all?
	Okay, that's a very reasonable question.
	Let me show you an example.
	From Debra Duggan DeKalge, who also does HRVG, or Hawaii Remote Viewers Guild stuff, and works with Glenn Wheaton, and she's also one of the best remote viewers on the planet.
	And she got some sessions where they looked like they were fairly good, But they didn't have any disaster content.
	Now, let me find one, for example.
	Just give me a second here.
	That would be a good one.
	Okay, and while you do that, I just want to say that I'm getting reports that there was an earthquake here in the general Southern California area that was a 4.0.
	It's not significant by Southern California standards, but my webmaster who's listening in here is reporting that they felt it.
	I didn't feel it here.
	I'm further north.
	Ah, okay.
	Okay, here's a session for Vaitupu Tuvalu.
	Now, I understand that if you look at all of Debra's, Duggan, Takagi's sessions for the whole project, she very much falls in line with sessions that have disaster content for the 2013 sessions, but not for the 2008.
	But I'm looking now at one of her sessions, That is for Vaitupu Tuvalu.
	It's an island in the South Pacific that looks like a very good session, but it does not have disaster content.
	So, um, alright.
	Let me just basically describe it.
	There are some sketches, but the sketches aren't as revealing as Well, one of them is.
	Let me, let me, it's okay, let me actually show you the session.
	Okay, let me open it with Acrobat and then let me give you a page near the end where, this is a good page, so let me rotate this clockwise and now let me share it with you.
	Thank you for being patient with me while I Get this here and tell me when you're seeing the sketch.
	Yes, now and just so that people understand what we're trying to do here at this moment is we're simply trying to get a look at what if there are 38 reports from remote viewers and 20 of them have a sort of drastic earth changes.
	I wanted to see one of the 18 that did not have drastic earth changes and what they showed just for comparison's sake.
	Carrie, you know, I've never been asked this by an interviewer before.
	I have been asked this when I presented this information and presentations in live settings.
	So I want to say you're good.
	I mean, you're really good.
	This is the type of question people really need to ask.
	I mean, that means there's really comprehension.
	Anyway, you see this picture?
	Yes.
	So this is Vaitupu Tuvalu, an island.
	There's a lot of fishing on the coast of, I mean, in the South Pacific.
	So you clearly, you can just see from this session, from this sketch, there's a lot of, there's 14 pages in this session.
	But just from this sketch alone, you can see that she's right on target.
	She's got the ocean, she's saying, she's describing warm, clear water, and if you look at Google Earth, and look at Vaitupu Tuvalu, that's exactly what you see, you can see right through And you see, she says it's at the seashore, there's mollusks on the shore, there's fish in the water.
	That doesn't look like disaster to me.
	I mean, it could be, but it doesn't look like disaster to me.
	And now let me sketch over to other houses.
	Do you see this house that she's sketched now?
	Yes.
	She's accurately said it looks like it's a wood house, maybe a thatched roof.
	I mean, she's good.
	I mean, she's really good.
	But I don't see... You know, let me go to another... Well, these are words, but let me turn this counterclockwise so you can see it.
	And then you can see some of the... Look at what she writes.
	It's an archipelago.
	It's an area with many little islands, a lot of agriculture using a lot of manpower as opposed to machines, a tropical flavor.
	I mean, you get the idea what you get with a military grade remote viewer?
	I mean, this is good.
	I mean, this is really good.
	Yeah.
	So then she notices clams and cockles and a lot of fish, sea urchins, water teeming with life, warm, clean.
	Now, I can see a situation in which a disaster does occur But she's just not picking it up, meaning she's not reporting that there is no disaster.
	She's just not noticing it.
	So, but how I score this session is it's very accurate in terms of disaster or no disaster.
	She's clearly describing Vaitupu Tuvalu, an island in the Pacific of a group of islands.
	I mean, she's really accurate with all of that.
	I mean, as far as she is concerned, this could have been any target anywhere, anywhere.
	So it could be the Eiffel Tower.
	I mean, she had no idea of anything.
	So she's really describing this well.
	Yes.
	And I don't see any disaster content.
	Now, that doesn't mean that there's no disaster going on at the time.
	It's just that I'm not seeing it in the session.
	Describe this.
	Let me ask you a question about that.
	When the remote viewers are looking at a situation, they're looking at a place, and they're told to, in a certain sense, kind of describe the place within a certain period of time.
	But it's a year, it's a year, give or take, right?
	Wait a second.
	No, they're supposed to focus in on the exact date Uh, and then during the session, they typically, if they see anything, now if they don't see anything that's happening that's of interest, then they just describe what it is on that exact day.
	So in this case, did she not see anything of interest?
	That's what it appears.
	She just focused right on that exact date and she didn't report any disaster.
	Now, that doesn't mean that a disaster didn't happen, but she's not seeing it, and she's not reporting it.
	Now, she's not saying, I repeat, she's not saying there is no disaster.
	She's just, it's just information that's not being reported.
	So I can't, I cannot score this particular session as having disaster content.
	So it's one of the sessions.
	But there is an overlay here.
	If you look at the, at least this one picture we've got on the screen at the moment, it looks, there's a sense of a placid kind of a scene.
	It says warm, clear water.
	That's how I got the feeling, too.
	You know what I'm saying?
	Then it says seashore with mollusks.
	If I was looking at it, if it was stormy, for example, I don't think those would be the words that one would choose.
	Yeah, that's how I viewed it.
	That's how I scored it.
	Okay, so now my next question is that if that is one of the 18 that are happening during the year of 2013... But I have to say also, though, remember you cannot Say that this eliminates the possibility of disaster content just because it's not reported.
	Remember, remote viewers, you could actually have disaster content on this stuff and she's just not seeing it.
	I'm just curious because it's always, you know, it's very interesting because, for example, the day before a disaster could be a nice, beautiful day.
	Exactly.
	And also sometimes remote viewers will go to a place and simply not want to see the bad stuff.
	Yeah, just like if you went into a room and it was really messy in a corner, but you saw a nice picture on the wall, and you saw the bed was made, and so you come out and describe what you saw, and you just don't mention that it was really messy in the corner, but you do say that you liked the picture on the wall and that the bed was nice.
	So, by saying you liked the picture on the wall and the bed was nice, that doesn't say that there wasn't a messy corner, just because you didn't mention it.
	So that's that's the problem we have with this session.
	I don't know.
	But I would say this if you have a remote viewer and they're very good at their job and you have to look at a place and you've got a timeline or you've got a large event that is impending and they come there on the sunny day and they don't feel by looking at the place they don't get the over or Well, I mean, desire to pull back a day or two just because they're sensing something in being.
	Yeah.
	Then they're not probably very good at their job.
	Now, what I would like to do again is to go actually, actually, Carrie, let me let me just mention here.
	OK, there's there's variety in all remote viewers, no matter how good they are.
	OK, meaning when people go into a session, you're never going to get 100 percent perfect descriptions.
	Of what a situation is with every viewer, even if the viewer is the best on the planet.
	There's always, for every viewer, there will always be variation across sessions.
	And across targets and it just happens just like with any piano player that works on Carnegie Hall and the Boston Pops or whatever.
	Some performances are going to be just different of the exact same piece that they're playing.
	They'll be different than other performances.
	It won't be that everything won't be the same.
	Yeah.
	So there is going to be natural variation.
	Okay.
	I appreciate that.
	So I just want to drill down to this sort of so that the point gets made though.
	Okay, so that we've got 18 that don't show worth changes.
	The other 17, you've shown us one example, right, of the 18.
	The other 17, would you say that they reflect a similar looking at the same day, you know, place?
	You know, in the timeline?
	Were they similar to this?
	Or were there a few that kind of showed impending something, but they couldn't describe it?
	Or, in other words... No, we have other sessions for this particular target that clearly have disaster content.
	Okay, but what I'm saying is, is you've divided the 20, you've divided 20 from 18, right?
	We've got 38 together.
	Yeah.
	20 show disaster and 18 don't.
	Is that correct?
	Yeah.
	So what I'm asking is of the 18, you showed us one.
	And now what I'm asking is the other 17, do they look a lot like hers?
	Or is there a great variety?
	Within those 17 that don't show disaster, is what I'm asking.
	And I don't want you to show me anything specific, I just want you to generalize over those 17.
	Because we actually don't have time now, we've been going... Yeah, it's... They're similar in the sense that they don't have disaster.
	They are different in the sense that they show aspects of the island, but maybe are different aspects.
	But you clearly see they're still They're still on an island someplace.
	Okay, but are they all, but none of them, for example, I mean, let's, you know, if we're going to have gradations of disaster, then are any of them approaching disaster or are none of them?
	Are they all 18 sunny days, for example?
	No, there's variations.
	In fact, what I do is I score them on a scale from zero to three in terms of the quantity of disaster.
	A zero means there's no disaster.
	Content at all.
	And the session we just showed you, uh, from Debra Duggan Takagi, uh, was scored as a zero.
	Right.
	Meaning I scored her in terms of accuracy, describing what would have to be there under any circumstances, uh, on Tuvalu, like an island, it would have to be an island and so on.
	I just scored her that as a three, which is the highest score you can get.
	But in terms of disaster content, I scored that session as a zero.
	For other sessions, the disaster content can go up to a 3, so it's 0, 1, 2, 3.
	A 1 shows some disaster content, but not a lot, but it makes me raise my eyebrows.
	But, you know, nothing to write home about.
	Two is very significant disaster content.
	Like, wow.
	So a two would have gone into the into the group of 20.
	If you hit two.
