All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 9, 2013 - Project Camelot
02:50:51
COURTNEY BROWN: ATLANTIS & EARTH CHANGES
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Thank you.
Okay, that should do it.
So let's start off, Courtney, and we'll just do the preliminaries.
And in the meantime, I'm sure people will be coming over.
I have tweeted it.
It's on the front page of Camelot.
I think that that should cover as much as we possibly can in terms of trying to notify people.
I want to apologize for this very long delay.
My webmaster, Tommy, his computer blew up today.
What he means by blow-up is that it no longer works.
It's no longer a viable computer.
And at the moment, we don't have funds to actually get it working again.
And so if anyone feels that they'd like to donate to Camelot to keep us running and in good shape here, we would very much appreciate it.
Tommy is also trying to get back to the U.S. He would like to be living here if he possibly can be.
And so he needs an airline ticket for those listening.
And Project Camelot does need your support financially at this time to keep it as a viable enterprise.
So with that said, I want to welcome Courtney Brown.
I want to thank you very much, Courtney, for your very kind patience behind the scenes here while we've been dealing with all these logistical issues.
And we are on livestream.
We are live.
I can see that we are broadcasting, so I know that that's all working.
And we do have a chat, so people will be able to ask their questions later in the broadcast.
At this time, I want to basically turn it over to you and let you form an introduction for yourself and your institute.
We have gone through this before.
You have been a guest of Camelot's a number of times at this point, but it's been a while, so if you don't mind going through all of that.
And then let's launch into the first subject, which I believe in general we're calling Earth Changes.
Yeah.
Carrie, let me just check.
You can hear me fine?
I can hear you great.
Okay, great.
Well, of course, I am Courtney Brown, and I'm the director of the Farsight Institute.
That's F-A-R-S-I-G-H-T, like seeing far.
And our website is www.farsight.org, because we are a non-profit.
We're the largest science shop anywhere, where we do Scientific studies of the remote viewing phenomenon as it is done using the procedures that were developed by the United States military and used for espionage purposes or procedures that are derivative of those methodologies.
I am the leading scholar in the subject of remote viewing as it is done using those military or military-derived procedures And that is a bit of a joke, internally, for myself at least, because I'm the only scholar academic at any university that does this type of research.
Now, I do this research outside of the university, not at my university, but nonetheless, I'm still the only scholar that does remote viewing research, as remote viewing is done using this Those highly structured data collection procedures developed by the United States military.
There are other people that study remote viewing, but I'm the only one at a university who does it.
But I don't do it at the university, again.
And so it's important that I make this point because it's important that people realize that there is a huge disjuncture Of what goes on at universities worldwide, and the type of things that have not yet hit the universities, things that are not taught.
And remote viewing is not taught anywhere in the university setting.
And so, we also don't have the...
There's a number of subjects that are not taught in the university settings, and one of them is going to be something that we'll be talking about today.
Actually, two.
One will be dealing with some level of physics, interpretations of physics that are very rarely taught or hardly ever mentioned at the universities.
And the other is the issue of archaeology, because we're going to be talking later in the broadcast about our latest project, which is called the Atlantis Project.
And one of the good things about those viewers who are watching today, because we're doing video, I'll be able to show you some graphics that I normally don't get to show on audio interviews dealing with our Atlantis project.
And that project is important because there is a whole realm of archaeology, anthropology, that you are not exposed to at the university level that is really very well documented now.
And there's a remote viewing study that we just did It dovetails into that burgeoning field of archaeology called forbidden archaeology, things that are not allowed to be taught in the university, but nonetheless the physical evidence for these issues of forbidden archaeology is overwhelming.
So you really get a really delicious picture of things that are real and things that are Not allowed to be taught in university settings.
And that is delicious because it's wonderful to see this tension.
What I don't like is when people think that everything is perfect, everything is set, everything is established, and you go to the university settings and just to receive the knowledge And to, you know, yell kudos to the people who in the past who developed it and then delivered it.
Because knowledge in reality is like a football game.
It's messy.
It's a lot of people bashing around.
And that's what people should actually see.
And so when people see the stuff that's not allowed to be taught in the university settings, you get an idea of how big a battle is going on.
And that is what makes knowledge interesting, and that's what draws people in real life into the desire to study science.
So we're going to be talking about some of those things, but crucially, some of the actual results that we have gotten are jaw-dropping, and we'll be talking about that, and you'll be able to see.
Okay, so let me just start out with a brief summary of one of the two projects we're going to be talking about today, which is our Climate project, which spanned the years 2008 to 2013.
And I want to cover some things that have been covered in other interviews, something that can give people something special here.
But to start with just a basic summary, I've talked about this before on Project Hamelot, is we had a remote viewing study that was done under squeaky clean scientific conditions of total random Randomization of the target pool,
best military-grade remote viewers on the planet, squeaky clean scientific conditions, where we were trying to use remote viewing to study what we thought was going to be minor climatic change between the years June 1st, 2008 and June 1st, 2013.
To our great surprise, as most of your viewers and listeners know, we found humongous changes.
And the humongous changes were out of control or just totally bonkers weather.
That's totally unpredictable from a meteorological perspective from 2008.
I mean, five years away from 2008.
If you're sitting in 2008 and you're a meteorologist, the only thing you'd say is 2013 is going to be similar to 2008, 2007, 2005, and so on.
But we found climatic changes that were just bonkers.
And we also found what looked like impacts of meteors, mostly from the southern hemisphere, but they were hitting the water and causing tsunamis.
And that was really strange.
So, this project addressed the remote viewing phenomenon from the perspective of a theory that we've been working with for a while called the multiple universes or other worlds theory of physical reality that was developed by,
originally by Hugh Everett, a physicist who worked under John Wheeler at Princeton University and in 1957 he published his dissertation which was a big deal back in those days to raise a completely brand new theory as a graduate student And it was widely scoffed at the time.
It was a reinterpretation of quantum mechanics.
It basically, through the old interpretation of quantum mechanics, or at least the paradigm which was standing at that time, which is still the dominant paradigm today, is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
And that is that our physical reality, macro-physical reality, is distilled out of a quantum probabilistic ether, and only one version of physical reality exists.
And here everybody says there's no reason to assume that, and in fact there would be multiple versions of reality that would simultaneously exist, potentially an infinite number, And you can think of it very much like a radio dial, where you're listening to a station on the radio, and there are other stations broadcasting on that radio, but you can't hear them, because they're on other frequencies, and the radio is screening out those other frequencies, so you listen only to one.
Similarly, as a television set, where you're watching only one channel, and only one picture is what you're seeing, and all of the other frequencies are being screened out.
So in this realm, our Brains are equivalent to very sophisticated hologram generators, where the role of the brain is to work as a radio or television receiver to screen out all other frequencies so that you see only one.
And that's the here and now that we see.
Now that allows an infinite number of other realities to exist, you just can't see them because they're out of sync with the expected frequency.
And this was widely Scott at his day in 1957, But today, it has slowly gained adherence, and now 18% of mainstream physicists actually adopt the other world's interpretation of reality as the correct one.
And that still means 82% still adopt the Copenhagen, or sometimes the Standard Model as the interpretation of quantum mechanics and physical reality.
But 18% is nothing to scoff at, and it's growing.
And we're basically waiting for what Max Planck says, retirement and death to take over the 82%, and the younger generation of physicists, who are now like assistant professors and graduate students and so on, to simply replace them.
Because all of the evidence, the physical evidence, is in the direction of the multiple universes or other worlds interpretation.
And these other worlds don't violate the conservation of energy because all of them exist right now.
You just don't see them.
And tactically, then, that means that remote viewing works because remote viewers train to allow the brain to allow in information that it normally would not allow in.
It's like fielding with your radio receiver to allow another station to sort of bleed into the one that you're actually working with.
And over time, with practice and with Instruction, remote viewers can get really good at that.
So, there's a lot of physics behind it, but I'm not going to be going into that tonight, but that's just a brief summary of it.
So, with this climate project, we were looking at alternate timelines.
The idea is at any point of the now, like now and now and now and now, there is a branching off of reality, multiple realities, and there is no one single future for any So it is impossible to predict a single future because there are many.
Going back in time with remote viewing doesn't produce that problem because going back in time you have a situation where The Tasker, or the person who picks the target, knows exactly what timeline he wants, or she wants, which is like the sinking of the Titanic.
We want the timeline where that happened.
So the remote viewers will get that all the time.
But into the future, that doesn't exist.
The Tasker doesn't know what's happening into the future.
So with our climate project, we defined two realities, or two timelines, and by certain conditions and said let's see what's out there with those conditions just to see if there was anything similar between those ones and the one that we had and I clearly stated that our reality is not one of those but we're going to see if there's any correlation between them and fortunately for the project we had big events which was huge climatic change as well as what
it looked like meteor impact so what we were predicting If the theory was correct, is lots of climatic differences, big climate change, stuff that was totally unpredictable from a meteorological perspective in 2008, but five years from then, that's what we were seeing.
And we were also saying some type of meteor event will occur.
The details will be different, but some type of thing that will be sort of potentially devastating, once in a lifetime, or even more rare, Meteor events will occur.
So let's see what actually happened with this project.
This project was extremely successful because, as we all know now, the weather is much, much, much different than it was in 2008.
And it was totally unpredictable from a meteorological perspective.
So the weather we have now has just gone bonkers.
I haven't seen the sun on a full day in Atlanta.
For two and a half months.
In May there were snow blizzards in England.
There was unprecedented floods in China all throughout Europe.
Whole towns, cities being washed away in India with rivers that look like a Hollywood movie that you'd swear has to be computer generated.
So we have the Huge tornado in Oklahoma.
It goes on and on.
Hurricane Sandy.
What we've gotten is just weather every month.
That is just crazy.
I mean, just months ago, in our winter in the north, in Australia's southern, their summer, You were getting temperatures in Fahrenheit that were way over 120.
I mean, closing in 125, 130.
I mean, they actually had to come up with a new scale, the thermometers.
They couldn't show them on the television anymore because the temperatures were above what their thermometers were reading.
So, you know, the weather has literally gone bonkers.
And this is totally unpredictable from a meteorological perspective if you were in 2008.
And then what about the meteors?
Well, we were saying some type of potentially devastating meteor events of some time should happen.
Now, the details will differ on the ground, but the meteor events should be unmistakable.
Sure enough, in mid-February of this year, 2013, February 15th, there were two huge things.
There was DA14, and that was an asteroid that missed this planet by a whisker.
It flew so close, it almost hit the atmosphere.
It was within the orbit of the upper reaches of the atmosphere.
It was within the orbit of some of our own satellites.
It was extremely close, and many mainstream scientists were breathing.
Breathing heavy to, you know, it was really, really close.
I mean, they were saying, phew!
Secondly, we had the media that impacted over Russia.
And both of those things happening simultaneously or within the same 24-hour period, according to CNN, was a 1 out of 100 million chance within the same 24-hour period.
And so those are extremely rare events.
And then what I did was on February 16th, the very next day, I issued a Bulletin on YouTube and the website and our newsletter saying that those events, since they were so rare, met our meteor criteria for the climate project.
Even though they were not impacts on the water, they were extraordinary, more rare than once-in-a-lifetime events.
We haven't seen anything similar since the so-called Tunguska event in 1908.
And so such a thing met the stuff of the climate projects, extremely rare events, dealing with meteors.
And so we had those two types of things.
With multiple realities, you get situations like you'll get an earthquake with remote viewing data, and it may look devastating.
But if it's in the future, you'll be able to say, well, there'll be some earthquake around that time, but the magnitude may be different by a lot.
And so you may get a very significant earthquake, but it won't be as devastating as remote viewing data suggests.
So, that's the type of thing.
Any big phenomenon will interact with a swath of other realities, but there will be evidence of such an event in those other realities, but it won't be the same.
For example, if there was a nuclear bomb to blow up in our reality, that is such a big event it would affect multiple realities, but some of the realities it would affect less than other realities.
If Fukushima goes belly-up and the nuclear power plant Fukushima Daiichi, well, it might affect our reality a great deal if all that radiation seeps into the water.
And some other realities, it would affect less.
And those realities are as equally real as us.
And so, the basic idea behind this is that if these things do happen in different realities, remote viewers will see them, bring that information back, and then allow some possible change in the direction of our own So,
one of the most interesting things about this particular thing dealing with the meteors is that the Russian meteor That had a lot of video coverage of it.
There was lots and lots of people rolling around with video cameras and they caught the Russian meteor on video.
And one of the videos that was so very clear of the Russian meteor showed something from, it's on YouTube, everyone can see it, showed something coming from behind as the Russian meteor was streaking overhead.
If it hit the Soviet, I mean, if it hit Russia intact, it would have created an explosion equivalent to 50 times the Explosion of the nuclear bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.