	Yes, yes.
	And a three is a three is an absolute total wipeout.
	Okay.
	And so I have for these sessions, I have zeros, ones, twos and threes.
	So we have a full gradation.
	Now, the real question is, to approach the analysis for something like this, I then ask, well, let's break this down into a crude measure that will give us a binary conclusion.
	Yes or no?
	And so I say, let's group the twos and threes together.
	The sessions that are scored as two and the sessions that are scored as three, because those are very significant disaster things.
	And that's what I meant when I said There were 20.
	That meant for Timeline A, where the scientific community refuses to acknowledge or acknowledge the reality of remote viewing, I said basically that there is 20 sessions out of the 38 for Timeline A that scored a 2 or a 3 with that disaster content.
	Now, remember, when we're saying 38 sessions, we're talking just about Timeline A. Timeline B had 38, and 2008 had 37.
	We had a total of 113 sessions for one project, which, to my understanding, is the largest collection of military grade remote viewing for any single project.
	Oh, really?
	Okay.
	Yeah, ever.
	I mean, ever done, any time, ever.
	And so, when you're looking at this, what I'm doing is saying, see you're comparing the 20 to the 18.
	The 20 with disaster content to the 18 without.
	But that's not what I'm doing.
	I'm looking at the disaster content in the 2013 timeline versus the 2008.
	So what I'm looking at is the 20 versus the 2.
	is the 2008.
	So what I'm looking at is the 20 versus the 2.
	I see.
	I'm looking at 20 versus 2.
	And that's...
	Yeah, no, it's huge!
	Very good to drill down this way, and I appreciate that.
	Very, very interesting.
	Now, at this point, Courtney, and I thank you because you've been wonderful.
	We've got you going for two hours straight here, without even a break, and I want to give you the possibility of a break, and then what I'd like to do, and that's up to you, I'm okay, I can keep on going straight if you'd like.
	Okay, yeah, it's your choice.
	And then what I'd like to do is start taking some questions from the crowd.
	Sure.
	Other than giving you the opportunity, if you'd like, before we go there, to do some wrap-up comments.
	You know, that's really a nice thing that you ask.
	Can I sort of, before we go to questions, can I sort of
	Mention what I'm sort of odd things that the government's doing that makes me think that maybe there's something real to these data Absolutely, I would love to start to draw your own conclusions Do whatever go where like and take whatever time you need to do so now remember notice how I just stated that I am NOT getting on late-night radio and saying Prepare for the kill shot right I'm saying I said I If these data are correct.
	Meaning, you've been a spectacular host because you've been asking the really pointed questions that really helped me to focus in on things that illustrated these things better than I've ever had a chance before.
	So this is, I really appreciate you a great deal.
	So what I'm saying is, I'm not making a firm prediction.
	We do have a situation of multiple realities.
	That's actually another whole project that we did.
	Again, that is on the DVD, The Farset Experiments, too.
	But now let's go into a situation where if this is a probable future, not an exact, predicted, deterministic future, but if this is a probable future that May be very real as a possibility in our future time stream.
	Meaning, if my theory is correct, and I think it is, that such an event that is of such global proportions would affect so many timelines that it would become like a juggernaut and everything, everybody would have to go through it.
	Well, that all timelines would sort of follow through it.
	Well then, the government would know something about this.
	And, so let's just look Now I'm not, believe me, I'm not doing this in an accusatory manner of the government at all.
	I'm doing this in a scientific manner by saying, let's use them as sort of guinea pigs, sort of the canaries if you will.
	Let's see what they're doing and see if they are giving us any indication that something may be up.
	Should we believe our data?
	Because if we do want to believe our data, then the government would already know about this, and they should be doing things that are anomalous.
	So, look at these anomalous behaviors that I have done.
	Now, mind you, this is not scientific because it is not scientific for me to pick the data that fit my theory.
	So, what I'm going to do in this particular part of the presentation is to pick some data that fit my theory.
	So that's not scientific.
	Scientific stuff can't do that.
	You have to collect all of the data and then do an analysis to see how it pops out, just like we did with the session data that we were just going through.
	But sometimes picking the data that fit your theory is very helpful when the data are sticking its thumb right in your eye.
	For example, let us say you go home and you are entering the front door and you say, something feels weird about this.
	And you walk into your bedroom and you see a gorilla in your bedroom.
	And then you come out and you say, I was right.
	You see, there was something weird.
	There's a gorilla in my bedroom.
	Now, that's not scientific because you're picking your data.
	Data, in terms of science, you should have done an analysis of each room, collected your data, sorted through everything, and then finally noticed that There was a gorilla in the bedroom.
	But, you know, going into your bedroom and noticing that there was a gorilla, that was good enough.
	You really didn't need to go any further.
	So, while this is not scientific, these examples, in my view, are like the gorilla in your bedroom.
	Okay, so here they are.
	The U.S.
	space shuttle program is ended.
	The U.S.
	has completely shut down its entire government-funded manned space flight program.
	This goes all the way back to Mercury.
	This goes back to the Apollo.
	All of the decades of investment we have put into manned spaceflight, and they just shut it down.
	And then they said, they announced it like, oh my gosh, we simply forgot that we don't have a replacement for the shuttle.
	You know how many PhDs work for NASA?
	They have to pay their mortgages.
	Is it really reasonable that all those smart PhDs simply forgot that they weren't going to have a replacement for the shuttle?
	And they don't even have something building.
	So they have some things that they're thinking might be on the drawing board.
	But basically, it looks like, this is me interpreting now, it looks like they've decided that they're not going to be able to, for some reason, be in space for a while.
	And they're just shutting it all down.
	That's what it looks like.
	It's just not believable to me to think that they actually just forgot that they didn't have a replacement for the shuttle.
	That's just not a credible thing for me.
	Okay.
	The Svalbard Global Seed Vault.
	It was just recently sealed.
	That will enable the world to start its agriculture, given a global catastrophe.
	Now, this is a Norwegian project.
	For a Norwegian project, why did the head of the United Nations and his entire team go to inspect the facility?
	And the timing seems odd.
	Why rush it and seal it before the end of 2012?
	I mean, it's just like, and the global seed voltage is precisely designed to restart global agriculture.
	Why seal it now?
	Why not just fiddle around and just sort of click?
	Why not keep on just constantly putting in new seeds?
	So the timing is weird for building it and sealing it.
	Okay.
	Okay, now the US and global debt.
	It's as if the various governments are not expecting to have to pay back their debt.
	There's no way the US can pay back this debt.
	So it looks like they're expecting or anticipating some type of global economic reset for reasons not currently stated.
	It looks like the European Union economic structure is going to fall apart to some degree at least.
	And even the International Monetary Fund is thinking of moving away.
	That allows us to move to the dollar.
	There's a movement away from the dollar.
	It's as if they're planning on abandoning The dollar as an international currency.
	The U.S.
	Treasury bonds Moody, Standard & Poor, and Fitch have all three announced that they are considering devaluing the rating of the U.S.
	Treasury bonds.
	And you can read about that in a New York Times article for the 15th of March, 2010, as well as an editorial on the 20th of March, same year.
	And there's discussions within the United Nations of the International Monetary Fund phasing out its dependency on the U.S.
	dollar.
	So, the governments are acting as if the dollar is not going to be around, like they're not going to be trying to save it.
	Okay, now the next thing.
	Everybody's digging.
	Now, the U.S.
	has no nuclear enemies, but it is placing underground facilities, has already placed underground facilities, huge underground facilities in the inhospitable West.
	In places where it's very hard for the masses to reach.
	But we tend to think in terms of protecting our military and the elite.
	Now, the Chinese and the Russians tend to think collectively.
	Now, I'm not making criticisms of any side.
	I'm just saying that historically the Chinese and the Russians tend to think collectively.
	Going back, you know, in the Russians' days, going back to Napoleon's invasions.
	They always think in terms of, you know, saving the motherland and the masses of the people.
	So, the Chinese are digging also, but they're digging extraordinary subway complexes up to 200 miles per year under each of their major cities.
	You can read about this, for example, in a New York Times article by Keith Bradshaw, 27 of March, 2009.
	And these subways are sometimes going out to nowhere.
	They're just going out.
	And they're building them 24 hours a day, non-stop shifts, there's no breaks, and it's a crash program.
	We have been trying for like a decade to add a mile and a half to the New York subway system.
	They're putting up to 200 miles per year under each of their cities.
	Now, subways are very convenient places for, well, they're underground tunnels.
	And they can house millions of people, and they're doing them in the cities.
	But now let's look at Russia.
	In 2011, it decided it was going to add 5,000 new nuclear bomb shelters in Moscow.
	And that would enable it to protect all of Moscow's residents.
	They already have about 5,000 nuclear bomb shelters.
	And it's all being finished this year.
	Now, Russia, as with the United States and China, there are no nuclear enemies.
	So why this crash program to add nuclear bomb shelters all throughout Moscow?
	In addition, Russia's subway systems were built deeper than normal so that they can be used as emergency shelters also.
	So with no nuclear weapons, with no nuclear enemies, Why are these people spending, including the U.S., spending all of this money to bury themselves?
	And so, okay, now let's look at NASA.
	And then, look at NASA.
	NASA has been predicting, it's almost weekly these days, that the sun is going to be generating unprecedented solar storms for a lengthy period in 2010, 2012, and 2013.
	in 2012 and 2013, the post-2013 time period.
	You can even hear Michio Kako talking about this on Fox News in a YouTube video.
	People can just go and look at 2012 Michio Kaku and hear him talking about it.