What happened was, as it was peeking overhead, something came from behind and hit it and fragmented it and blew some pieces out in front of it.
Now, the video coverage of that is extremely clear.
The only question is, what could cause that?
Well, there's only three possibilities.
The first possibility is that it was another meteor that came from behind and hit it.
But that's such a rare event that you can basically just dismiss it.
The other possibility is it could have been an anti-ballistic missile system from either Russia or the US. And actually there was a Russian general who made a statement regarding that, saying that's what it was immediately afterwards, but that report was actually pulled afterwards.
And you can understand, if that did happen, that would be a Real sensitive issue with regard to the weaponization of space and cause all types of problems, so they'd have to pull that.
But let's just say that did happen.
You and I know that human technology is not that good.
So, if they actually did that, they must have been ready for it.
They would have had the so-called guns drawn, triggers cocked, ready to shoot.
They would have actually been really ready for it.
And that leaves open the possibility that if they were to get a meteor coming out of the blue, From almost any direction.
They would have had to have had some information that said the thing was possible and been ready for it.
And that gives us the possibility that the climate project might have actually been used to alert them, knowing that something like this was going to happen.
And that's exactly how you change timelines.
Now we know that the military does look at our projects, for sure.
I mean, the military guys are on our board of directors, for heaven's sake.
So we know that they look at our stuff very seriously.
And so, it's impossible to think that we would have had something like that out, and for them not to say, to do something with it.
They would have tried to have acted on the information in some way anyway, if it was possible to them.
Now the other possibility is that it could have been extraterrestrial intervention.
And one of the worst kept secrets on the planet is that the U.S. and possibly the Russian governments have some contact with some extraterrestrial species.
I say one of the worst kept secrets because ever since Colonel Corso's book, The Day After Roswell, it's been pretty clear That was a book that was never refuted by the military and was written by a colonel.
And there's a great deal of information that comes out from high-ranking sources.
I mean, I've sat in rooms with two-star generals where we talk about this stuff, the E.T. stuff, openly.
And, you know, out in public, it's not done that way.
But there are sources of information that are very clear that do indicate that there is some type of contact for whatever reason, perhaps technology transfer in exchange for whatever favor some of the E.T.s may want.
Now, if that was the case, and the Climate Project data did come out, then, I mean, I know these guys.
They definitely would have turned to some of their ET friends and said, hey, look, if we're working with you, and if this stuff is real, do something with it.
And the two things they could have done was, A, You know, impact the Russian meteor, just like we saw on the video, because that's very clear.
The other thing they could have done is nudge DA14, which is a huge asteroid that barely missed the planet.
If they did that far enough out, they could have almost just spit on it and moved the trajectory slightly so that it would have missed it.
But it was coming at the Earth from the southern hemisphere, which would have matched exactly what we had with our So, if you look at the idea of the two big things in our climate project data, which is bonkers weather combined with meteor event that's extraordinary, more rare than once in a lifetime stuff, we got those two things.
The details were different, but The essence of that were the same.
And that's exactly what we wanted to get from our climate project.
And that means going into the future, when we use remote viewing to see things in the future and we get large events happening, now we know more about how to interpret that.
We can say, okay, the essence of that is going to happen, but the details may differ radically.
So, there'll be some, for example, in this case, weather that's out of control, bonkers, and some type of meteor events, Won't look like what we have in the rainbow viewing data in all of its details, but just knowing that weather is not going to be predictable from a meteorological perspective, and that there's something dealing with meteors coming, just knowing that is hugely important, and it's a very successful conclusion to our climate project.
Anyway, that sort of wraps it up, and for those people who didn't know that on February 16th, In 2013, we had said that the meteor data had met, and I said, on the YouTube presentation, as well as on our website and written, and on the newsletter, I said, thus, no further meteor stuff should occur up through June 1st, so there would be no tsunamis or anything like that.
For those people who were still waiting until June 1st to see if there were going to be any meteor impact or tsunamis, You know, you're guilty.
You're guilty of not signing up for our free newsletter.
And there's no reason not to sign up for our free newsletter.
If you go to our website, which is www.farsight.org, and if you go to the bottom of the nav bar and simply see the big banner saying, subscribe to our newsletter, you will see it.
And there's no reason not to do it.
We never give the email addresses out to anybody.
We only send out something once every two or three months.
So you don't get any spam from us.
And when we do have a new project, or if we have a major announcement, like the February 16th announcement, that's where you get it.
So signing up for our newsletter is a really important thing.
It's a big deal.
And again, it's free.
We're a non-profit, so we don't have any advertising.
We don't take out advertising or wave flags in front of people's faces.
So if you want to get the latest of what we do, that's what you have to do.
Sign up for the free newsletter.
And it only takes an email address and a click, and off we go.
Okay, fair enough.
That summarizes the climate project.
Okay, so Courtney, thank you for that and a very great summation that you did.
I do appreciate it.
I'd like to sort of drill down a little bit in this area before we move on to the Atlantis, if you don't mind.
Okay, so there are people out there who will wonder why your remote viewers were getting different locations for these events.
In other words, there were very specific locations you were looking at around the globe, as I recall.
And, for example, I had somebody in Australia say, ask him what he saw about the Sydney Opera House because obviously, you know, nothing's happening at the moment.
And I just also want to throw out the idea.
That timing, again, can be off.
And so, is it possible that this information...
I mean, this may not be the only event.
There may be events in the future.
There may be events in the future in these places that your remote viewers saw.
In other words, you may be calling it a hit now.
What it might have been is a miss now and a hit later.
And how do you account for that?
Well...
These are good questions, and can I perhaps be more of a devil's advocate than you're even doing, which is to say, somebody might say, well, this multiple universes stuff is just a cop-out to avoid saying that the project failed in remote viewing just as bonkers and it just doesn't work and just go home and stop doing this type of research.
I mean, it's proof positive remote viewing is just not working.
So, let me approach it from that more extreme point of view than sort of the nice way that you put it.
Which I appreciate the nice way, but there are some people who would like to say, look, where were the tsunamis?
Sydney outbrows a stale layer.
The stuff you did is just junk.
And the multiple universe stuff is just a cop-out.
So, let's deal with it from sort of the more extreme phrasing of that question, rather than be polite.
And so, the first thing is, If you're thinking that the multiple universes thing is just junk, that couldn't be more wrong.
We also invested a solid year in another project called the Multiple Universes Project, where we specifically tested for the existence of other realities.
And that was actually published in a leading peer-reviewed journal.
And so if you go to our website, www.farsight.org, And go down to a set of brown banners.
On the left, you'll see the latest peer-reviewed published research.
Click on that.
You can actually read for free the article that summarizes the experiment dealing with multiple realities.
And that was published again in a leading peer-reviewed journal.
The idea is a really difficult idea to wrap your head around because the physical reality that you see in front of you is so convincing.
It is something that Hugh Everett had to deal with In a huge way when he did his dissertation in 1957 and the article that was published about his dissertation in a leading physics journal.
And Bryce DeWitt, a major, very famous physicist at the time, wrote him and said, you know, no one has any problems with your math.
The math is great.
I'm also an applied mathematician and whoever's math is really good.
But the interpretation of the math is ridiculous, meaning There's no branching going on.
I mean, you're saying at every moment of the now there's a branching and other realities are sort of working out.
It's not happening.
There's no branching.
I don't see any branching.
Where is the branching?
It doesn't exist.
And Hugh Everett's comment to that was that was the same as what happened to Copernicus when he said, it's not that the sun is flying around us, but we are orbiting the sun instead.
And people looked at him and could say, that's so stupid.
It's crazy.
Just look up for heaven's sake.
Look at the sun.
It's starting there in the morning and it's ending over there in the evening.
It's flying around.
You can see it.
We're not flying around.
I'm not feeling anything.
If we were flying around, things would be flying all over the place.
He wouldn't be able to hold anything down.
It's the sun that's moving.
Look at it.
And so what Hugh Everett's response was, those people didn't have an understanding of the science that was yet to come with Newton.
They didn't have force equals mass times acceleration.
They didn't know that they wouldn't feel the change of moving around the Sun because they're part of the system.
But Newton hadn't happened yet.
And Breisowitz's comment actually to that was touché, meaning it was a good point.
So the basic idea with the multiple realities concept is it's very difficult for even physicists, smart physicists, to wrap their heads around it.
And so that's why only 18% currently of physicists actually adopt it.
But that's way more than only one physicist in 1957.
I mean, the movement is quite clear in the direction of People accepting it.
But it's a really very difficult question to ask, because this reality looks so good.
But if you were to put a parrot or a bird or a dog in front of a television, they'd actually think that what they're looking at is a real thing.
And you can imagine the technology 20 years from now, where they'll have three-dimensional television sets.
And three-dimensional television sets will put the action right in front of you, in your living room, in front of the floor in the living room, And it'll look real.
And if you take a person, a primitive person, who doesn't know anything about it and just brings it in, they'll think that Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia are actually standing in your living room.
And you say, no, no, no, it's just a bunch of frequencies.
This is a television set.
And you have to explain it.
It doesn't look like frequencies to me.
It looks like Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia.
So the point is that frequencies can produce very real images, just like they can produce very real sounds when you listen to the radio.
And it's very convincing to us.
The other thing that's important to understand is that physicists, this is an absolute fact, physicists have never found ever, ever, ever, ever anything solid.
They say, well, my body is solid, my car is solid, my radio is solid, my computer is solid.
No, no, no.
It's all empty space with some molecules inside.
And inside the molecules are atoms, and inside the atoms are subatomic particles.
And if you burrow into the subatomic particles, you never find anything that's solid Like a billiard ball.
You never find it.
And so, what you actually have only are frequencies, waves that interact, Using the processes of constructive and destructive interference to produce something that physicists call the superposition, which is like a distortion in space-time, that you actually get a warping, and our physical reality is composed of those large ensembles of superpositions.
So, just like the television set, which is just frequencies interacting, we are just frequencies interacting, and no solid thing has ever, ever, ever been found And so the illusion is very convincing, but it is only an illusion.
And again, 82% of physicists haven't been convinced either because the illusion is so solid.
But the fact that 18% have been convinced should tell you what direction this is moving.
So what we can actually say is that when there are multiple realities, there will be differences on the ground.
And if these multiple realities branch out at every moment of the now, There is no single future.
That's why it's not difficult, but it is absolutely impossible to predict with total accuracy a single future because there isn't one.
It doesn't exist.
There are only multiple futures.
And so the only thing you can predict going forward is the basic essence of what you're seeing.
So with regard to the guy from Australia, and guy I use generically, male or female, You know, you're right.
The details are not the same as in the remote viewing data.
And that will happen every single time you do an experiment like this when you look into the future.
But you look at the big things, the essence, and say, the details are going to be different, but the essence is going to be the same.
And what we have gotten is meteor events.
Now, if that DA14 had actually hit...
Remember, according to the theory being raised here, Is that there may have been intervention.
And if there had not been a video recording of something smacking into the Russian meteor, which is extraordinary.
I mean, everyone's seen it.
Carrie, have you seen that video?
Yes.
Yeah.
If there had not been that video, then I would be just sort of saying, well, you know, it's just multiple timelines.
But given the fact that there's something did smack into that meteor, it was huge.
And it prevented the meteor from landing in Russia intact.
Which would have produced an explosion that was 50 times bigger than the one that destroyed Hiroshima.
So, only because of that video evidence can we say that it's really something we have to entertain that there might have been intervention.
And if there was intervention, it might very well have been because of the climate project.
And if the intervention happened with one, it could have easily happened with the other as well.
And nudging DA14 so that it just missed the planet rather than hit the planet would have been extremely easy for ET, for an extraterrestrial craft.
If they did it when the thing was far out, it would have been very easy.
Now, if there wasn't evidence of intervention for the Russian one, you could have said, oh, this is pipe dreaming.
But the video is clear as day.
So you have to entertain that as one possibility that that did happen.
So, if for the person who says the Sydney Opera House is still there, they say, yeah, it still is.
Now, you can try to figure out, just like me, we have to speculate in this regard what might have happened.
But the essence of the remote viewing data were correct.
Bonkers weather, that's still going on, and meteors.
Now, I want to say something that you addressed, Kerry.
You had said, could it be, and this is something I've never covered in another radio interview, so this is a very interesting point you raise, that is the timing.
We technically cut our experiment off on June 1st, 2013, but we don't really know.
You know, as Einstein said, If we really knew what we were doing, we wouldn't call this research.
This is research.
And we call it research because we don't know what we're doing.
We are trying something and seeing what happens.
So this is a five-year project.
Very interestingly, we got the essence of what we found in the remote going data dead on.