	And basically what they're talking about is something called Carrington events, where the sun acts up so much as it did in 1859 for three days, where there was a big flare, and we only had telegraph systems back then, and there were actually one-inch sparks that flew off, that off the The wires and the telegraph operators were actually sparked and shocked by these things.
	And so it basically took down our telegraph system.
	But that's all we had back in 1859.
	And it was a scientist named Carrington who connected the solar flare to this thing.
	And now NASA's saying that we're going to be experiencing unprecedented Such things in 2013 and that we should harden our satellites and prepare for a possible blowout of the electric grid as well as telecommunications and so on.
	Now, Kerry, we predict things based on past behavior.
	How can they predict something that is unprecedented?
	We can't even predict the weather on Earth a week in advance.
	And they're taking years in advance, and they're saying this is going to be unprecedented stuff that's going to potentially take down our grid.
	And they're saying, well, it's sort of connected to the 11-year solar cycle.
	But we had lots of computers back in 1990 and in 2001, when that 11-year cycle hit.
	This is going to be unprecedented, they're saying.
	And so it's odd that NASA would be saying that.
	So, these are sort of anomalous behaviors.
	And I have one last that's sort of really weird.
	And this is sort of out there.
	So I don't know really what to think about this.
	It's too sort of shocking for me to think about.
	But I just have been looking at a lot of the data coming in from the Fukushima plant in Japan, the damaged nuclear reactor.
	Even you can see a YouTube video General Albert Stubblebine talking about what's going on at the Fukushima plant.
	What apparently is happening is that it has six reactors at the Fukushima plant.
	They were all damaged, destroyed.
	But reactor number four apparently is the one that's really the problem.
	And they have a lot of spent fuel in reactor number four.
	And apparently the spent fuel
	is in a building and it's put a hundred feet up into the building like it's not on the ground floor it's up and apparently that structure has been rated a zero in seismic strength so even a small rocker of an earthquake will basically bring the building tumbling down and that means all of these spent fuel rods would just come crashing to earth and a lot of people that seem to know what they're talking about
	...are saying that this is simply going to happen, and that when this happens, it will produce a level of radiation emission that's 85 times the size of Chernobyl, and you're talking about something that may be absolutely devastating on a planetary level.
	Okay.
	Now, I'm not going to get into whether this is correct or not correct, but I am going to say one thing about it.
	Even if it's remotely possible, don't you think the U.S.
	government and the Japanese government would be pulling out every possible stop there could be to do something?
	That they would have a massive program to, you know, even if it looked like there was nothing they could do, they would still be doing something.
	They wouldn't just be watching it.
	Well, what's happening is, apparently, from what I'm gathering is, nobody's doing anything.
	So, how do I interpret that?
	It's very hard.
	There's only two interpretations that I can think of.
	Now, I could be wrong.
	Please, repeat that in your minds a thousand times.
	I could be wrong.
	But the only two interpretations that I can figure out is, they're either totally incompetent, or They're planning on something bad happening anyway, and they're saying, what does it matter?
	Wow.
	Yeah, that's, I mean, no, no, Terry, let me ask you a question.
	Let me flip it.
	Can you come up with a better, can you come up with a different reason?
	No, but I do have a few other reasons that I think is going on, which I do talk about, and you and I could kick that around as well.
	Could you just mention a couple?
	Before I do that, I just want to know if you also made the same sort of conclusion around the Gulf oil spill that they're also talking about.
	No, that seemed to me a typical example of incompetence and habitual secrecy.
	Sort of combining together into a vaudeville act that just went astray and was just nutty.
	No, this Fukushima plant, from what I'm seeing, and I could be wrong, I'm not a nuclear expert, but this does seem to be a major possibility for a bad day.
	And under normal circumstances, You'd see a crash program where absolutely every resource possible would be thrown into it to fix it.
	Now, what I'm hearing is that nothing is being done.
	Like, literally nothing.
	Nothing, nothing.
	They're just watching it.
	And that doesn't make sense to me.
	I don't know.
	That's how I'm interpreting it.
	Anyway, so I gave you a bunch of what I consider anomalous behaviors Which makes me think that there might be something to these remote-viewing data because these anomalous behaviors match what I would expect the government to do if they were thinking those remote-viewing data were accurate.
	Okay, well that is, you know, just a wonderful
	Overview and said so very sort of without rancor and without sort of judgment thrown in and in a very refreshing way, but at the same time still driving the points home, which people can just add up these things and they do come down to a very questionable conclusion.
	And it is possible that your data is at least one explanation for why they are doing all of those things.
	Certainly.
	And Carrie, can I say one more thing?
	That makes logical sense.
	Go right ahead.
	From a remote viewing perspective, let's say nothing happens in 2013.
	Let's consider that a complete possibility.
	So let's say nothing happens in 2013.
	We still have a puzzle.
	Why did all this disaster content show up in these data when everything was controlled perfectly with a total perfect randomization process where no viewer could know whether they were doing a 2008 or a 2013 session?
	Why did it happen?
	I mean, it's a real interesting scientific puzzle.
	Either there's something really going on with the timelines, Which we'll find out in just a little while.
	We don't have long to wait.
	I'm almost at the point of saying this is such a great, a great thing that we're going to learn so much.
	You know, the real purpose of this experiment at this point is really much bigger than most people might think.
	Because really, if we're correct in this, let's not worry too much about the disaster content.
	Let's just worry about the scientific finding itself.
	If we're correct in this, that means for the very first time We will be able to say that we have a possible means of navigating the future rather than just marching.
	What we're doing right now is we're marching into the future blind with like blindfolds over our eyes not seeing what's going to hit us and whatever hits us hits us from the future.
	Now for the first time we're able to say we're going to march into the future but we have the ability To look at various timelines, and at least we can discern biggies, big things, and if we don't like what we see, we can steer in another direction in advance.
	That makes us able to see.
	We have eyes for the first time moving into the future.
	So, yes, the disaster content is a little unnerving, but we have to wait to see if it turns out correct.
	But if it does, it's a eureka moment.
	So, yes, we have the Disasters and for future other things, we at least have sight now.
	We were blind before and we have sight.
	We can actually move into the future knowing something about the future.
	And Kerry, let me say one more thing.
	This makes us more like the ETs, the extraterrestrials, who have these capabilities apparently technologically to move back and forth in time.
	However, just look at it.
	Our particular mix, the human mix, All reports that you hear from extraterrestrials indicate that they have technology for moving in time, but also technology, also sort of very fluent psychic abilities like telepathy and so on.
	Imagine, if we're correct, how the ETs would be looking at humans.
	Humans, who have a built-in inhibition to not being able to do this, are now able to do this.
	If I was an ET, I would be sitting on the edge of my ship and I'm saying, Wow!
	Those humans are amazing!
	That they could do that in human form is like, that is like the biggest show in town.
	So I'm started thinking that we're a real spectacle.
	And that if we are successful in this, it will be a story that will span the galaxy.
	That's how I'm looking at this.
	Okay.
	Well, thank you very much for that.
	Very, very interesting sort of tour de force of remote viewing and all of the information around this project that you've put out for us to analyze and to discuss and to mull over.
	And I'm sure that this video is going to have some life after tonight as well.
	out there for people to want to look at it and people that even haven't had the time to see it and join us tonight on these hours.
	Now, what I'd like to do is go to some questions that have been coming in from out in the cosmos here.
	Sure.
	And we've got a couple of chat rooms and we also, I believe we still also have phone lines, if I'm correct.
	Um, so if, uh, I know that, um, at this point we are, we're past my, my American Freedom Radio show.
	So they probably, I don't know that they're still listening.
	Um, I'm thinking perhaps they're not.
	I know that American Freedom Radio is still.
	Is still online.
	Well, no, it says American Freedom Radio is still got this going on as well.
	So we've got a radio audience who haven't paid to see the video.
	So those people are not seeing the visuals, but maybe they'll see it after the fact.
	And then we've got quite an audience here.
	So anyway, what I'm going to do is I've asked to have all of the questions gathered from the chat and put into one chat sort of session here with me, if that can be done all together.
	I don't know if we've got that or not.
	I'm going to kind of scroll back here.
	And here's a very good question.
	And believe me, I have many more questions for you, but I am going to let other people ask some questions here.
	So the first question I get here in the chat is, can observing an object using remote viewing change its timeline properties?
	Oh, that's the whole purpose.
	That's the whole idea of this experiment.
	You see, we have momentum.
	We're moving forward in time.
	So that's what brings us probability with our future timelines.
	Because if everything possible could happen, then the physicists have been stumped for a long while saying, if everything possible can happen, and that's what their quantum experiments suggest, then why would you have probability?
	Just there'd be an equal chance of everything.
	But our past conditions, it gives us A momentum for a certain set of things to happen in the future.
	For example, it is very unlikely that I'm going to, in the next few seconds, take off all my clothes and scream around, run out the house, and things like that.
	It is much more likely, trust me, I've never done such a thing, and I probably will never, ever, hopefully never do such a thing, but it's much more likely that I'm going to continue to sit in my seat and talk to the audience.
	So, there's momentum in my past that is bringing me into a more likely future.
	It's very unlikely that I'm going to suddenly grab a fish sandwich and eat it right in front of you.
	You get the idea?
	Some things are just not likely and some things are more likely.
	Yeah.
	I'm vegetarian anyway, so I don't normally eat fish.
	So, but the point is that there is a momentum and so When we look at certain things in our future, by looking at different timelines, we are literally seeing things that are possible for us.
	So even though there are certain things that are more likely than other things, we nonetheless can say that there are a variety of different things that are still within the range of possible.
	Now, you could say that almost anything is possible, but Some things are much more likely than others.
	Within the range of the more likely, there's still a bunch of things.
	So, if we look at those things, we then bring that information from the future back into the past, which is now, and then say, well, what do we want to do?
	Do we want to experience future A, or do we want to experience future B?
	So, that's where we're bringing information back, and thus, we are going to then In one direction or another.
	Now, that doesn't say that the future that you saw, let's say we want to go in the direction of future B, and we don't want to go in the direction of future A. That doesn't mean that future A doesn't happen.
	It is as real as future B. It just means that we, in our particular timeline, will not experience future A, but another version of us will.
	So, yes, we are manipulating our futures.
	By looking at remote viewing in the future.
	Okay, very, very interesting.
	I mean, it's quite a fascinating, fascinating subject, no doubt about it.
	Another person asking, do you have any information regarding Project Looking Glass?
	Remind me of that.
	I know it.
	I know it.
	I just forget it.
	Dan Bierish talked a lot about Project Looking Glass, which is basically technology that was taken from the Sumerian tablets, supposedly, by the government and created to look at probable futures and put into a computer And basically, you know, it's a form of E.T.
	technology when all said and done.
	Yeah, you reminded me and now I remember the whole thing.
	No, we don't have any information on that.
	Really, what we do is just remote viewing studies our own stuff.
	And one of the things that we don't do, and partly because I work with military people, I mean, Lynn Buchanan and Glenn Wheaton are military people, and They also work with military people.
	And when I go to the International Remote Viewing Association meetings in a few days, I'm surrounded by military people.
	And one of the things we decided long ago was just simply not to start projects where we're dealing with governmental or military secrets.
	So we go after other things that there's plenty of other things to do.
	And so going into sort of military governmental secrecy stuff, A raises the raises the eyebrows of the military and the governmental people and they get upset with us.
	And so we don't like to get into that energy.
	So we said we'll go into other things.
	So the looking glass thing is similar to, say, what's under Area 51.
	I mean, it'd be as easy as day for us to do a complete analysis of what's under Area 51.
	We just don't go there.
	Okay, but let me actually ask a corollary question to that, because it does beg the question slightly as to the information you are getting, if most of these viewers are military remote viewers.
	Well, actually, the viewers are not military remote viewers.
	They're second generation, meaning they're civilian.
	But they're taught in groups and the lead trainer, the lead person organizing the whole groups are Lynn Buchanan and Glenn Wheaton.
	There are some people that were trained by me in scientific remote viewing that have worked with us also in some of our projects.
	Okay.
	But the primary groups that we work with right now are HRVG and CRV.
	Okay.
	But the viewers themselves are not military people.
	Not military, okay.
	Just for the sake of argument, let me ask you this, because it is very interesting, you know, being Camelot and being that we interview whistleblowers from black projects, what we come across all the time is an overlay that comes from the military that involves a sort of programming that goes on that has to do with
	Sort of convincing them that there is a catastrophic timeline that they are preparing for and that is very real potential future for humanity.
	And every remote, I mean, every whistleblower that we've had, almost without exception, has seen this and been taught this in the military.
	Yeah.
	And what happens is, is it possible that your Your viewers are being skewed by the people that have trained them having this overlay.
	Well, I can say that the types of targets that Lynn Buchanan and Glenn Wheaton offer their viewers typically are what we call validation targets or normal type targets.
	The targets they often give them are really quite boring as far as I'm concerned.
	They're really just targets of places and things.
	The other thing is that Glenn Wheaton and Lynn Buchanan did not design this project.
	I am civilian totally and I designed this project.
	Okay.
	And they didn't have any input at all into the choice of the targets.
	I did everything.
	Okay, well, yeah, and that's very interesting.
	So it lessens the likelihood.
	There's also the, I have to answer the question to some degree and ask you to verify for me, but in a certain sense, in going through and becoming a remote viewer, who is then sort of part of this team that you have, they actually have been vetted thoroughly such that they, the overlay or the tendency for overlay or prejudice in certain areas, In other words, kind of like what we were talking about, what they will look at and what they won't look at.
	You must have sort of filtered them out a long time ago for these kinds of... No, the only type of stuff that I do notice in terms of... the viewers are supposed to watch a report, whatever they get.
	But the only thing I have noticed is that Len Buchanan's viewers are typically kept away from Really bloody gruesome targets.
	And that's because Lin Buchanan believes that these types of targets can be traumatic to the nervous system.
	And he doesn't like to expose his viewers to those types of targets without their permission, because they have to do everything blind.
	And so that's the only thing.
	Now, you don't get that with the HIV-G.
	Um, they have a wider range of targets that they're willing to expose their viewers to.
	But that's the only type of sort of boundaries that I have, that I personally have seen among those two groups of viewers.
	And they're, you know, we're not talking a lot of people.
	We're talking less than 20 for total.
	Okay.
	By the way, Carrie, that's, that should be raising more fear Than anything else.
	The very fact that we only have fewer than 20 and there's not a lot of ongoing training going on right now means that this planetary capability that we've developed is it's like dancing on the edge of the Grand Canyon.
	There's not much there in terms of numbers and so we really should be having 2,500 really great viewers.
	Not so few.
	But we're working on trying to solve that.
	We have a training program that I'm trying to start up in Africa, believe it or not, which will solve some of the problems that we've encountered when training in the United States.
	But that's, you know, that's for another show.
	Okay, well, that's interesting suggestion there of a few questions in my mind anyway.
	All right, someone is asking whether or not any of the, I want to find the exact wording of the question if I can get it right.
	it It has to do with, did anyone view underground government bunkers?
	No, that's one of the things we stay away from.
	We know that they exist, we even know where they are.
	But we stay away from them because the government doesn't want us to do that.
	You have to understand, I have been I have really been a thoroughly, thoroughly exposed to and understand and experienced what happens when the government goes after you.
	And they try to, you know, basically what they try to do is attack your credibility.
	And they have resources that go way beyond anything that we have.
	And they have no constraints either.
	The people that they have doing that can do anything.
	And so, typically this occurs in terms of set up an ambush, often with regard to media shows.
	And the resources that they have to set up an ambush with media shows are just incredible.
	But they can destroy someone's credibility in the blink of an eye.
	Actually, it takes a couple of months.
	They're very patient in doing that.
	So, one of the things that we do in order to avoid that type of thing is we say, OK, look, if you know that there is a bear in the woods and he lives over there next to that cave, then it makes sense not to go over to that cave and throw a rock in it.
	And so what we do is we say, OK, there's certain things that we know the government doesn't want us to do.
	Now, they're not maybe really overjoyed with the other things we're doing, but at least we're not poking our nose into their areas and throwing a rock at it.
	And so one of the things they really don't want us to do is to give detailed analyses of their own projects.
	And so these underground facilities, we know where they are.
	We could target them at a blink of an eye.
	We don't even get close to that.
	Let me let me ask you another version of the same question, just just for argument's sake.
	And let me ask, let me answer, Carrie.
	It's OK if you get upset with me with regard to that.
	I know we're copping out with regard to that, but we really don't find governmental secret stuff to be very interesting either.
	It's like, why go there?
	Why get involved with that energy when there's...
	We're investigating civilizations on Mars.
	We're investigating exploding planets in our own solar system.
	We're investigating multiple realities.
	This is way more interesting than a few silly labs they have under some base.
	Sure.
	Well, okay, but actually, the list you've just given us are things that actually I think that they would also have a problem with.
	But let's ask this in those terms, because if you've got somebody who's asked to remote view these locations...
	And they, I mean, look, you're asked to remote view a location.
	If you see something, you see something.
	You know what I mean?
	And one of the things that happens during Earth changes, and one of the questions that people have often had is, are those underground bases really going to stay intact during some of these Earth changes?
	Oh no, Carrie, this is something so interesting that you're raising.
	Can I answer this a little differently?
	Sure.
	Because, now I have to say, this is my own personal interpretation, based on everything that I study.
	I actually don't think those underground bases are going to save anybody.
	I don't think they're worth a dime.
	And this is why.
	You see, this goes to some of the stuff that we talked about in On the quantum mechanics.
	I hope one day you do get to ask me back on something where I can just talk about physics.
	Just for the record.
	Yeah, no, I'd be absolutely delighted to do it.
	And even if it did go over some people's head, I'm pretty good at making connections so that people get it.
	Making analogies and making it sort of understandable.
	A popularizer of quantum, of remote-viewing physics, you might call me, in some way.
	Anyway, so just like I say Brian Greene is a popularizer of string theory, I'm a popularizer of the physics of remote-viewing.
	But what I'm actually thinking is happening, and this is my sort of guess at interpreting everything that I see happening, I actually think that what's going on now is actually very similar to what you hear people sometimes talking about as a shift from third density to fourth density.
	And basically what that means, this refers to something that we talked about in our first discussion, where scientists, quantum mechanics, actually all physicists, made a basic mistake.
	They assumed that the frequencies that compose all that exists can only form into quantum superpositions that produce quantum particles but also aggregate up into us.
	In a narrow band within the electromagnetic spectrum that corresponds to visible light.
	And anything outside of that narrow band simply doesn't exist.
	You only have some particles out there, but you don't get aggregations like planets, people, us.
	That was a big mistake, and they have absolutely no reason to make that assumption.
	It's not a scientific postulate, it's a theological postulate.
	They want to believe that they are unique.
	The reality is, the same principles mathematically can happen anywhere along the frequency spectrum.