It comes after a very successful conclusion of our multiple universes project, so the idea of trying multiple timelines, which was part of the project from the very beginning.
If you remember, Kerry, we talking about two alternate timelines and very clearly saying these are not our timelines, but we're hoping there'll be a correlation so that we can see.
Well, we got exactly that.
And so, for those people who are frustrated, understand that we're not saying, or I'm not saying, That the multiple universes thing, in a way, is like a cop-out to avoid saying that, you know, remote viewing is not working.
I'm saying it's part of the package.
And also, if you want to downplay the reality of remote viewing because of a difficulty that we've had in predicting precision, with precision, what happens in the future, then you're acting as your own idiot because you're avoiding all the evidence that's overwhelming of the accuracy of remote viewing events that are in the past or concurrent, meaning current time at the same time as remote viewing.
This problem of precision doesn't affect those types of remote viewing.
And we have lots of detailed projects dealing with that where the remote viewers' good ones all the time get Really accurate sessions of targets that are in the past or concurrent targets.
If you wanted to dismiss all of remote viewing just because of problems we're having with regard to describing future events, even though we have a full theory of it, Well, that's really stupid because you're ignoring all the results that are just very opposite.
The precision is great moving with looking at targets in the past or concurrently.
So you'd have to sort of figure that out.
So the reality is we have a theory, we have a prediction, and we have a result.
And that's what you need with science.
And from our perspective, That remote viewing project, the climate change project, was a real success.
And if we were to do something similar, you should expect something similar.
Meaning, the details will always be different.
And you'll always find people saying, hey, what happened to this?
The remote viewing says Eiffel Tower is supposed to crumble, but it didn't crumble.
What happened?
There might have been a big earthquake in Paris, but the Eiffel Tower didn't crumble.
But the remote viewing says the Eiffel Tower should have crumbled.
Well, you know, at least we got the earthquake right.
And the essence would be there, but the details will always be different.
So that's what it's going to be going forward in all similar projects.
So it's part of the terrain.
But now we know that.
Isn't that good to know?
I mean, that's a really valuable thing to know moving forward.
Yeah, and absolutely, I can see all of that, and I imagine the listeners can as well.
Let me just say, though, that going along the lines of what I was sort of saying in terms of the future timelines and what we may be looking at down the line, if the idea here wasn't that you were off, Wasn't that these people were off, but that they are correct, but for some future events.
So this is what I'm just throwing out.
I know you can't answer it, you see, because you don't know.
Those things haven't happened yet.
But because I consider myself a precog, I have dreams of the future all the time.
Now, those futures haven't happened.
Some have, some haven't.
Which means it tells me that I know that I am a precog.
I know that that much is true, because sometimes those dreams are correct.
So far I have like a library of dreams that haven't happened yet.
So I am waiting to see whether they will ever happen.
Now I haven't lived long enough to find out if they'll happen.
But I'm not going to say they'll never happen because that would be sort of silly.
You don't know.
They could happen on this timeline in the future.
They could happen on another timeline.
Or, as you say, they could be the essence of whatever's happening now.
And certainly, many of those things could happen.
According to the theory, the details of what you're precognitively perceiving will happen in some future timeline.
The only issue is, will anything resembling those details, even the essence, show up in your timeline?
So the idea is, if the event is really big, It will have some type of implications to a whole bunch of timelines, so the probability is you'll see something related to it.
But, you know, this idea of precognitive stuff is very interesting because if you do have a dream or precognitive vision of something happening, you now have information about the future.
It does happen in some future reality.
So the question is, if you now know that, that allows you to change your direction.
How many times have we heard a story of a spouse saying, don't go to work today, something bad is going to happen.
And the spouse stays home, and sure enough, the submarine sinks.
I mean, that type of stuff, or the airline crashes, isn't it?
That type of stuff is very, very common.
And we've also heard stories where the spouse says, don't go today because something's going to happen, and the person says, oh, that's ridiculous, and goes anyway, and sure enough, the train crashes, and the person dies.
So, see, in one situation, the information was brought back, and people acted on it and did something differently, and that future, although it was perceived, didn't occur.
To that person.
On the other hand, the information was brought back in the second case, and the person disregarded it, went anyway, and the future actually happened to that.
That particular, in detail, that particular future happened.
So, that's what we're dealing with.
So, it's not necessarily that you're waiting for everything to happen, but because you perceived something, It may not happen if you do anything about it.
Okay, but what I'm talking about, I guess, are, you know, I didn't clarify this, but these are not necessarily personal.
In other words, I've seen earth changes, let's say.
I've literally seen them very clearly as like a movie in my dreams.
Now, I know a lot of people have had these kinds of dreams, and people are continuing to have these dreams, as a matter of fact.
And this is what kind of goes on.
And we don't know, really, whether these incidents are happening.
Along these lines, what I'd like to ask you is whether, first of all, your remote viewers must know they live on the planet, they've done the viewing, they know the results.
I don't know if you talk about the results with them and talk about the conclusions that you're making, etc., etc.
But I wonder if any of them say to you, Well, I understand that the essence of this did happen.
The details were off, but I happen to see the details happening in the future.
In other words, in a future that they're still perceiving.
In other words, they're still getting a hit on it.
Have they conveyed any of that kind of information to you?
No, but it's fair to think that they may think those things.
These remote viewers are really well trained, the ones that I work with.
And they simply do their job, hand their session in, and walk away from it.
Okay.
And leave the analysis up to the analyst, whether it's myself, Glenn Wheaton, Glenn Buchanan, whatever, but they leave it up to whoever's analyzing.
And sometimes, very rarely, but sometimes they do come back and say, but I did sort of see this, or I did sort of see that.
But in general, they...
They basically walk away from the analysis and let it be the job of the analyst to put two and two together.
However, you're raising a good point.
The basic issue is, could these Earth changes that we saw, such as the meteor impacts, could they be of a more general nature that spans a period of time that's larger than the ending point of June 1st?
Well, it so happens that NASA recently Announced that they're looking now for sort of sister bodies to DA14 and for the Russian meteor.
And so these things often travel in bunches.
And with regard to the Russian meteor, they've now found 20 similar size, you know, either larger or somewhat smaller, but big meteors that they didn't know existed and they're just now analyzing their paths.
So they're actually trying to find out if it's possible that some of these other buddies will hit us in the future, sometimes in the near future.
The other thing is that for the first six months of this year, meteor stuff has gone off the wall.
I mean, there have been so many meteors affecting the planet.
A lot of them have hit, but they're smaller.
Some of them have been big, such as the one that hit the moon and was so big of an explosion on the moon that people saw it.
With their naked eye, not just astronomers, just regular people, so the impacts on the moon.
So we are entering into an area of huge meteor activity that was totally unpredictable five years ago, meaning the astronomers did not know it existed.
They also did not know the existence of DA14 until December of 2012.
So when we were predicting from describing In 2008 that some type of meteor type stuff was going to happen for the planet before June 1st 2013.
No one could have said that in 2008.
And what we're seeing now on the ground is really amazing.
So, is it possible that something may happen in the near future?
Say in September or something, more meteor stuff?
We don't know, but you know, it's a very legitimate question.
Whether we were picking up something that could have a sharp date or a fuzzy date.
You know, this is very similar to the Mayan calendar debate.
The Mayan calendar was something that the Mayans did, and they were pretty good with astronomy.
Actually, they were extraordinary with astronomy, and they seemed to find some type of cyclical behavior that occurred every 3,600 years or something like that.
And we translated their Calendar to the Gregorian calendar, the one that we use, and it came up with December 21st, 2012, and everyone drew that as a line in the sand.
But that had nothing to do with the Mayans.
The Mayans had a general calendar that was approximately cycling every 3,600 years, and there's nowhere that indicates that they were talking about a specific line in the sand, a specific day, but more of a general time period.
So anything, you know, that could happen in the next 5, 10, 20 years, even 100 years, is a blink of an eye with respect to a large time span of like 3,600 years.
So if you're thinking of 2012, December 2012, you really should be thinking plus or minus 100 years for some type of cyclical event to occur.
And that's really what How the Mayan calendar should be thought of.
But we, as humans, like to draw these lines in the sand and then sort of, you know, and then as soon as December 21st, 2012 happens, we say, oh, then the whole Mayan calendar thing was junk and we throw it all out.
But the reality is that's the very unscientific, naive, immature way of interpreting where that date actually came from.
The mature way of looking at it is to think of it in terms of a general time period, plus or minus.
Now, this is actually a very important point that's raised by Robert Schoch.
Robert Schoch is S-C-H-O-C-H, and he's a professor of geophysics in Boston University, and he wrote a book called Forgotten Civilization recently, just published 2012, and it's a spectacular book.
It's filled with archaeological stuff that's not taught in the mainstream universities, but the evidence on the ground is so spectacular.
But he makes a big point about that Mayan calendar thing, about how badly it was misinterpreted, this sort of line in the sand on that specific day.
Well, with remote viewing, that's similar.
Meaning, you know, we make a line in the sand, June 1, 2012, because we have to end the experiment at some point.
But if something were to happen a few months later that was matching our remote viewing data to the letter, Well, right.
And let me just get your acknowledgement, and then we can just move on to the Atlantis information, which I'm very fascinated to hear.
And at the very end, let me repeat that the people in the chat can put their questions in all caps towards the last, say, half hour.
And we will try to answer them, or Courtney will.
Basically, what I wanted to ask you is that in terms of timing, though, and remote viewing, and even as a precog or a psychic or however someone wants to look at themselves, my understanding is that timing is one of the hardest things to pin down, regardless of how you look at something.
And so, in a sense, although you gave your viewers a time, right, a cut-off date, etc., regardless of, you know, the view of the Mayan calendar, etc., etc., I'm thinking that in terms of hyperdimensional physics,
even, even understanding who we are, the fact that we're That there are multiverses and that we are multidimensional individuals living maybe simultaneously in many timelines, because you haven't really said that, but the idea that there are other timelines we're actually living in those other timelines.
And so what I'm saying is how timing, in other words, our understanding of time when we talk in a linear way is also a distortion.
From the get-go.
And so I just wanted to sort of, I don't know, indicate that to you as I believe that you know this and you work with this.
But isn't it something that kind of notoriously remote viewers even acknowledge that this being the hardest thing?
Well, time is certainly a perception that we feel.
And we organize our events sequentially, one after the next, and we call that sequentiality to be time organized.
However, the remote viewing data clearly indicates that all things happen simultaneously, in the past, the present, and the future.
And we perceive them sequentially, but if they all happen simultaneously, you have what is equivalent of simultaneous sequentiality, meaning All things happening instantly at the same moment.
There is no past, present, and the future.
And that would make sense from a frequency perspective.
For example, the interview started some while back.
Well, it's not gone.
I mean, you can still remote view it.
You can still see us working on technical issues in the past.
It's there.
It's real.
It's not gone.
Now, the early remote viewers used to think that...
Actually, the early psychics, let's go back even further, used to think that people, when they were perceiving things in the past, were looking at the Akashic Record, like a library, because they didn't understand that all of these things happened And are still there.
So they thought they were going to like a Dewey Decimal System of psychic stuff and finding the stuff and looking it up.
And then the early remote viewers used to like the idea of saying it's all in a matrix and you're looking it up in a matrix.
But that was all a very silly way of interpreting something that they didn't know how to wrap their heads around at the time.
The reality is everything is still out there in a frequency defined matter.
And everything in the past is still there, and it is real.
It is as real as this moment of the now.
It doesn't go away.
And all of these different timelines still exist.
And from a very real perspective, not an analogy or a metaphor, but an actual real perspective, that would mean that there is a version of the 20th century in which all the major wars of the 20th century did not occur.
And there would be another version of the 20th century in which World War II ended with nuclear destruction.
And those things would actually be there.
They would not have gone away and passed in time.
They're still there.
And so when we look at time now, we're having difficulty because the illusion of forward movement in time seems so real to us.
I'm a mathematician.
And, you know, at the university, I teach applied math, mostly statistics and nonlinear differential and difference equations in a social science program.
So, from a mathematical point of view, it's very interesting to look at time, because when you deal with time from sort of a theory of everything level of knowledge, physical, sort of cosmological type of, looking at time sort of from a cosmological perspective, Time divides out.
Time doesn't really seem to stay in those equations.
So in the equations, it doesn't really look like time really is there.
You can have equations in which you're using time, and I deal with nonlinear differential equations that have time in them, but when you're cosmologically looking at the theory of physical reality, and you get deep into that level, time often just divides out of those equations, and you get Equations without time.
And so physicists have often had a very great difficulty understanding time, because except as a descriptive measure in sort of higher level differential type equations, when you get to sort of lower level deep differential equations that describe the nature of physical reality, Time seems to go away.