	There is nothing saying that frequencies can't combine into states of superposition to produce subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, people, planets, elsewhere in the electromagnetic frequency, in the electromagnetic spectrum, higher up.
	And so, my thought is that when we talk about multiple realities, we're really talking about A probability density function or a probable space that covers higher frequencies and lower frequencies of us, so that there is a version of Earth that vibrates a bit higher, literally, on the electromagnetic spectrum than the version that we're seeing.
	And what I think may be happening in the post-2012 period is essentially a shift In the aggregate frequency of the planet, for reasons that really we don't have any remote viewing data for, but I have other reasons to think about this as a possibility.
	I think what's happening is that the planet is entering a phase that happens apparently every 180 million years or so.
	The whole solar system is entering a phase where the radiation mix, or the mix of frequencies that compose all of us, is getting a bit of an extra bang for the buck.
	There apparently is some area within the galaxy that we're passing through that has a little bit different of a frequency mix than the normal stuff that we pass through.
	And when that frequency mix, you might consider it radiation coming out from the center of the galaxy, when that Like a spoke in a wheel.
	When that frequency mix gets added to us, it changes everything.
	It changes, it's like a piano where you, actually it's like an electronic piano, electronic keyboard, where it has a little dial on the side and you hit a C, the middle C.
	And it gives you a nice note.
	Ding.
	And then you push the dial and it goes ding.
	It sort of pushes it up a little bit.
	You bias it a little bit.
	That's what I think is happening.
	Some extra frequencies are being added to the mix.
	And that the overall stuff is different.
	Now, the people who are vibrating a little lower are characterized, not in terms of good and bad, but they are characterized in being, because of the nature of the physics that I talked about in our first discussion, one of the characteristics or side effects of that one of the characteristics or side effects of that slightly lower vibration is that they experience reality in a more narrow band of the overall frequency mix of the electromagnetic spectrums.
	So basically what they get is a very narrow band perception.
	Of themselves, which means that they get cut off from sort of a telepathic connection with other people, other things, and they feel more isolated.
	And they also have a sense of being cut off from their history.
	So they have an amnesia of who they are, where they came from.
	Those are characteristics.
	Now, that doesn't mean that they're bad.
	It's just a characteristics of the nature of the physics of their state.
	And it would take a number of hours for me to explain the whole physics of this.
	This is sort of a general overview of the symptoms.
	And so for people who are at that lower frequency, feeling more cut off, they tend to look at the world because of their sense of isolation and deeper sense of amnesia because of the way the frequencies come together.
	They tend to look at the world in terms of polarized experiences, good, bad, two arms, left, right, two eyes, left, right.
	Everything is good for a friend, enemy.
	And when you look at CNN, you see that all the time.
	You see all the news stories of this person's a friend, most people are enemies, fear, paranoia, that type of thing.
	Now, the people who are vibrating at that Frequency.
	That's how they see the world.
	Now, let us say that the entire world does actually shift in some way.
	Again, I'm not referring to remote viewing.
	This is my own sort of interpretation of what I think is going on.
	Let us say that our entire frequency mix changes a little bit, because of some cosmic cycle.
	And the whole Earth starts to vibrate because of the frequency blend of frequencies that compose all of us, these new ingredients, It starts to vibrate a little higher.
	Well, the people that are locked into a lower frequency that produces more polarized thinking, high emotional states, looking at the world as good and bad, those people aren't going to be compatible with that higher frequency.
	Because that higher frequency will lift them out of that state of amnesia, slightly, And that sense of being cut off from everybody else.
	So it literally changes their mix.
	And if their personalities are not ready for that higher state, then they literally can't exist in that higher state.
	And so what does that mean?
	What that would actually mean is the way we navigate through probabilities, probable events and existences here, seems to be through navigating through events.
	So what we end up doing is When we need to do something at a deep level, we find an event that takes us there.
	Thus, in that interpretation, there is no such thing as dying by accident.
	Literally everybody dies as a matter of suicide.
	There is no exception to that.
	Everyone on some deep level has to, on a level of frequency, experience what they are compatible with.
	And so, All deaths on some deep level have to be a voluntary experience.
	And that would mean that people, perhaps in large numbers, may have to seek out events that will let them withdraw from an Earth environment that's no longer compatible with their vibratory state, with their level.
	If they're vibrating at this level and suddenly the entire Earth shifts up ever so slightly,
	They're not there, so they have to find events to get them out, and then they can, say, show up again in another planet, somewhere else, that vibrates at that exact third density level, where they're more comfortable, and then can work on whatever issues, till they finally get to the point of wanting to integrate themselves, and as they want to integrate, they're going to start wanting to reach up, and they will find events that helps them to reach up,
	Perhaps learning to meditate, things like that, that draws them to extend themselves upward, and then they will start vibrating at that higher level, and they will find events that allow them to get to that level.
	My own personal thought is that one of the reasons we have a population explosion on the planet right now, and this is one of the things that I sort of muse about, think about, is because we may be entering that That spiral spoke in the galaxy where an extra set of radiation frequencies get added to the mix.
	And if that's true, that would help a whole bunch of people even if remotely, even if they're not ready to move up and have to exit.
	It would still help them a little bit because they would have experienced that higher frequency even to some degree and help them in their own evolutionary spiral upwards.
	So that's one of the reasons I think we have a population explosion on the planet right now.
	I think a lot of people want to be here right now because of what's going on.
	You understand that if we do have significant Earth changes, if these data are correct, and I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that they may not be correct, and I may be on your show a year from now saying, well, nothing happened, Kerry.
	Looks like we learned something, but I'm not sure what we learned, so that may happen too.
	But what I think is happening Is that these changes have a high probability of occurring in our timeline, and that these changes should not be looked at from the perspective of disaster, but as a perspective of great growth.
	The Earth very likely is going through some very significant changes, and when it does go through these changes, it will vibrate differently, and the possibility exists that the Human civilization that continues with this planet may bring a level of life to this planet that is absolutely glorified, tremendous, spectacular.
	I want to see it, if it happens.
	I would like to be there helping to build it.
	But, anyway, those are my speculations on these things.
	Again, those are not actual... You can't say, show me the remote viewing session like I did with the other things.
	Right.
	There's no remote viewing sessions for this.
	I've taken the liberty of putting a bigger picture as I see it to all of this.
	No, and I appreciate that.
	I have to say that, you know, these are things that get talked about on Camelot all the time, so this is not unusual discussion matter, actually, for the people listening.
	And they'll be right there with you.
	You know, there's constant talk about this.
	I think that what does get wrapped in here, to bring it back to the remote viewing sessions, is the idea, again, that what is it that remote viewing is actually capable of looking at?
	In other words, in reference to that exact thing, because if it's not, you know, It's kind of like if there's an elephant in the room and all remote viewers are ignoring that elephant, just by virtue of the nature of the elephant, as good as they are at their job, it may not fall into the purview of, per se, remote viewing as it's been understood or taught up until this point.
	You're raising a good point.
	You're raising a point of whether it is possible For remote viewers to see things that are so dramatically different from their past training and from their own personal life experiences.
	Look at it this way.
	If they haven't been through the shift before, in other words, well, I mean, I'm a person who believes in reincarnation.
	But in theory, and especially if this particular, as is said, That this particular shift for the planet is actually, it is similar to prior shifts but it contains ingredients that have not been part of prior shifts.
	So that this time it's going to include some other things that are shifting consciousness because consciousness itself is in another state and is more ready, more receptive to these other energies that are coming in and that these energies that are coming in are perhaps even more specifically different enough so that the shift itself is different enough that these more receptive to these other energies that are coming in and that these energies that
	Now, time is not linear, as we know, and...
	And, of course, that's what really, in my view, facilitates seeing the future.
	And I have many what I call precog dreams of the future.
	But I also acknowledge that some of those dreams may be dreams of other timelines.
	And so this is why I don't get out and publish them out on talk shows and all of this, simply because of that caveat.
	But there is something to be said.
	I mean, I myself have had some dreams that I kind of classify as what are called, well what I call, ascension type dreams.
	Okay?
	And that means that they contain elements in them that are In other words, the dream itself is enough like reality to be depicting reality, but there's a place within them where a shift is happening that's unlike anything else, and then go into another level.
	And so, it is quite fascinating.
	And some of these dreams may also be similar to some of the remote viewer's evidence.
	For example, I have seen places where there are no humans.
	Okay.
	And I don't know why.
	On Earth?
	Yeah.
	Okay, let me say one thing.
	If the theory of physics is correct, that I've been developing with respect to remote viewing, then it is literally impossible to think of something that doesn't exist in some version of reality.
	That's as equally real as the one you're experiencing here and now.
	That doesn't mean that you're going to experience that particular reality.
	Right.
	But you can't think of something that you can't put yourself into a state of superposition with.
	That means there must be a reality that does have those characteristics.
	And in some sense, even though it's not the reality that you will experience, It is an equally valid reality and you or somebody else somehow does experience it.
	Yeah but what I guess what I'm trying to talk about a little bit and it's actually going a little off the topic but I just want to say it because you kind of you went in this direction and I want to say that if you want to call it the shift or a shift which has been talked a lot about And I'm feeling actually the energetics happening on planet Earth now.
	I think it is happening now.
	I am experiencing it now.
	And it is escalating now.
	But aside from that, what I want to say is, isn't it possible that that's an event just like you depicted?
	It's kind of like this, I guess, an elephant in the road of the timeline.
	It's gigantic.
	And so it impacts all the timelines.
	Yeah, I would agree with all of that.
	The only thing I want to add is that I think your observation that the change is happening now is really good for the following reason.
	If you look at the way we were after World War II, the 1950s, it was really quite a very stiff emotionality of the time period.
	We had very set patterns of thinking, very patriotic, very standard ways of thinking.
	I mean, you actually got away with statements like this in Congress, where a congressman or a senator would challenge another congressman or senator or a witness by saying, well, the president says this, now you're not going to counteract the president, are you?
	I mean, they actually got away with statements like that.
	There was a sort of a A stiffness to the way of thinking.
	Now, if you go and look at us now, there's, and it was a very physical sense of thinking back in those days.
	If you look at us now, you have, you look at the changes that went through in the 60s and the 70s and 80s and 90s and now early 2000s.
	We're really much more of a cosmic society.
	There really is a change.
	So, if I were to sort of say that That everything is somehow based on the level of consciousness.
	That consciousness essentially is everything.
	That our consciousness now is much more spiritual than it used to be.
	It was much more physically focused back in the 1950s and then going all the way back, you know, hundreds of years.
	And so, in a very short period of time we've become a much more spiritually flexible or spiritually fluent Society and that means that the frequencies that make us up now Really are different in that level.
	We're really reaching higher.
	We're reaching for a higher level of vibratory nature than we were Going back as long as we can remember as a collective society so what happens since the 1970s onward seems to be a A process that's been going on that is really much different than we got all throughout centuries going back.
	So this thing that you're saying seems to be happening now, I would agree with that completely.
	It seems to be that we're in a process that's sort of a long-standing process and maybe we're sort of in the middle of it.
	And so maybe it'll sort of top out the year 2050 or 2075 or something, sort of end.
	year 2075 or something sort of end.
	But what I think is also happening is some of these sudden aspects that the remote viewing data are looking at.
	So there's seems to be a combination of a long-term shift spanning maybe a hundred years and maybe we're sort of in the middle of it now and that's what you're picking up in terms of the changes happening now.
	But there seems to be also a peak or an accent to this particular moment and something seems to be gearing up for the post 2012 period.
	And the only thing I can think of, and I think in terms of electromagnetics a lot, is the pole shift.
	Now I'm not at all talking about the Earth rotating and shifting its physical direction so that the North Pole goes by the South.
	I'm not at all talking about that.
	I'm thinking that the Earth will continue spinning exactly as it's spinning now for, you know, Millions of years.
	But what I am thinking is happening is that the magnetic pole is moving.
	And that is not in at all dispute.
	But back in the 1970s, the magnetic North Pole used to be in the middle of Canada.
	And now it's really hiking.
	I mean, it's hiking faster than a fast jogger.
	I mean, it's going like three or four miles a year.
	And it's very close to the actual true north now.
	It's really moving quickly.
	And it looks like we're very close to the point where it will actually get very close to the true north pole.
	And when that happens, what typically has apparently happened in the past, is when the magnetic north gets close to the true north, it becomes a bit unstable and flips.
	Now it doesn't flip 180 degrees, although it possibly could, but it's all done with This is magnet theory dealing with the molten earth core and the iron core.
	But what is more likely to happen is that it will simply shift to some place on the other side, like Siberia.
	So, whereas before it was a little bit in the middle of Canada, it might end up in the middle of Russia.
	So, sort of opposite ends.
	The same distance it was from the North Pole, But in the direction of Canada, it will probably end up that same distance in the other side.
	That would probably place it somewhere in Russia.
	And when that happens, it will probably be rapid.
	Now, that doesn't mean that the Earth is going to shake.
	It just means that the compasses will move.
	And it's happening so fast now that the runways, I'm a pilot, and runways are identified by the direction that That they land in.
	So, if you see a runway called 2-0, that means it's pointed at the direction 200 degrees.
	Well, they're actually having to rename the runways now, because the magnetic north is shifting so much, 200 is no longer pointing in 200.
	So the airplanes have to use their magnetic compasses to line up with the runway.
	But if the runway is not pointed in that direction, because the magnetic north is no longer in the same spot, Then the navigation doesn't work out right.
	And so they're actually repainting their runways.
	So when that flip happens, the key ingredient is, when a flip happens, there'll be a period of time when the magnetic shield that surrounds the Earth will dramatically weaken.
	And it won't be like for decades.
	It'll be like, you know, for some days, maybe weeks.
	And when that does happen, if there is some type of galactic radiation that's coming through this part of the galaxy, it'll be able to get through really easy.
	And that would, because of the magnetic shield that surrounds us, would basically be non-operable.
	And in fact, the magnetic shield around the Earth is in fact weakening dramatically.
	So, that's not in dispute.
	And so, That sort of is another part of the puzzle that makes me think that we're going through some type of vibratory shift.
	The magnetic pole seems to be shifting, and if we are passing through an area of the galaxy, there seems to be two separate processes, but when they combine and form at about the same time, you get sort of the perfect storm.
	Absolutely, and if you bring in the possible incoming dark star or second son, then you've got a whole other scenario there, and we could go on about all of that.
	We're kind of getting into the time here, and I've kept you for quite some time.
	I do want to ask you one of the questions that's in the chat because I think it's valid here and it's going to wrap us back into this discussion at hand a little bit.
	And what it is, is whether you could briefly review the other target sites not mentioned yet, and what they mean by that is in the more dire timelines, which is, you know, for 2013, what was seen in those other sites?
	If you could just review it, brief, so that we get the overview of everything.
	Yeah, it's both a very interesting question, But it is late, and so I'm thinking the best way to do this would be to describe a particular spot and show the difference between the two.
	The two spots, 2008 and 2013.
	And in this case, I think the best example would be Dick Allgaier's session for Honolulu, Hawaii, which is the KITV building.
	Where he works, because he's a celebrity newscaster.
	He's also one of the very best remote viewers on the planet.
	And when he did his 2008 session, that was very interesting, because his 2008 session was perfect, meaning he didn't know what the target was, of course, but he knows KITV, so when he remote viewed, see, he was familiar with The types of things that his perception would be exposing him to.
	So, um, what did he see in 2008?
	Um, you know, and this is very important because remote viewers can see anything, but the question is, can they understand what they see?
	So, with regard to the 2008 target with KITV, you would expect him to totally be able to understand what he was seeing, because that was where he works.
	And, in fact, that's exactly what he saw.
	I'm looking right now at the 2008 session for KITV.
	He gets all the people working in the building, all the metal stuff all around.
	He finds all the lights.
	He accurately draws all the lights that are in the building.
	These are all video lights.
	He describes how they are and actually draws what the video lights look like.
	He has the people in the audience, the lights on the structure where the stage is, all the wiring that's for all of the lights.
	He has an absolute picture-perfect description of a cameraman.
	He actually draws the cameraman.
	He actually has a setting where the audience is Is there and the lighting is all set up.
	You have the dark backgrounds with the lighting on the stage.
	And then he actually has the cameraman which is spectacular.
	He's having a man standing in a small enclosed platform.
	He draws it exactly.
	He's working with the hand grip for the camera.
	The operator is intent on using the touch control for the camera.
	You can't get better.
	Okay?
	So that's his 2008 session.
	Now mind you, he doesn't know anything about these targets when he's doing them.
	Okay, so let's go to the 2013 session, both timelines.
	We'll go to the timeline A, which is where the scientific community continues to refuse or to acknowledge the reality of rainbow viewing.
	And what he gets is land that's rocky.
	He gets the water.
	He gets the coastline.
	He gets exposed land, but there are things floating in the water, bobbing, refuse.
	The buildings aren't there.
	He gets a lot of small plant life, exposed rocks.
	Then he gets a lot of runoff water, running off from the land, running off back into the ocean.
	So I like to look at sessions like that and look at them in the grossest possible way and say, wow, that doesn't look like Honolulu anymore.
	And so let's look at the second timeline, Timeline B, where the scientific community eventually does acknowledge the reality of remote viewing.
	Well, interestingly, he has a lot of people in this session, which he didn't have in the first session.
	So, that makes me think, maybe there's something about the scientific acknowledgement of remote viewing, sort of puts everybody on guard to say, hey, look, something is happening, and we have to think spiritually, we have to think working together.
	That's how I interpret this, because he sees a lot of people here that he didn't see, that didn't show up.
	Now, remember, just because it doesn't report people doesn't mean that people weren't there, but I'm sort of taking liberties of saying the fact that he's drawing so many people here makes me think that there might be something to it.
	Anyway, there was some type of event, some type of pandemonium, a lot of debris.
	He draws the same debris as before, but there's people working together.
	They have structures that they are rebuilding.
	Thatched roofs structures.
	Making things out of debris.
	There's some despair.
	It's not really joyful activity in any way.
	A lot of people sweating.
	He writes, this is a sense that this is what we have to do, so just do it.
	Men and women.
	Is there any volcanism?
	Because you're talking about Hawaii.
	He's not describing any volcanism.
	He's describing sort of the aftermath.
	That doesn't mean... It really sort of looks more like... I'm sort of saying this sort of looks more like after a tsunami rather than after a volcano.
	But really... But that's just me...
	That's just me sort of interpreting it.
	You could look at these data yourself and maybe come up with the same type.
	But he does get people planting things.
	They're actually trying to grow things.
	Food.
	But he never pulled back the way... No, he didn't.
	He didn't do it.
	I know you'd like the answer to that, but I don't have it.
	I just don't have an answer to it.
	No, but did other people... You have other, you know, several sessions that looked at that same place.
	Did they?