And so when you're looking at sort of quantum mechanics, you specify the existence of something with respect to where it is in space and where it is in time.
It's part of the quantum mechanical equation.
So you're describing that something in terms of space and time, location and time, but if you go to yet a deeper level of math, The time part seems to vanish.
I hope this makes sense.
You can describe mathematically something with respect to time, but when you investigate further in terms of the nature of physical reality and you're not simply describing a thing, The time part seems to vanish.
Well, that's very interesting.
I mean, I think what we should do at this point is move on to the discussion of Atlantis, and we're going to be looking at something that in theory has passed, and yet this is kind of another aspect of time, as I understand it, because I see things as spiral, and I believe that the sort of native populations see this as well.
Because the spiral is a very, you know, it's integral to a lot of the inscriptions on temples, etc., etc., around the world.
And so what we're talking about is actually experiencing time more as a spiral.
And what that means is that you do go back through some similar events, but you actually see them from a different perspective, a different level, even going dimensionally.
Vertically, so to speak.
In other words, that we're moving through time and space in a kind of spiraling effect.
And so what I, for me, I don't know what you're going to come up with with regard to Atlantis, but understanding that what I say sometimes and what I think is that we are, a lot of us, We're re-experiencing this time from the perspective of Atlantis,
that we are Atlantis now, or the verge of Atlantis, and that we are basically about to experience the possibility, the opportunity horizon that involves a fall of some kind, and that we actually want to do it differently this time.
And so it's an interesting way of looking at the fall of Atlantis and understanding where we are now.
It's also said, for example, that in a sense, the United States is Rome.
We are the Rome of this time.
And so we are looking at a spiraling effect, in essence.
Yeah.
Well, actually, you raise a very interesting point when you say, we are Atlantis, because that's the ultimate conclusion.
Atlantis, we now understand, we can drop the mythology, we can drop the legends, we now know the whole story.
We know where it was, we know when it was, we know what they were doing, and we know what happened to it.
And we no longer have to be ambiguous about it.
So we don't have to worry about sort of hear word of mouth that Plato was talking about when he mentioned Atlantis.
We know exactly what happened on this planet.
And it was not some aliens or some other people, it was us.
It was, we are the descendants of the people who did it.
Now what I'd like to do with this, and this is one of the good things about this particular venue for being able to To be able to show a video on this as well.
So what I'd like to do is actually show you the screen.
So do you see the screen change?
And so tell me when you're actually seeing the picture of the blue box.
Okay.
Yes.
Okay.
Well, this is a box that you can see from our website.
If you go to Farsight.org, F-A-R-S-I-G-H-T, and click on the third link in the navbar called Atlantis, you'll get to this page.
Now, this project started because of this picture that you're seeing on your screen right now, which is a Google Earth image that's 1,000 miles west of Morocco and Portugal and 3 miles deep.
Okay, Courtney, I'm going to have to slow you down here because what's happening on the live stream is that the picture is taking longer to catch up.
So if you could hold on one moment while it catches up with you.
Sure.
And it's starting to, they are now seeing, because I've got another computer where I'm able to see what they see.
And it's starting to appear on that screen now.
So now go on with your explanation.
Okay.
So this picture, again, I got to it by going to farsight.org, O-R-G, because we're a non-profit.
And also, you know, see that little big banner to the upper right, upper left here?
It says, subscribe to our free newsletter.
Again, that's where you go.
You just click on that, put in your name and email address, and you've got it.
Now, with regard to this blue box that you see in the middle, this is a picture of the anomaly that was on the bottom of the ocean, still is on the bottom of the ocean, in Google Earth, and it was a thousand miles west of Morocco.
And Portugal and three miles deep.
And I looked at that and I said, this looks like the ruins of an ancient city.
Now, some oceanographers, scientists, were stating that this was the result of what they called ship tracks.
Now, these underwater data are collected by ships under contract by the United States Navy, so these are governmental data.
All Google Earth data are governmental data.
This underwater data.
And so what these pictures are, ship tracks are, when a ship captures the sonar image of the bottom of the ocean, they travel in straight lines and they go up and down overlapping paths to cover a whole area.
But if they don't do overlapping paths, then they just have one Sort of strip where the boat went, and it looks like a railroad track in the sense that there's really high resolution in the middle between the two parallel lines, and outside of those two parallel lines is very fuzzy, foggy stuff.
Well, you know, I looked at this and I said, the oceanographers are calling this ship tracks, but I know what ship tracks look like.
Those are not ship tracks, in my opinion.
They don't look anything like ship tracks.
A, they're not straight, and ship tracks are straight, because drunken captains that produce wavy ship tracks are not allowed.
Ship tracks go with their straight lines.
Secondly, there's not high-resolution imagery in the middle and fuzzy stuff on the outside.
So, in my opinion, I dismissed the idea of these being ship tracks, and I said, this is something I want to find out what it is.
It looks like the ruins of an ancient city.
So, there was another This is an image as well that we'll show in a little bit down near Antarctica.
But basically what happened, we started up this project and this took about a year to do all the remote viewing, all under squeaky clean blind conditions with two of the very best military grade or better remote viewers on the planet Deborah Duggan Takagi and Dick Allgaier.
And after about a year of doing all the remote viewing, Google Earth came out with a new version of itself.
And here's a picture of the new version.
And as you can see, the Atlantis anomaly, that we call the Atlantis anomaly, is mostly washed out.
Not completely gone, but it's not glaringly obvious.
And the oceanographers were basically coming out and saying, you see, it's been fixed.
And I looked at that and I said, nothing's been fixed.
I looked at that and I said, The only thing that's happened, from my perspective, is high compression algorithms were applied to the data, which eliminated the color gradients.
Now, color gradients are how you actually see, meaning changes in color are how you...
Okay, we've been interrupted.
I'm not sure what happened at your end.
Did you get knocked off the Skype?
Yeah, the call ended.
Okay.
It could have to do with trying to do this desktop thing.
On the other hand, it could have been interference because you were suddenly contradicting, of course, Google images or whatever they call that.
Let's go back.
I'll share the screens again and tell me if it works.
There shouldn't be any issue with sharing the screens.
But let's just see what happens.
Okay, and keep in mind that there is a slight delay time-wise in terms of people being able to see what you're showing us.
So we need to wait for just a moment and make sure that we get this to work.
Okay, so at the moment we've got something here on the screen and it hasn't shown up quite yet for people.
So, if you'd just bear with us for just a minute.
Sure, just take your time.
Tell me when it's available for people.
Okay.
It looks like it's starting to become available.
Okay, go right ahead now.
Okay, so with this new version of the underwater imagery that I call Google Earth 2.0, what seems to have happened, at least in my opinion, is that The color gradient was removed because of high compression algorithms being applied to the data.
Now, Google Earth has to use compression in its imagery because the original files are way too big.
You actually have to compress them.
But if you compress them too much, you lose the color gradients.
If you compress them a lot, you see absolutely nothing.
Just a flat piece of, you know, nothing.
Just one color.
And the evidence of high compression algorithms is when you get large swaths or large patches in the picture that have only one color and if you transform it into a shade of gray which is also what I've done you only have one shade of gray and that the borders of those patches follow the pixel lines and that's exactly what we see so in my opinion nothing was fixed only thing that happened was extreme Color,
extreme image compression was applied, and so the anomalies are not so visible, but they're still there.
Now, I am not saying that any scientist, academic, individual, or institution conspired to corrupt the Google Earth data.
I am not saying that.
The only thing I'm saying is that, in my opinion, I don't trust any official statement or comments or authoritative statement or comment about any imagery.
Even teenage photoshoppers can do anything they want with a picture these days.
So, what I'm saying is these are governmental data and the government can do whatever it wants with these data before any scientist or institution gets a hold of it.
I don't trust any such images.
And for me, in my opinion, this looks simply absolutely unambiguously Like extreme compression being applied to those images.
So, I like to find another way to sort this out.
Now here's another picture.
And again, we're going to have to wait a little bit for the live stream to catch up.
But this is a picture of an anomaly at the bottom of the ocean off the coast of Antarctica.
And you can tell me when it becomes clear on the live stream, but I'll talk about it anyway while we're waiting.
It's a rectangular set of holes in the ground that are very much arranged like a checkerboard.
Clearly artificial.
Those are not whale droppings.
So, Carrie, is it visible in live stream yet?
Yes, it's just become visible.
Okay, so these are holes in the ground arranged in lines and columns just like a checkerboard pattern.
And so this is obviously not something that can be explained away as ship tracks or something like that.
This is something else.
So this is another evidence that there was something artificial in the bottom of the ocean.
Google Earth 2.0 came around and this is the new version of it.
And again, we'll wait a little bit for the livestream to catch up.
Now, the holes are still visible, even with the high compression of Google Earth 2.0, but they're still visible.
They're just not as glaringly obvious.
So, what we have is a situation in which these images are looking like civilization evidence, but Official scientific sort of statements about them simply dismiss them.
So it's a perfect puzzle to address using remote viewing, which is, what are those images?
So we have, I constructed various targets to address those images, seven targets in particular.
Three for the first one, dealing with the Atlantis project, and three for the, now I'm going to try to stop the video sharing, Cancel.
So, oh, stop sharing.
Okay, so you should start seeing me again, so you can tell me when me is available.
Okay.
Okay, yeah.
Carrie, Alright, so basically we have a number of targets that I wrote, and the first target, basically the same for both what I call the Atlantic Grid and the Antarctic Grid, is that the target was as it's actually shown in the picture.
What is that thing on the bottom of the ocean?
And then the second target is the viewer should explore and describe What the target in the picture looked like before it was located at the bottom of the ocean.
And the target time should be whenever what caused the pattern shown in the image was at its peak or optimal state.
So, the first target is, what's at the bottom of the ocean?
Second target is, what was it before it was at the bottom of the ocean?
Whenever it was at its peak or optimal state before it sunk, what did it look like?
And then the third target was, The same thing as the second, except at the moment that the process started for it to go under.
So, when it sank, at that moment, that was the target time, so that we could find out what was the cause and the nature of the process that made it go under.
So, that was the structure of the overall project.
We had a seventh target added at the end, which was to Find the point of origin that triggered whatever the event was that caused the things to go under.
So we can actually say, you know, where did this thing start, this process of this stuff syncing?
So the remote viewing data was gotten, and it was analyzed.
Now, I'm going to be going through some of the data now and describing to you some of the images and showing some of the images so you can get it.
I do want to mention that we have a DVD out called The Atlantis, The True Story.
And that DVD, you can see the first 15 minutes of it for free right on our website by just clicking on the Atlantis banner in our homepage that's in the middle of the page, or by clicking on the Atlantis link in the nav bar, the third from the top, and then clicking the Watch Now button.
Then you can watch the first 15 minutes.
It sets up the entire project.
And the DVD sort of pulls the whole project together with all the imagery.
But we're going to be going through some of the imagery today so you can sort of get an idea of how startling this imagery actually is.
The DVD also has a live session by Dick Algar.
So he's in front of a whiteboard and he's doing a session on video and you actually see a live, totally blind remote viewing session And it's stunning to actually see it in progress.
So let's look at some of the data for the very first target, which is the thing that's on the bottom of the ocean.
What does it actually look like?
And so, first thing I want to do is to show...
Here, let me actually show the screen so you can see the picture.
There we go.
So, Carrie, if you can tell me when this picture shows up on people's screen.
Okay.
Just a moment.
And at the moment you've got my picture showing up on your screen so if there's a way for you to click me away so that I don't interfere with the drawing here, that'd be better.
Yeah, thank you.
Do you see the drawing?
Yes.
Oh, that's interesting that it was overlapping.
Yes.
Okay, so are you overlapping now?
No.
Okay, good.
It looks fine now.
Okay, great.
So, is it visible on the live stream?
Yes, now it's visible.
Okay.
All right, so this is an image.
This is just what's at the bottom of the ocean now under totally blind conditions.
This is what Deborah Dubin Takagi drew.
She drew mountains off to the side.
As you can see, she drew it in a sort of a crude way, but these are mountains off to the side.
And she drew a rectangular civilization block with water all around it.
All these little squiggles are water.
So, she got the basic essence of that very great.
So, let me go back now to, let me go to a different picture and give you an idea of what happened when we get, say, with Dick Alvarez sessions, so you can get an idea of how detailed some of these actual things are.
I'm going to jump the gun here a little bit and show something that he actually does live really nicely in the DVD.
And let me know when this is visible.
Gary, can you see it on your screen?
I can see it, and it's just become visible on the livestream now.
Okay.
So, what he does, and he does this live on the DVD, he finds a huge set of structures underneath the ground.
There's sediment on top, and then there's bedrock below, and there's huge pressure, and it's all underwater, And there's really, this is very complicated stuff, and some of the stuff seems to be still operating.
Now, neither person came up with any live people, but it does appear that there may be some live machinery down there, meaning there's some stuff down there still, and it's not all dead.
Not in terms of physical life, but in terms of machinery still operating.
One of the things that Dick says on the live session is he's totally doing this under blind conditions.
He said, that is a weird place.
Well, but build this thing.
You just can't go down under there with a submarine and build this thing.
The tremendous pressure, this is a weird place.
And then he looked right into the camera and said, where did Courtney Brown send us?
I have no idea, but I think I know something about it.
And he describes this absolutely huge set of structures.
He also describes a lot of tunneling that's underneath it.
So, you know, the descriptions that he actually gives are very close, identical to what you're actually seeing in the picture.
But anyway, this is basically what's down there now.
So let's Let's stop the sharing and bring back me, and then talk a little bit about what was actually found.
And again, I convey all of this in detail in the DVD, but let's go to the actual place, what the place looked like before it ended up on the bottom of the ocean.
Okay, and this time let's go to Dick Algaris Sessions.
And let's just take a look at what this sort of place looked like.
And this is where you'll get an understanding of why I'm saying that this was...
At this point is where I said, let's call this thing Atlantis, because the basic idea of Atlantis is that it was a high-tech society.
Now, the society that we actually found there It was a little bit more advanced than we have today, but it was very recognizable, very compatible with what we have today.
I would say about a hundred years more advanced than what we have today.
And the reason I can say that is they had a lot of scientific stuff there, a lot of large computer screens where operators were looking and they had a lot of dial and button variety controls, but they also had neural interfaces that would connect with people So that people, via their thoughts, would be able to control machines.
And that looks like about a hundred years more advanced than what we have today.
We're talking about doing that type of thing now.
And the technology for doing that is very primitive right now.
And if you added another hundred years, you could basically imagine exactly what some of the sessions are.
But let me ask if you have the current picture up on your screen.
Yes, we do.
Okay.
Now here we have something similar to Grand Central Station.
And Dick is describing hordes of people like going to work, briskly, not walking, but like they do, going to work, trying to get to the local trains, just like they are today.
So that's what we find.
He has other images.
I can't show all the images, but he showed pictures of cities with big buildings.
The architecture looks very similar to what it is today, but it looks more like Penn Station, maybe more like the Chrysler Building in New York, and a little less like, say, the World Trade Center used to look before 9-1-1.
So, it looks a little bit like the architecture of the style that we had that was prominent in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, and a little bit less like the architecture that we had in the 80s and 90s and so on.
Now, that doesn't mean it's less advanced, it just means the shape of the buildings.
When you look at the technology that's inside the buildings, you can see that it's a little bit more, they were a little bit more advanced than we are today.
Okay, Courtney, let me ask you though, you know, we were looking at under the ocean, and now you've got your viewers looking at this area of the ocean.
They're imagining what is there.
Are they imagining what is there on a landmass that is above the water?
Yes, because at this point, the second target is when the object was in its prime.
So the The second target is not what's there right now, but what happened when it was in its prime.
So you have a lot of city stuff that you see.
But they did describe, in other words, they described open air.
In other words, up on a surface.
Yeah, absolutely.
I'll give you another image, for example, of the city type of stuff that we see.
You can tell me when this comes out.
This is just sort of one I'm picking out at random.
There are many like this, but this is just similar.
And this is a picture where you have structure after structure after structure.
A lot of people walking around.
There's energy, compressed air, a lot of noises.
And he also has many other pages where the architecture is more clearly defined.
And, in fact, that will eventually happen.
So what I'll do right now is to show you one of those other pictures so you can see some of the architecture.
And you can see then what I was talking about when I said something that looks a little bit more like Grand Central or Penn Station.
So here...
Okay.
So, I know it's taking this delay, but I'm going to read from part of this session, so you're waiting for the picture to show up.
And the sense of a large, complex public structure, lots of passages, corridors, older-style architecture reminded me of Penn Station, Grand Central Station, Union Station, and lots of people moving around.
Very ornate construction.
Large open areas with vaulted ceilings, stairways, escalators.
That's what he's writing.
And you get a picture of it there.
So tell me when you actually can see the picture.
Oh, it's up there now.
With the live stream also?
Yes.
Okay, so you can get the idea, and there's other images as well with these buildings.
Okay, and just to clarify, this sort of area that you're viewing is off the coast of Antarctica, correct?
No, this is off the coast of Morocco and Spain and Portugal.
This is a thousand miles west of Morocco and Portugal.
We haven't discussed the Antarctica one yet.
Okay, maybe I saw that on your screen somewhere.
I don't know where I got that.
This is where we're dealing.
We haven't yet gone to the Antarctica one.
Okay, but the physical location on the planet as we understand it now is off the coast of Spain and Portugal.
Oh, we have two targets for this project.
What we're talking about now is the first target, which is a thousand miles west of Portugal and Morocco, three miles deep.
Okay.
And in a little while, we'll start talking about the other target, which is the one off of Antarctica.
Okay.
And so then the next sort of thing that we went after is what happened When it actually happened?
What happened when the thing started to go belly up?
In terms of the multitudes, what happened to it?
In this case, I want to give you an idea of the type of technology that was being used To control some of the machinery.
So the machinery that was being used in the projects that they were using at the time that everything went belly up, looked like, had this type of human interfaces to it.
So we're jumping around a bit, but I want to give you some illustrations that Lead me to the understanding that it was about a hundred years more advanced than we are today.
And he has some images here where people are actually sitting in like a chair, but this is another place where, this is another image where he has the person not sitting in a chair, but he's having some type of interaction with a person where imagery is being done, induced fields around the body, He was actually seeing, like, medical imagery being done.
So, this gives you the idea that the society was pretty advanced at that time.
It's a little bit more advanced.
It was more advanced than what we would do with, say, an MRI. And he has other images and other sketches where the wires are connected up and the person's actually controlling, with these neural interfaces, machinery.
Okay, so I'm going to stop sharing this picture and go on to a little bit more of what...
I think it's time for us to start looking at the...
Actually, I would like to show you something in Deborah's session as well.
Okay.
At the moment that everything went belly up, They had some time to deal with this.
It wasn't like it happened in an instant.
They knew for a few days that this experiment that they were doing was going backwards and they tried to They had loudspeakers going on.
They announced to huge masses outside, listening to what was going on.
People couldn't believe what they were seeing.
But they knew this was possible, that they screwed up their science.
It was secrecy cloak science, and I'll explain what actually happened in a little while.
What they tried to do, and this is from Deborah, Doug, and Takagi's session, is at the last moment, after like a few days of notice that this was going to happen, they tried to save some people.
Now they knew this was a potential extinction-level event, so they tried to save as many people as they could, but they were saving women.
They were fecund women, women who were pregnant or child-bearing or capable of bearing children, and they were putting them on boats And the only men they were putting on the boats were men who could sail the boats.
So this is sailors and mostly women on these boats.
And they did this because I knew this was a potential extinction-level event.
So anyway, here you have a picture of the boats.
And in other pages for this session, Deborah Duggan Takagi actually describes everything that I just said.
That this was a rush to get women onto the boats.
The men were there just to sail the boats.
Most of the people there were.
And a lot of them were wood boats.
And they had two sources of energy.
In this society.
One was a crystalline form of energy.
And the crystalline form of energy was like a reactor, but it was much cleaner than anything that we have.
And let me see if I can give you a picture of...
It's a crude picture of the reactor, but I can give you a crude picture of the reactor.
Okay, but it also was giving them information because I saw the shooting star or the flash of light.
In other words, it was saying there was an extinction level event.
We'll get to more of that later as we get closer to the sessions that went to the exact point of origin of this whole thing.
But anyway, I'm giving you a picture of what the society looked like beforehand.
Here you have a crude picture of it, and it's a large red crystalline energy source in a rocky chamber, and she has it here filling with water, because she had the whole thing sinking at this point and being inundated.
So this was a clean source of energy that was seen by both viewers.
So both Dick and Deborah both saw the same thing, and they described the same thing.
It was remarkable.
How they were both describing this very clean source of energy.
But what happened with Atlantis is they were actually experimenting with something else.
They were experimenting with drilling right through the crust of the earth with these huge drilling apparatuses.
And that was something you've got to see to believe.
So let me actually get a picture of the drilling apparatuses up for you for you to see.
That is very surprising because The drilling was a secrecy-cloaked scientific venture.
They were doing something that was not at all being acknowledged by the The people weren't being told that they were doing this.
This was a real risky thing that they were doing.
Let me actually get some pictures of the drilling for you.
Here's a good one.
They have many pictures of this.
This is sort of a random one, actually.
Some of them are very detailed, in fact.
Okay, so we'll wait for that to show up.
And basically what was happening could be understood after I explain this.
Kerry, what we think of as planet Earth is we think of the beloved planet Earth.
And people often think in terms of the extraterrestrial stuff that goes on is that they're trying to take our planet, that type of stuff.
Well, the reality is this is a lousy planet to have a civilization on.
This is not a good planet to be on.
This planet is really not in dispute.
We have magnetic pole shifts every 25 some thousand years that are very disruptive.
We're an 8,000 mile diameter ball of molten rock, of lava.
We have an 8 mile thick crust on top of that huge ball of molten rock.
And we have pole shifts, magnetic pole shifts that disrupt the lava flow with earthquakes and everything, volcanoes.
We have massive solar events that affect the heavy atmosphere that we have that produces horrific weather.
And there are a tremendous amount of archaeological studies that show information that is not taught at the university, indicating that all of humanity gets basically crunched down the pulp.
Every 10-12,000 years or so.
And, for example, if you read Robert Schock's book, Forgotten Civilization, that he's a professor of Boston University, you realize how detailed the evidence is that civilization didn't happen like 3,000 years ago, but has been around for a long, long time.
And then if you read Robert Cremo's book, Forbidden Archaeology, which is a heavily documented, fat, beautifully, wonderfully written book, You read about how much archaeological evidence is forbidden to be taught at the universities, indicating that humanity, humans, anatomically correct humans, have been around for millions of years, and we didn't pop out of apes just a couple hundred thousand years ago.
You can't pop a human out of an ape in a couple hundred thousand years.
It takes hundreds of millions of years to pop a human out of an ape.
So the whole idea that archaeologists and anthropologists do by saying that humans, anatomically correct humans, are a new thing, they're collecting the dots.
They're connecting the dots.
But they're only connecting the dots that they want to look at.
They're leaving all the other dots.
And Michael Cremo's book, Forbidden Archaeology, that details tons and tons and tons of data that These are actually the dots that mainstream archaeologists are not allowing to be used.
And so you can generate any theory you want based on dots that you select, but you're not allowed, according to real science, to find data that fit your theory.
You have to look at all the data and then find a theory that fits all the data.
You can't select out your theory.
I mean, select out your data.
For example, you could come up with a theory that gravity only works by moving things upwards, by only looking at things that go up.
Every time a baseball goes up, you look at it going up.
But you close your eyes whenever anything comes back down.
So you don't have any evidence that anything ever comes down.
It only goes up.
And so you could construct the whole theory of gravity That is, you know, buttressed by all the evidence you could collect, because you're only looking at stuff when they go up, that gravity only moves upwards.
Well, that's what the archaeologists have done.
Mainstream archaeologists look at only the stuff they want, and then they connect those dots, and they come up with these crazy ideas.
Well, when you look at people like Robert Shock and Michael Cremo's books, heavily documented, heavily footnoted, I mean, really nicely written, You look at all the stuff that mainstream people are simply not looking at, and you can jump in an airplane and fly to these places and look at these sites and see for yourself that humanity didn't just start.
3,000 years ago with the so-called pyramids.
Actually, Robert Schock has a tremendous amount of evidence that suggests that the Sphinx and possibly the pyramids date back as much as 10,000 years.
So even that's incorrect in terms of mainstream stuff.
But if you look at sites such as the ones on Easter Island and also the archaeological huge complexes on Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, That were purposely buried 10-12,000 years ago by the humans that lived there in an effort that seems to be to protect themselves from something that was coming above, possibly a solar type of event.
You know, that's clear that those ruins were made by people that were very advanced, at least from the perspective of building things.
They weren't as advanced as the so-called Atlanteans that we're talking about now, but it's clear that the mainstream archaeological people Are just ignoring huge levels of evidence that don't fit their theory.
Okay, but Courtney, in the interest of time, can we talk about what this picture actually is of and what the person was saying with this?
This is a picture of the drilling that the Atlanteans were actually doing.
They were drilling through the crust.
And what actually happened is it was a secrecy cloaked thing.
They knew it was possible.
What they actually did, they were trying to get to the heat below.