	No, unfortunately he was the only one that got to that target.
	You see, there was a long list of geographical locations, and these people were doing it for free.
	So, I had to say, come on, did you get the next... I had to keep pushing them, please send in your sessions, send in your sessions.
	So, we got a lot of sessions for Raitupu Tuvalu.
	We got a lot of sessions for Fort Jesus Mombasa.
	We got a lot of sessions for Sydney Opera House.
	We got a lot of sessions for Mount Kilimanjaro.
	We got two... Well, actually, yeah, we got two people doing complete sets of sessions for the United States Congress Building.
	Which, by the way, according to these data, doesn't look like the United States Congress building in 2013.
	These data don't look so good.
	And we've got two people doing sessions for the Mali International Airport.
	We've got only one person doing sessions for KITV, which just happened to have been Dick Allgaier.
	And only Dick Allgaier, again, did sessions for Key West.
	He also happens to be one of the very best viewers on the planet Earth, however, so... Okay, for Key West, I know that there, because it's one of the few other places in the U.S., I know that there's a lot of U.S.
	listeners.
	What did the person get for the Key West?
	Was that, you know... Sure, I can tell you that right away.
	Again, for those people in the Key West, this is not a prediction.
	This is just describing what these data say.
	Sure.
	This is the second timeline where people, where the scientific community does acknowledge.
	You do get the sense across a number of these sessions in the second timeline of people cooperating and working together even though it's under very difficult circumstances.
	And you don't get that sense in the first timeline.
	Fascinating.
	It's more of an atomized sense.
	Okay, now I'm looking at the session right now.
	People working together.
	They're digging.
	They're walking and this type in a in a natural setting.
	Feels like there's a time change.
	He's noticing that but it's almost like he's looking into the past with people are wearing sort of ornamental stuff.
	They almost look like Native Americans with that type of clothing, sort of improvised clothing, bow and arrow type stuff.
	You have people in a corridor, you get sloping land that's not steeply sloping, but it doesn't look like the Key West that you and I know, where there's buildings all over the place.
	And then he does notice, he widens his angle, he widens his lens and starts noticing that some gestalt or concept that's associated with this involved a very high energy source.
	Meaning like, I interpreted that as something like a meteor.
	But whatever disrupts whatever is there involved something where people were looking up in the sky and seeing Huge energy thing which I sort of interpreted as a meteor.
	Okay.
	So here's some of the things that he actually writes This target feels a bit out of place.
	It's not a place with high-tech energy But there is some type of Energy associated with it indoors.
	There's a smell of food like fish salted food he Women are getting involved.
	Older women are more patient.
	There's a lot of stress going on and people have to deal with this and be patient with it.
	The people are essentially very scared and they're trying to control that level of being scared.
	There's a lot of yelling, a lot of anger, there's some level of stampeding.
	He has bluffs or he actually has water Rolling off of the edge of the coast into the ocean.
	And he clearly says it's a bay.
	It's like the ocean, like in a bay.
	And he writes that.
	He has people emerging from a structure in a group.
	And they run into some areas that are boarded off so that they can't get past it.
	You know, like a fence, like a wire fence.
	And they have to push it down.
	They're like people trying to stop them to coordinate, sort of to stop the masses from getting someplace.
	And they have to break down the fence.
	They're pushing and shoving and knocking the fence down to get to these places.
	It's that type of a thing.
	And it's other session for the same target, but for the first timeline.
	He had people hunting for food, basically cooking whatever they can catch.
	So you have the breakdown of the food transport system.
	That's what he's getting for Key West.
	Now, according to my theory, you can't think of anything or perceive something and have it not exist in some reality.
	The question is, is it going to happen in our reality?
	So if this If an event that seems to be post-2012 is sufficiently big, then it would happen in some degree in our reality.
	Maybe not just like these sessions, but some element of these sessions would sort of match up with what we're moving into.
	If, in fact, the event is sufficiently large that it affects many Many timelines.
	By the way, I'm looking at the other session.
	He does have some more information on the other sessions.
	This is Timeline A. And in this one, he does have a lot of people also in this one.
	But he also pulls back his mind to a more wide angle.
	And he actually has a sketch where he has something that has huge levels of energy that comes down from above and impacts, like really looks, creating huge levels of heat.
	And so it really, to me, I'm looking at it on his S3, which is a stage three of the session.
	It really looks like a meteor impact to me.
	I mean, I can't imagine anything else that that would be, but it really looks like a meteor impact to me.
	And where is this session taking place that you're looking at?
	This is the, this is Dick Elgire's session for Key West, Florida, Timeline A, which is the All these sessions are available for free on the web, which is the timeline for when the scientific community continues to refuse to acknowledge the reality of the remote viewing phenomenon.
	Okay, so Courtney, what I'd like to do now, you're saying these sessions are visible on the web?
	We always document everything.
	Let me just go to another Actually, can I put this particular picture on Skype so you can see it?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	That'd be great.
	I mean, sometimes a picture says a thousand words.
	But what I'd like you to also do is give us the URL where people can access this.
	Everything is at Farsight.org.
	We're a non-profit.
	F-A-R-S-I-G-H-T dot org.
	W-W-W dot so on.
	And there's a big thing right on our homepage that says... Actually, what does it say?
	Let me click to it.
	It's a good question.
	What does it exactly say?
	It says, the 2012 Remote Viewing Experiment, Climate Change, Multiple Timelines, and Events.
	Do you see that?
	Yes.
	Oh, actually, it should be on your... So if I click on that, you'll see A page that opens up that says, Post 2012 Earth Changes.
	Okay, so that's where people get the visuals for all of this, right?
	Yeah, yeah, but a lot of the, actually the, you know, I have heard so many people complain that when they come to the website for the Farsight Institute that we have so, you know, most websites are advertisements for something and there's very little content on a lot of websites.
	Your website actually is filled with content, so people who go to your website are really used to the idea of having to navigate through it to see everything.
	Well, our website is similar in the sense that there are so many science projects.
	That's why I really recommend to people to start with the DVD of the Forest Experiments, because really, we designed it so that you won't be overwhelmed altogether.
	And the Climate Project is described in detail.
	And this project, the Post-2012 Project, is on that DVD.
	So, that's the best place to go.
	Let's actually go to this page on this session.
	This is for Timeline A, where the scientific community continues to refuse To acknowledge reality of remote viewing.
	And this is just one sketch in it, but he widened his lens enough to pick up the origin of this energy thing that caused all this bad stuff to happen in this Key West target.
	So do you see it?
	You see this arcing trajectory?
	It impacts the water.
	Then he writes, secondary waves of energy radiate, seems to almost ignite things with flames, with a lot of kinetic energy, fast-moving energy.
	And then it moves into thermal energy.
	So we're talking about waves hitting water, something hitting water, creating... And if a meteor did impact... Now, mind you, he doesn't say the word meteor.
	But that's... I don't know what else to call it.
	It just seems to me like, hey, this looks like a meteor.
	But it looks like clearly something's coming in, hitting the water.
	The same type of thing we get with Sydney, and same type of thing we get with Mombasa, causing like tidal waves.
	But also, whenever you have an impact of something like that, you get, you know, a scientist often called it similar to like a thermonuclear reaction.
	A big meteor hitting causes like a lot of heat.
	That's what he's describing, so that's how I'm interpreting this.
	You take a look at the picture yourself.
	I mean, how would you describe it?
	You don't... I don't know.
	That's what I'm... And then you see how people are sort of organizing here, pulling things, trying to do things.
	And now look here.
	Look at this next one.
	Do you see this picture here?
	A lot of people.
	There's a lot of energy.
	Do you see this picture where he says there's a lot of unexpected energy that's radiating out?
	Some people are knocked down.
	They feel exposed or caught out in the open.
	The energy is exposing people.
	And then look what he writes.
	He says, now there's an urge to flee.
	People are running.
	How am I supposed to interpret this?
	This seems to me like something... And we're getting this in so many sessions.
	20 out of 38.
	Or, you know, Something like that, about half, more than half in both timelines.
	And none of this happens in the 2008 one.
	So what am I supposed to do?
	Okay, now I'm going to ask you one more question and then actually I think that we should close this down because we've... Okay, that's probably a good idea.
	And you've been extremely patient with us.
	Actually, can I add one little final thing before the question?
	Absolutely.
	Look at this page that I'm looking at right now.
	What is he saying?
	I got a sense of food preparation.
	Primitive and unappealing.
	Some kind of grain mashed into gravel.
	A gravel with mortar and pestle.
	Boiled in something.
	And they may not have metal.
	Plants like weeds are gathered and added.
	It seems not very appetizing.
	They roast meat, whatever small game they can find and obtain over a smoky fire.
	And he actually draws the stuff.
	Now, Kerry, what am I supposed to do to interpret this?
	I mean, do we really need to have a lot of sophistication in interpreting this?
	This looks like a bad day.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And you don't get this in the 2008 session.
	So what am I supposed to say?
	So I'm sort of thinking this is so this sort of... No, I'm sorry.
	No, I shouldn't have cut you off.
	What was your last question?
	Oh, no.
	Well, I did want to ask you one last question here before we try to close this down.
	Someone is asking about parallels between an out-of-body travel and remote viewing.
	I guess they want to understand whether or not they're coming close to that kind of thing.
	The best place that studies, to my knowledge, out-of-body experiences is the Monroe Institute in Faber, Virginia.
	Skip Atwater used to be in the DIA's military program, that same one that Lin Buchanan came out of, and that was in a, you know, and they have an interest in remote viewing, but really their real interest is in out-of-body, and That's a different type of experience.