So they already had this crystalline form of energy that was plenty for powering the whole civilization.
But they were going after the stuff below.
And this is not a good planet to do that.
We're a balloon.
And they popped the balloon.
And what happened was they caused an explosion that was approximately...
A blowout that was approximately the size of Australia.
It was a huge blowout.
And when all that volcanic stuff happened, some of the crust had the dent in, had the wrinkle.
And so the part of the crust that wrinkled, that dented in, was the part that was off of the coast of Morocco and Portugal.
So that was not the source of the explosion.
That was just a civilization area that simply went down because a lot of volcanic stuff somewhere else on the planet blew up because of this drilling that was going on.
I'll give you an idea of what the explosion looked like from space.
It's really scary, but that's what actually happened.
We'll go to one of Dick Algaris.
Okay, but may I ask you if the picture we saw before, the one with what appeared to be a flash of light and some incoming object, was that not, am I misinterpreting that picture, or did that tell a different story?
That was not, that was, nowhere did they have impacts from something coming above.
That thing that was flying could have been something that was thrown out.
But there's nothing in these data suggesting something hitting the earth.
So here's an idea, a picture that you'll be getting soon, of the explosion that happened.
Now we're able to sort of date when this thing happened because mainstream scientists have actually Come up with a very interesting finding.
About 70,000 years ago, they are pretty much certain at this point that there was a huge volcanic event and it killed all but two, three or four thousand surviving pairs of people.
That were breeding.
Now, there may have been more survivors, but they weren't having babies.
So, two, three, four, five, six thousand pairs of breeding survivors survived the volcanic event on the whole planet 70,000 years ago.
We know that from the geneticists, because we are all, whether we're Aborigine, African, Caucasian, from Europe, Native American, whatever, we are all the survivors from the same 2, 3, 4,000, 6,000 surviving pairs of people from everybody else that died off 70,000 years ago.
So that's really not in dispute.
And so, They don't really know where the volcanic thing happened, but it's typically referred to as the Toba, T-O-B-A, catastrophe theory.
And that's in reference to Lake Toba in Indonesia.
But they do know that 70,000 years ago was the time, and it was a huge volcanic event, and everybody died off, except for a few thousand surviving pairs.
And we're all survivors from those people.
So that exactly matches what we're seeing.
And as you can see from this picture, it was one heck of an explosion.
And from this particular picture, that was drawn by Dick Alkire, it does indeed look like it's in the direction of the Pacific.
So anyway, that sort of matches also the...
Toba Catastrophe Theory references, of course, Lake Toba in Indonesia, but we don't have to conclude whether it was exactly the spot.
The basic idea is there was a large volcanic event and everybody died off as a result of that.
So this is the basic idea that we're dealing with.
There was this huge explosion and that sort of killed everybody.
I want to show you also a picture.
Okay, am I understanding what you're saying though, that this Toba event that took place in possibly the Pacific, at least according to his drawing, was responsible for the fall of Atlantis?
Well, yes, but it was a man-made explosion.
It was not something that happened naturally.
So, when you look at a lot of natural sort of cataclysms that sort of grind humanity down to a pulp, that's what people like Robert Shock are looking at.
This was not one of those.
This was not a solar event.
This was not a volcanic event that was natural.
This was us.
So, sometimes humanity gets ground down to a pulp, You know, for a natural event, but in this case we did it to ourselves with a secrecy cloak science experiment.
You see, this planet is really good for a botanical or a zoological garden.
Maybe it's also good for a vacation.
But for a long-term civilization, you need a million years of uninterrupted growth for a civilization to really mature and do something.
You can't grind it down to a pulp every 25,000 years or 60,000 years and expect it to start all over again where there's no memory of anything that's happened before.
And that happens to us regularly, and it's really not in dispute.
We have these pole shifts that occur regularly.
We have these what we call Carrington events or major coronal mass ejections that happen every few thousand years that ruin any electrical stuff, and we're expecting one of those soon.
And those types of things, you know, this is not a good planet to have a long-term civilization on.
Anyway, this picture that we have right now It's a picture of people looking out, looking up, and seeing the explosion in the distance.
It was like a nuclear explosion.
And they have loudspeakers going on, people are absolutely dumbfounded, they can't believe, there's absolute awe.
They knew what was going on.
And they had a few days' notice before this actual thing was visible to know it was coming.
But when they actually saw it outside, it was extraordinary.
Is the idea here, though, that the people viewing in that picture are on Atlantis, and they're viewing the Topo event in a distance?
Yeah, that's right.
They were looking at the explosion.
That particular picture was from the Antarctica site, and the explosion was so big, you could see it from space, You could also see it from Antarctica.
They were looking at the distance and seeing it in the distance and saying, oh my gosh, look at that thing.
Okay, now we haven't actually covered the Atlantis.
I mean, the Antarctica.
Both of the images, both the thing off the coast of Morocco and Portugal, as well as the Antarctica, appear to be part of the exact same society.
They appear to be part of the exact same group and so this is just different images of the same thing and when the explosion actually happened there was an attempt to do the same type of things we do today which is to Protect our leadership and start, you know, put them into bunkers.
Now I'm sending you a picture, and you can let me know when it actually gets there.
I have really good pictures also of the actual bunkers that go deep into the ground.
And this is where some civilian leader, you might call him something similar to the President of the United States, was actually being led by the military to secure a bunker.
And the military guys are saying, this way, sir.
Now, it didn't help them.
Everybody died.
The scientists died, the president died, the leadership died, everybody died.
So, this secrecy-cloaked science wasn't good for anybody, not even the people who were keeping the secrecy.
So what he says, what Dick Alvarez says here, is what looked like a president or some important official being led to a secure area like a bunker, a sense of urgency.
Some in military uniforms and combat camo, some in casual civilian attire.
Due to sudden events, advisors hastily assemble in, led to a secure place.
Okay, so that's the type of thing you can sort of see happening here.
That's the type of thing that we would expect sort of now to happen, and that's what happened then.
And so what we have is something that's very reminiscent of the type of behavior that we would see in our society.
I'll give you an idea what some of these underground facilities look like.
Okay, but I'm actually, and maybe I'm confused, but if you're telling me that there was a society under the water, well, it was above ground, but it sunk under the water, and it has been found off the coast of Antarctica, and it's also been found off the coast of Spain and Portugal and Morocco.
I'm looking at a map and trying to see Where was this landmass?
In other words, are you saying that they're connected?
Are you saying that one of them was an outpost?
The whole thing that's now under three miles deep, three miles underneath the ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, a thousand miles west of Morocco and Portugal, that whole thing was above ground.
And what happened is, when the lava blew out on the other side of the planet, It produced a vacuum and some other areas, it was like popping the balloon.
You pop a balloon and air rushes out and the rest of the balloon collapses.
Well, a lot of...
Isn't South America in the way?
Well, the landmasses may not have been exactly what we see today.
I mean, obviously, that whole landmass that you see underneath the water, that whole landmass underneath the water off the coast of Morocco and Portugal, that's a thousand miles west.
That whole thing was above water.
So we really don't know what the landmass looked like.
Now, don't think about the map as being the same as what it was 70,000 years ago.
Now, I know mainstream scientists like to tell you that these geological things happen slowly, but they don't know what happens, actually.
And we don't have a lot of stuff.
We don't have a lot of knowledge of the stuff that's on the bottom of the ocean.
And so they don't really know.
But these rollers are absolutely unmistakable.
I mean, they're as clear as day in Google Earth.
And the remote viewing data recreated those ruins exactly.
And now we're seeing what was there beforehand.
And so, when you're sort of thinking, isn't South America in the way, it doesn't matter.
You have to think of the entire planet like a balloon.
If you pop one side of the balloon and let a lot of pressure out, something on the other side of the balloon can sink.
It doesn't matter that it's close.
This is a matter of being a vacuum.
You let pressure out of one side, it's got to compensate by sinking in on another side.
Okay, just the curiosity would be, in other words, the land masses that are still above water at this time, were they part of Atlantis or did all of Atlantis sink?
We don't know.
The argument should probably be made that some of the land masses that we see above water are still above water, and they were above water.
And that part of the land masses that are now below water were above water before.
So we shouldn't think that there was a complete switch.
We should just think that some things went down and some things stayed up.
Now also, there's a lot of military digging going on Governmental digging going on in Antarctica.
Now, they're not digging up rocks.
Rocks?
I mean, it's just very much of a hardship post.
You should wonder, what are all those bases down in Antarctica doing?
I mean, it's just a lot of ice and rocks.
Well, they're going after technology there.
That's why they're spending so much time and so much money in Antarctica.
If it was just rocks and ice, do you think you're looking for mastodon bones?
I mean, those governments have all that money into those facilities because they're looking for stuff down there.
Some of the technology is under the water, and some of the technology is still on the land.
And if you dig through the ice, you can get it.
So here's an example of a building.
This is again drawn by Dick Algar.
A multi-story building, almost all of which is below ground.
And with lots of food, recreational facilities.
So this is the type of buildings that they had.
And, you know, I think you can sort of see my conclusion for saying it's about a hundred years more advanced than we have today.
It's pretty sophisticated stuff.
But these aren't people who were building pyramids.
These aren't people who were building sphinxes.
These are people who are building buildings like we think of buildings.
You know, with multiple floors, elevators going up and down.
Technology running in those floors, things like that.
So, anyway, so this is...
Okay, and did these people, any of your viewers, describe the people that they saw?
In other words, were they all human, or were there beings from other races or other beings?
No, they were all, everybody in all of these sessions, everybody in all of these sessions were humans.
In fact, Here's a particular human.
I'll show you that this is at the moment of collapse, when everything started and they saw things go.
This is a person sitting at a computer screen.
I've got lots of good pictures of people, multiple people in these office environments, looking at computer screens.
But this is a nice one, and while we're waiting for the picture to show up on your screen, let me read the words.
There's a person that's controlling things, actually looking at the computer screen, and he's watching some event unfold on the screen, looks like a big flat panel TV. He has a sense of despair, loss of control, loneliness, a sense of awe and disbelief, frozen, what action to take.
He doesn't know whether to laugh or to cry.
And in other pictures, you have DeGalgar sort of looking at people in sort of control room type situations, where they start to pray for the first time because they actually saw the whole experiment that they were doing and they knew it was possible but they didn't think it would actually happen but now they see it actually starting to spin out of control right in front of their eyes and so this is a type of setting that you actually
have for this very huge event And so really what you're dealing with is a society in which the experiment to try to dig went out of control and it basically popped the planet and
the The result was some land masses sunk and some land masses stayed up.
And what we're looking at is the ruins of some of the land masses that sunk.
But 70,000 years ago is, to be quite honest, 70,000 years ago is not very far along.
It's not very far away.
I mean, that's relatively recent.
Okay, in terms, I think you said there were three levels that you were sort of having them look at, right?
Yeah, yeah.
So did we get to the third?
Yeah, we've actually gotten to the third.
What I'd sort of like to do now is to go into the last one, which is the point of origin.
for this and the the point of origin for this huge explosion like where did this thing actually you know what was it actually like when it was when it was actually happening and Debra, Dugman Takagi has an interesting image that she shows and it's she shows how this was really this whole thing was not like a bomb it was actually a crack a fissure in the earth that actually She has
a bunch of them.
Here's one of these images, sort of a crack in the fissure of the earth.
Okay, and can I ask you if they were able to see if this civilization had free energy, what we call free energy?
Yeah, they had a crystalline form of energy that was very clean, plentiful, And that was the free energy you're referring to.
Yeah, I don't know what they were doing trying to drill into the center of the Earth.
I mean, that was really sort of a stupid thing.
By the way, that was secrecy-cloaked science.
That was the very same thing that we do today.
I mean, and it was, you know, like when we build unsafe nuclear power plants, like all of them, Fukushima Daiichi and so on, and the authorities really hide the fact that these things are very unsafe.
There's a lot of secrecy associated with it, whether you're dealing with genetically modified foods or nuclear power plants.
Is there any sense that there's any similarity to CERN going on here?
No.
What you see is an experiment digging into the earth through the crust, and it popped the balloon, and a huge volcanic explosion resulted Killing off everybody.
And you get a tremendous amount of correspondence with mainstream science saying that such a volcanic event did occur and it killed off everybody.
The only thing we're adding to the wrinkle is that it was not a natural volcanic event.
It was an artificial volcanic event and here are the ruins and here's a remote viewing story that explains What those ruins are today and what they were before they were on the bottom of the ocean.
Basically, you get the last five days of that civilization's life spelled out in tremendous detail.
I go into it in a very organized manner in the DVD, the Atlantis DVD, but what we're doing right now is going through a lot of pictures.
Anyway, you can see with Deborah Dugging Takagi, you can see her Fissure picture where she was saying this is basically a crack in the earth that was developed and it happened because of the drilling that occurred and You know some really good pictures of the drilling apparatus also so anyway,
so the point of origin for all of this It was a volcanic event that was artificially created and it was visible from very far away.
Here's another picture.
This is from Dick Algeier's setting.
The picture says a thousand words to explain this.
There's two images here.
Can I ask you, in other words, is there a link up between the digging into the earth and the sort of puncture event and the volcanic event at the other side?
Yeah, the images that I'm showing you were sort of picked out of various sessions randomly.
I'm trying to connect the dots.
But if you go through each target systematically and go through each session page by page, which is what I do through the DVD, you see it clearly that The digging led to the volcanic blowout, which led to the huge explosion, which led to the extinction level event, which led to the people trying to escape on boats, and the sinking of the landmass.
Do you see this picture?
Yes, now we do.
So you have sort of the mushroom cloud type of explosion, but you also have the idea of the holes that were being dug, and it's a blowout.
Pressure coming from the underground places, from the explosive energy, leading to this huge volcanic type of mushroom cloud that comes.
It was a real interesting So, we're repeating ourselves in terms of secrecy cloak science.
The basic moral of this story is, we need to understand this, not for intellectual purposes, just to enjoy ourselves sort of thinking about alternate archaeology stuff.
We're repeating ourselves.
History repeats itself.
So we have secrecy cloak science now, as we had secrecy cloak science 70,000 years ago, and we destroyed the whole planet 70,000 years ago, and we can do the same thing again.
Now, let me give you an idea of how it could happen.
Right now, the Fukushima Daihachi plan is having an emergency, because The reactor 4 that contains the swimming pool up on basically stilts in an upper level of a building has sunk another 30...
Hello?
Yeah, Carrie, I'm back.
Okay, it looks like we kept on with the live stream.
Hold on one minute, I'm trying to get the video back.
Okay, that's great.
I'm patient while you keep working on that thing.
Yeah, it looks like, do you see me yet on video?
Yeah, I see you.
Okay, great.
So we're back online and I'm just going to wait for the live stream to catch up before we get started here again.
Yeah, that's a great idea.
Anything?
Okay, so you were just about to say the Fukushima Daiichi plant.
Yeah, now the Fukushima Daiichi plant is very interesting because that's a clear example of of secrecy cloak science going bad and that's exactly what what happened back then is happening now.
Now the Fukushima Daiichi plant If the reactor 4, which contains these large pool of spent nuclear rods, if that collapses, and right now it's given an earthquake rating of a zero, which means a kid could knock it over, it's already sunk another 30 feet.
It's sinking into the ground.
If it crumbles, and right now the water from within the plant is leaking into the The projections are that perhaps by as early as October, you might have a major set of leaks.
And the company that is trying to handle this, the Japanese government is thinking of trying to fire.
It should have been done a long time ago.
Courtney, at the moment we are looking at your picture, but we don't have video on your end.
Oh really?
Let me see what I can do about that.
There you are.
How's that?
Okay, now I see you.
Now you're back on the live stream.
Okay, great.
Okay.
But we were able to hear what you said.
So the basic idea is that the Fukushima Daiichi thing is a very good example of something that could kill us off the whole planet.
Because you have enormous concentrations of...
I mean, enormous concentrations of...
of plutonium.
In the Fukushima Daiichi plant, and you have a situation where that stuff, if it was released into the ocean, and it looks like it could be, that could be...
I don't even want to think about what that could be.
That could be a very bad week.
I mean, anyway, I'm sending you right now a picture from one of Dick Algarer's sessions of the actual He has tons of good sessions where you see the actual landmass collapsing and the water flowing in.
But this is a good example of some of these types of pictures where the landmass collapses down and then the water just flows into it.
It surges in, it pours into it.
It's a sudden inundation.
And this is what both viewers get.
Both viewers get that it was a sudden inundation and the landmass collapsed.
And the buildings They have actually great pictures of the buildings falling into the ocean and so on.
Do you see this picture now?
Yes, yes, we do on both live stream and on my...
Yeah, and it looks like water surges.
Right.
The water pushes inward, pours onto the land.
Was there any specific timing in terms of how many days this whole event took?
The whole thing looks like, given the way the pictures are drawn sequentially, one thing after the next, after the next, it looks like it took about five days for the whole thing to spill out.
Meaning they had enough time to actually tell people as they were gathering outside and then to To explain to people with, you know, loudspeakers and then to organize some type of rescue attempt, especially with the women on boats.
Here's another example of a picture of people gathering outside.
Surging, actually, sometimes in masses of people, and the authorities were having tremendous difficulty controlling them.
They had barriers, trying to keep them out of buildings, people pushing together, and they were being talked to by loudspeakers, and different pictures show different parts of the story.
And again, I explain it all in sort of a nice order in the DVD. But do you see this picture?
Yes, we do.
Let me ask you, in terms of what they were drawing, because in essence they're drawing a very dramatic five days, correct?
Yeah, a very dramatic five days, took everybody by surprise, and five days later it was all over.
Alright, when you say that people were dying, what were they dying of?
Being thrown into the water and drowned.
In most cases, in other words.
You weren't seeing any, in other words, you know, right now we hear a lot of talk about FEMA camps, that sort of thing.
Oh no, they had no chance to organize anything like that.
Okay.
This is people trying to control an experiment, and the experiment going bad, but...
You know, the controls didn't work.
And some of the controls were rather advanced.
So, let me give you an idea of what some of the controls looked like.
I know what you're talking about with the so-called FEMA camps.
That was where they sort of had a long time to prepare.
This was like...
Real sudden.
So here's an example of somebody hooked up to all the wires, and this is an actual controller.
This is somebody actually trying to, you know, control the drilling process and the mechanical stuff.
This is associated with the actual event that blew up.
And I'll read from the session from this.
It says, this may have started as a test or experiment, but the subject became part of a super-conscious by these neural pathways connected to a computer and machine.
Very complex controls command based on impulses from the fingers or fingertips.
You can control something with fingertips.
The slightest finger impulse or movement is sensed and transformed instantly into a command that can move a machine.
Anyway, so that's basically how they were moving their machinery.
That's what some of these controllers were actually doing.
Some of them were good sketches of some of them at control panels that had the normal dials and buttons that we are used to.
But some of the more advanced ones had situations like this, where you had people sitting at these interface chairs.
It didn't matter.
They couldn't control it.
Once it was done, it was done.
Once the explosion happened, the land masses sunk and they went under.
Okay, so in terms of your research and in terms of this overall story, at this point we've been going for about two hours and I'm just wondering where we are in the story.
Is this pretty much everything that you wanted to cover, or was there an area that we haven't...
Yeah, there's much more in all of the data, but I've covered all of the basic ideas that were captured in order for people to get an understanding of the overview of Of the whole process.
And again, the details are fully explained in the DVD and sort of put together in a chronological thing, plus all of the stuff with Sort of the timing, the sequential things, what happened first, what happened second.
Right.
That all sort of is spelled out.
But we should actually go to people asking questions now if they want to from the chat room.
Okay.
And let me clarify again because I'm just reading some of the questions already appearing in the chat room so people understand.
So what you're saying is about a thousand miles west of Portugal and Spain and Morocco, we have a land mass.
And then that extends all the way down to just off the coast of Antarctica, correct?
No.
A thousand miles, there's two different spots on the planet.
A thousand miles west of Morocco and Portugal, and if you go to our webpage, the Atlantis webpage, on our website, farsight.org, and click on the third link in the nav bar, it'll take you to the webpage, where you see the actual pictures of the anomaly.
We have the Google Earth latitude and longitude, and you can just cut and paste those into Google Earth, and you will fly to that spot.
Okay, but are you saying there was a breakup?
In other words, I'm again trying to get a picture of the continent itself, whether you were able to see...
No, you can't do that.
We have two isolated spots on the globe that are very far away from each other.
We do not have a picture of what the globe looked like.
I don't have the faintest idea whether they were connected with the landmass, and I strongly suspect they were not connected with the landmass.
I strongly suspect that they were just two separate places on the planet, just like they are today.
One is off the coast of Morocco and Spain, and one is off the coast of Antarctica.
And I'm assuming that they were not connected back then, but it's very clear that they were built That the ruins on the bottom of the ocean are civilization evidence.
But I'm not saying that you're trying to make a story like it was one civilization on one continent, and they're all tied together, and I'm not saying that.
No, I'm not trying to do anything.
What I'm trying to do is actually get a picture in my head of what you're trying to describe.
So as long as we get this clarified...
I know people are confused.
I do know that the planet did not look like it does on a current globe that you buy in the store today.
Okay, fair enough.
Alright, I just wanted to clarify that because I know that people are wondering where you're saying these things were and what possibly whether they were connected or not.
So basically the point is that they are not connected.
In one single landmass is your theory, right?
Not in any way that I see.
But the latitude and longitudes are on our webpage.
Just plug those into Google Earth and it'll fly you to both places and you look at the anomalies yourself.
And there's plenty of pictures of them.
We have the pictures of them on our webpage, but those anomalies, especially the one off the coast of Morocco and Spain, have been talked about and pictures are all over the web about them.
Okay, great.
So what I'm seeing here in the chat, someone is asking whether or not the landmass sinking or the multiple landmasses sinking, which is what it may appear, caused by this sort of double whammy,
in a sense, the volcanism at one part of the globe and then this fissure that they created on the other part In other words, they're asking, was this a worldwide tragedy?
Yeah, now, Carrie, there was not two separate things.
The explosion created the fissure, created the explosion that popped out.
There's one spot where there was a big blowout.
It was just one spot.
They were drilling in one spot, and that created a huge fissure, led to a blowout, and what looked like a nuclear explosion, but it wasn't.
It was just a huge volcanic explosion.
Okay, but...
Okay, now let me get this clear.
What you said was...
I thought you said the TOPO event happened...
In the Pacific, and this Atlantis area where the fissure was built, or dug, was in the Atlantic area.
No, I never said that.
I said that the Toba catastrophe theory refers to Lake Toba in Indonesia, where mainstream scientists think the location of the blowout occurred, the volcanic event occurred.
So we don't need to conclude whether that was the exact location, but it does seem to match some of the pictures that Jake Algeier in particular drew of the globe in terms of the location that he was actually drawing.
But in no time did I actually say the fissure was some other place.
There was only one spot for the blowout.
There was one digging, one experiment, one blowout, One fissure, all in one spot.
Just call it the volcanic event.
A man-created volcanic event.
And are you saying, I'm just trying to get the location on the planet of where this volcanic event, did it occur off of the coast, a thousand miles off of the coast of Spain, Portugal, and Morocco?
No, I've said it many times.
It didn't happen there.
Where did it happen?
If it did, you wouldn't see any ruins.
That was just where some of the landmass sunk in because some of the molten rock that was underneath that area of the landmass was emptied when some explosion happened somewhere else on the planet.
Okay, I'm just wondering, where was this fissure being dug?
I've said we don't know the exact location, but it matches the idea of that Indonesia area.
But it does seem that some of the controls that were used, that were being used, had connections to the Antarctica location.
But that's not where it was being dug.
But some of the people seem to have been controlling it from that location.
And again, I explain it in more sort of clear detail in the DVD. But the basic idea is What you get in the Antarctica location is a lot of digging.
It was a mining area.
Those holes in the ground were the result of digging operations.
And there are lots of images that we have there, lots of descriptions of those holes in the ground as being the result of mining.
The explosion happened farther away, but it was such a big explosion that people, even in that Antarctica location, which wasn't cold at that time, could see it.
Okay, so we get these things clear.
Okay, at this point now, I would say to people, if you want to put your questions in all caps in the chat here on livestream, Then I will read them out and Courtney can address them.
So in terms of the last question that I was asking for the listeners here, what they were asking was, did this tragedy, in essence, encompass the entire globe or just the areas that we're talking about?
The explosion happened on one spot, but it resulted in land masses sinking in other spots.
Even the genetic evidence clearly says that everybody on the planet, no matter where they lived, died as a result of this.
There must have been a huge nuclear winter that occurred afterwards.
Everybody died off except for only a few thousand surviving pairs.
If you look up Toba catastrophe theory in Wikipedia, you can see a long description of this theory and the scientists that are discussing it.
I understand.
I guess what we want to do, though, to some degree, and I appreciate that information, but since we're covering your remote viewers' information, they didn't necessarily come up with this idea that they saw the whole world or they saw the pairs.
You know, in this genetic information, they didn't have that as part of their data, right?
No, I am making the connection to the Etobah catastrophe theory because the descriptions of the Etobah catastrophe theory event match the information that we're getting.
Okay, fair enough.