	That's where your consciousness seems to lift out of the body and go somewhere else, almost like your ghost goes someplace.
	I have actually gone to the Monroe Institute and taken a good deal of their training.
	I actually think it's very fun.
	I like to include it as part of remote viewing training because it exposes you to so many new ideas so easily.
	And then when you come back and do remote viewing, you sort of have that depth that you didn't really have before, because you don't have to be sort of taught about everything indirectly.
	You can actually experience a lot of stuff.
	But remote viewing and out-of-body are different, because with remote viewing, your consciousness stays focused in your own self.
	You're not in an altered state.
	You're not using any type of Sound signals like they use with the hemi-sync sounds at the Monroe Institute to sort of force an out-of-body experience or urge or encourage an out-of-body experience.
	You're really just like the way you are now.
	Normal.
	And with remote viewing.
	And what you do is you get trained to shift your attention to an aspect of yourself where perceptions are actually coming in all the time but you normally ignore them.
	So, with remote viewing, you're in a normal waking state, but you're shifting perceptions to these feelings that we often think of as intuitive, or intuitive feelings, but if you really focus on them well, you get more than just intuitions, you get pictures and images and stuff like that, but you're still in the here and now, in your own body, centered, focused, so it's not the same experience as an out-of-body experience.
	Okay, thank you very much.
	And that's very accurate.
	What I'd like to do at this point is close this down because we've been going for quite some time.
	And we will do this again, Courtney.
	I will have you back.
	We'll do a radio show again and just discuss the, as we were talking about, the more physics of remote viewing and so forth.
	But I think this has been fascinating for people and, you know, I guess they do understand where they can go on your website to get the information now.
	And thank you so much.
	Actually, the best thing to do is just to go right to our website and just simply look, which is Farsight.org.
	It's like seeing far, F-A-R-S-I-G-H-T.
	And again, the DVD, The Farsight Experiments, is what we designed to make that gap, to bridge the gap, so that you hit the ground running and you know what we're doing.
	And it's designed especially to explain it.
	And it does include the big projects, such as the one we talked about tonight.
	Okay.
	And I guess the last question some people were asking, do you have any projects set for the near future?
	In other words, are you looking at, you know, expanded versions of 2012 or 2013 or, you know, things like that?
	Well, my first response is, are you kidding?
	Of course we have something percolating.
	And the second response is, It's not a complete secret because I'm going to be talking a little bit about it this coming weekend at the International Remote Viewing Association.
	But we have one of the biggest things that you've ever heard of coming.
	It was one of the most interesting projects we've ever done.
	And we actually focused on a... we have good solid data for it, remote viewing data, and physical imagery for it.
	Of a past human civilization on Earth that wiped itself out 70,000 years ago.
	And it was even a little bit more advanced than us.
	Not much, but a little.
	And they destroyed themselves.
	They were experimenting with an energy source that was really clean.
	And they messed up.
	Okay, and was this Atlantis?
	What people know of as Atlantis?
	I think a lot of people would like to call it that.
	It certainly fits that description.
	But we actually now know the whole picture.
	And we've got it matched with genetic information.
	How many people survived.
	We know everything.
	And I am working on... I have a bit of a trouble with this one.
	Because the data are so good.
	And it matches what we know from the geneticists so well, and it matches what we know from the geologists so well, that it's such a big project.
	I'm a videographer also.
	Mostly I'm a mathematician, but I also do videography, and I actually, the university that I work at allows me to teach one sort of non-math related course a year.
	And one of those courses that I teach that's non-math related is videography, political videography.
	And so I drink a lot of videos.
	But when I got these data, my original plan was just to make a video of it.
	But the project is so big, and the results are so spectacular, and the information cuts across so many disciplines, and it's so good and so solid, and we even have it, we even have, we even have what looks like clear evidence of a governmental attempt to suppress the information when we were coming to the end of our project, meaning they were looking at what we were doing.
	We do know that for a fact.
	And they apparently was an effort to get rid of some of the evidence of this stuff just as we were wrapping things up.
	So I mean, you couldn't get anything better.
	It was just it's picture perfect.
	And it's really the thing that I've been worried about most with regard to this thing is it's such a I sort of wish I was working in collaboration with James Cameron or some larger filmmaker, maybe with the Discovery Channel or the History Channel, that could put some extra resources into it.
	Because we have the videography capabilities, but we don't have the money that can do things on location.
	We can't fly places and do And we really, this project is so big, it could easily be a Discovery Channel two-hour series.
	And the data are so incredible.
	And it matches with so many others, and it changes so much of the way everybody thinks.
	Write a pitch, send it to me, and I'll see if I can help you try to find some, you know, getting it out there.
	Do you know some people at the Discovery Channel or History Channel or something like that?
	Not personally, but you know, I may know people who know people.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Well, that might be something we can, we'll talk about it.
	Okay.
	That'd be great.
	But anyway, otherwise I'm doing the video myself and, um, uh, what we have the data, we have it ready to go.
	And I think people are expecting like two or three months turnaround on this thing.
	I don't know if I'll be able to do something like that, but, uh, it would be nice to have a much bigger budget.
	Okay.
	Well, it sounds, sounds fascinating.
	And, and, and That's a long answer to your question.
	Yes, are we doing something new?
	We're always doing something new.
	The only thing that's different is how big this something new actually is.
	Okay, well I think everyone will be fascinating and hopefully we can reconvene and do something on that when time is right and things are ready to go and assuming we don't have to do this before anything impending happens in 2013.
	That's the other issue.
	Is actually going to happen.
	So all of that's up in the air at the moment but I guess we'll find out.
	We'll find out.
	So, thank you so much, Courtney Brown.
	Thank you, Carrie.
	And thank you everyone, American Freedom Radio, for making this possible.
	And thank you for everyone who did contribute financially.
	We will be splitting the money that came in for this event with Courtney and the Farsight Institute, so that will help him with his work and to continue doing his work and ours as well.
	And also pay my webmaster, Tommy, for his very long hours.
	Behind the scenes here and as always.
	So thank you.
	Thank you, Carrie, and thank you for inviting me especially.
	And thank you all the listeners who lasted all this time listening to this program.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Take care and touch.
	Now you and your family and friends can enjoy the cleanest, most delicious, and healthy drinking water anytime, even while most delicious, and healthy drinking water anytime, even while traveling, camping, at sporting events, or in emergency situations.
	The Berculite removes bacteria, cysts, parasites, and harmful chemicals to below detectable levels.
	It also reduces nitrates and unhealthy minerals like lead and mercury, while leaving in the beneficial and nutritional minerals your body needs.
	Berkey Light is so powerful, it can even purify raw, untreated water from remote lakes and streams.
	And the optional PF2 filters even remove fluoride.
	The Berkey Light LED, with its rechargeable lighting system, can be used as a night light or a camp light.
	To view or purchase your Berkey water system and replacement filters, please visit American Freedom Radio's website at AmericanFreedomRadio.com and click the Berkey banner.
	Once again, that's AmericanFreedomRadio.com and click the Berkey Water Banner.
	Not yet available in Iowa.
	Do you realize every day we are being put under constant stress from wireless radiation?
	What's worse is that you don't even know that it's happening.
	It puts as much stress on our body as if we had a constant viral infection, draining our energy and sapping our strength, or just making us irritable and fatigued.
	These wireless fields are being emitted from computers, microwaves, mobile phones, power lines, Now there is a solution!
	A group of research engineers in New Zealand have come up with an active shielding device that shields you from wireless radiation at a cellular level.
	BlueShield comes in three models, a household, portable and USB that plugs into any computer.
	The great thing about BlueShield is it is very affordable and guaranteed to last.
	A one-off purchase will see you being protected for years to come.
	Visit AmericanFreedomRadio.com and click on the Blue Shield banner.
	Blue Shield, brought to you by The Vinnie Eastwood Show.com.
	I have this feeling, man, because you know there's a handful of people actually run everything.
	That's true.
	It's provable.
	A handful.
	A very small elite run and own these corporations, which include the mainstream media.
	I have this feeling who's ever elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what your promises you promise on the campaign trail, blah blah blah, when you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum f***s who got you in there, and you're in this smoky room and this little film screen comes down, and a big guy in a cigar rolls the film.
	And it's a shot of a Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before.
	It looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll.
	And in the film the screen goes up and the lights come up and they go to the new president.
	Any questions?
	Just what my agenda is.
	First we bomb Baghdad.
	You got it.
	This is Sean David Morton, the host of Strange Universe Radio, and I've achieved worldwide fame for my predictions about the stock market and the global economy.
	Years of economic earthquakes have shaken our confidence in stocks, real estate, currencies, even the stability of nations.
	Our country teeters on the brink of seeming economic wreck and ruin.
	Everybody asks me one question.
	What can I do?
	Gold is the one investment that preserves and grows real wealth in today's debt-addicted world.
	Rising government spending, And taxes and inflation almost guarantee higher gold prices for years to come.
	You can protect your family and your future even if a tidal wave of inflation devalues our dollar.
	Your first step to safety from the financial storm ahead is to read Swiss America's fantastic new white paper called Remaking Money.
	It's free when you call 800-289-2646.
	That's 800-BUY-COIN.
	Or go to swissamerica.com and download the new amazingly cool Swiss America app on iTunes.
	That's 800-289-BUY-COIN.
	800-289-BUY-COIN.
	Call Swiss America.
	The rules.
	Stay in the name of the world. No rules. No rules.
	No taboo topics.

▲