The only difference here is we have the huge volcanic event being a man-made thing, Whereas the Tobocatastrophe theorists have it being this very unexplained, unbelievably large volcano.
And natural volcanoes, we don't have an example of a natural volcano exploding as big as the Tobocatastrophe theorists people say it had to have been.
Meaning they're saying a volcano blew up that was worse than anything that we can possibly imagine.
We don't have any evidence of volcanoes doing that.
So this had to be bigger than Mount St.
Helens, or any other volcano that you've seen in your lifetime.
Okay.
Okay, I'm just looking to see if we've got any, somebody, there's sort of a dialogue going on here, so I'm trying to pick the questions out separately.
Could the RV be seeing our future and not the past since what they're seeing is eerily similar to what's happening right now?
No, because we have good control at this point of the remote viewing phenomenon, especially with respect to targets of the past.
We don't have any indication now that the remote viewing would go off that big.
If these remote viewers were targeted with specific locations Based on Google Earth imagery and specific times that were described in the target descriptions.
We don't have any evidence that remote viewing done under these conditions goes wackily off into something else.
Something into the future or something on another planet or something like that.
The whole idea with remote viewing as it's done now is control.
We've learned how to control the phenomena well and we're understanding now how to control it when you go into the future It's much more difficult.
But with going into the past, like we're doing now, especially with rock-solid pictures of the actual target, we don't have any trouble controlling that.
Okay, can I ask you a question about those pictures of the undersea sort of structures that you were seeing, the blue in the blue?
Were the viewers seeing what exists there now?
Literally, under the sea.
Yeah.
The best thing to do is something I can't do here.
The time delay would not allow it.
Would be in the DVD we have an actual live session from Dick Algar, where it was recorded live and totally blind, where you actually see it happening, where you actually see him describing it as it is now, under the water, and he's describing the water with the incredible pressure.
He can hardly believe what he's seeing.
He said, what is this?
I've never heard of anything like this.
This is crazy.
This is a weird place.
Who built this thing?
You can't just go down there with a submarine and build something this huge.
This is a, I mean, so, but he described it under the water, under the ground, in the water, with the sediment on top, lying on top of the bedrock, these huge structures.
Right, okay, but he's not seeing that as an underground base, he's seeing that as just structures on an ocean floor.
Underneath the ocean floor, covered with sediment.
Okay.
But it's not an underground base.
And he's not like an operational base?
Under sea base, yes.
No, this is like...
He's actually describing huge, like bigger-than-astrodome-type structures under the seabed, covered with sediment, but he's not describing any people.
He actually does describe stuff that's still operating, like machinery that's still going, but not...
Nowhere does anyone describe people there now.
Okay.
Alright.
Let's see.
Okay, I guess I'm not seeing any questions right here at this moment.
Okay.
If you have more questions, because some people are sort of Bringing up stuff that they're sort of talking about, but they're not actually asking a question per se.
So I need a question, an actual question with a question mark.
All right, Courtney.
So at the moment, in light of sort of this overall picture that you've painted, and I think we have it fairly clear, and I know that people will be very anxious to go get your DVD and see a lot more of the detail and get it, you know, sort of in chronological order and so on and so forth.
But is there anything that we haven't covered or any sort of added nuance that you'd like to address since we're not getting any really direct questions at the moment?
Yeah, there is.
The really important thing to get out of this whole project is two major things.
The first is that What we're being taught in the universities now is really very inaccurate, and there's very clear physical evidence, it's clear as day in pictures, as well as remote viewing data that backs up that physical evidence that suggests absolutely unambiguously that we have done this before,
that advanced technology, our advanced technology, not aliens in a distant galaxy, but our advanced technology has happened before on this planet, and it ended very badly.
One of the most important things that we have to see is that we, in the absence of this becoming well known, we are absolutely no different than we were when we blew up the planet the first time.
And history will repeat itself and we will destroy this planet just the way we did it before.
The only way that will change is if Information comes out that lets this thing happen.
Information comes out that lets people understand what we did before so we can see our mistakes.
So the most important thing to see here is that it was secrecy cloak science that destroyed us.
What's important to change this time around is for the secrecy to go away.
I'm not opposed to science.
I'm a scientist myself.
Science is really good.
The issue that I am opposed to is secrecy cloaked science.
Now, scientists and governmental officials, business people, they don't like to tell the public what they're doing because it means prying eyes, bureaucratic excess, people telling them what they can do, what they can't do.
And it also involves a lot of the public that are really sort of idiotic, that don't really understand the stuff.
The result is not by keeping the public in the dark you get good science.
The result is that you get really bad science when you keep people in the dark, as is obvious that we blew up the entire planet and even the scientists died.
So what we have to understand is that what we're doing at the Farsight Institute is conducting public Like our climate project, that was a public experiment.
There was a lot of misunderstandings about that, especially with the multiple timeline issues.
Did that mean we didn't do it publicly?
No.
That means we do it publicly and we explain it.
In venue after venue, time after time, until people finally understand the complexity of the reality, the complexity of the phenomenon, the complexity of the experiment.
And that's what we recommend has to be done for all of science.
The idea of doing things secretly in a lab will run us into a disaster.
When we do science, We take on the obligation to explain to the rest of the planet what we're doing.
That's the most important thing we have to get from this lesson.
That science done secrecy is not a way forward.
It does mean that we have to deal with idiotic public people, we have to deal with bureaucratic access, we have to deal with Prying eyes.
We have to deal with all that stuff that we hate to deal with.
But it's part of doing science.
And when we move forward without that, we get Fukushima Daiichi.
We get all the nuclear power plants in the United States that have the exact same problem as Fukushima Daiichi.
They have these swimming pools with all the spent nuclear rods and If there is a Carrington event, which there will be in the near future, there has to be, statistically there will be, you will get a shutdown of the power grid.
And with the shutdown of the power grid, those swimming pools containing those spent nuclear rods will boil dry, and then what will you do?
What will all those scientists do?
I bet none of them are going to say, oh, by the way, you can put me in prison now because I screwed up and millions died.
They're not going to say that.
They're going to run for it.
No one's going to go to prison.
And the scientists may themselves die.
So the point is that secrecy-cloaked science always ends badly.
And that's why we need to understand the Atlantis phenomenon.
One thing I would like to say for those people who do buy the DVD, it not only helps the Farzane Institute a lot, because that goes to support research and to remote viewing, but if you could do me a favor and not just watch it yourself, but bring in your family, bring in your neighbors, let people see it, show it to others, get the word out.
This stuff is not taught at the universities anywhere.
People have to learn by word of mouth that this stuff that's forbidden is real, and there's no way to do that except one person at a time.
That's the same type of thing I say with respect to other people's works, such as Robert Schock's work and his book, which I have right here, in fact, Robert Schock's book, Forgotten Civilization, and Michael Cremo's book,
Forbidden archaeology, these are treasure troves that are not spoken about or talked about in the universities, yet they're heavily documented, and you don't have to believe them.
I mean, you can just fly on a jet and go to see the locations of these places that they talk about yourself, and look at the Bruins, and the carbon dating is very clear, and it's clear that what you're taught in the university is simply not correct.
We are at a very delicious time in our history right now.
We're at the time of great awakening.
But this awakening is not going to happen because of other people doing it.
It's going to be us doing it.
And that's why you're so important, Carrie, doing shows like this, because this type of information isn't coming out through mainstream outlets.
It's not coming out through the New York Times.
It's not coming out through CNN. Literally, the only places you're getting this is from I appreciate that.
Okay, well we've got people here that are asking a few more questions, so I'm going to go down the list here and see if we can get...
First of all, let me say, because I've typed it into the chat, but some people were asking for your exact URL, and it is farsight.org, correct?
F-A-R-S-I-G-H-T, like seeing far.
Farsight.org.
One person here, I guess, perhaps did not hear me ask you if there were only humans seen in Atlantis.
They are asking, was there any evidence of the alien presence in Atlantis?
Not in these remote viewing data.
Okay.
And let's see, are you carrying out any new RV sessions right now?
We always have projects, and we have a spine-tingling one that's not going to disappoint anyone going on right now, but I can't talk about it because some of the remote viewing the last few sessions are still coming in, and if I talked about it, then it would leak out what we're doing, and then the sessions would no longer be blind.
So we always have something going, but you have to wait until all the sessions are in, and then for us to do the analysis, put it up on the web, and so you just have to wait in line.
Even the remote viewers are wondering, What the heck this is?
I mean, none of them can figure out our projects while they're doing them.
Like, you can see in the DVD, the Atlantis DVD, Dick Allgaier looking at that and he looks, finally after he does this session live, he looks at the camera and says, where the hell did Courtney Browne send us?
This is a weird place.
And he says, I don't know where it is, but I think I know something about it.
And, you know, no one was more surprised than the remote viewers.
But that's the way we do our projects.
You have to keep the remote viewers guessing.
You can never do something that's similar to something you did before.
You've always got to keep them guessing so they have no idea, you know, where this came from.
Okay.
Someone is asking the relationship between the two sites you RV'd And, let's see, underwater sites such as Bimini Road and Yamaguchi.
Is there a relationship?
Are you aware of one, or did your remote viewers come up with one?
We don't know, because those are different locations.
All we know is the information of these two particular locations.
These were biggies, though.
So we found out these ones, and they clearly seem connected, not geographically, but in terms of culturally on the planet.
These other locations, there are a zillion other locations on the planet that have strange ruins that we wonder about, but each one of those has a different story and we have to put boundaries over what we've discovered so that we don't sort of say it covers everything.
The reality is there's many projects that are going to be for the future dealing with those other areas.
I have a question here.
In relation to that, was there any of the viewers that ever brought up the Great Pyramid or the Sphinx during their remote viewing of these sites?
No.
Any reference to them?
Anything about balance?
You know, it's said that the Great Pyramid, for example, keeps the Earth in balance, and so I just wondered if there was any reference.
No, and there shouldn't be, because the The issue of control is really important for remote viewing.
That's what we've mastered.
We've mastered how to control the experience.
So these two locations didn't have any geographical proximity to the pyramids of the Sphinx, so that shouldn't be happening.
You shouldn't see that in these sessions, and in fact you don't.
Okay, but there has been a great deal of thought, and in fact I went to Egypt to look for signs of Atlantis, you know, where people from Atlantis actually left You're referring to something else, Carrie.
You're referring to what appears to be another civilization in the more recent past, like 12,000 years ago, that sunk somewhere in the area of the Mediterranean that people often refer to as Atlantis as well.
When Plato was talking about the Atlantean society that sunk, he's often referring to that location.
And you know this because why?
People, current academics, speculate that they were referring to that.
But that doesn't seem to suggest a highly advanced technological society.
Nonetheless, we're dealing with a gray area, so you may have your own feelings about it, your own thoughts about it, and I don't really have a good answer for you on that.
However, I do want to say that there is A strong suggestion that, and there's lots of ruins underneath the Mediterranean that support this, that there was some other civilization that built stone-type buildings that sunk.
And there are a number of academics that say this was likely the so-called Atlantean civilization.
But at this point, there's a lot of confusion about the use of the word Atlantis, because it's often referred to as anything that sunk.
And there's unfortunately very good archaeological evidence of things sinking off the coast of India, in the Mediterranean, off the coast of Puerto Rico and Cuba, off the coast of Japan.
I mean, there's a lot of sinking stuff.
So, it was actually debated among Farsight people whether we should call this Atlantis, because the word has been used to refer to all these various places and we decided I decided that I was going to use it anyway because it captured the idea of a technologically advanced society that drilled into the earth and destroyed themselves through a cataclysm of their own making so I said that
was close enough to what we're seeing so that we would use the word because otherwise I would have had to have called it something like An advanced technological society on Earth that destroyed itself and sunk.
I said, that's going to be a hard sell.
So for marketing purposes, we decided to use the word Atlantis because it conveyed a lot of information with one word.
But I don't know if it was an appropriate use of that word.
So you may want to use the word to refer to something else that you see that sunk.
I don't have a way to enforce my usage of the word, but what we do have is very clearly a very large civilization that was technologically advanced, and because of the genetic information that matches the history of what we've seen happen with remote viewing data,
It looks like it happened about 70,000 years ago at the time that everybody was killed off, except for a few thousand surviving pairs.
So whatever you want to call that, we are using for marketing purposes, calling it Atlantis.
It seems to match.
Okay, well thank you for that.
Someone is asking Hugh Everett and other scientists, whatever gave them the idea of In the first place, that there were multiple universes.
They had an experiment called the two-slit experiment that gave evidence that when a photon that was traveling by itself through a particular scientific apparatus, it was being messed with by Other wave type of phenomena, like other photons, but there were no other photons in the apparatus except for one.
But the results of the experiment clearly indicate that other photons, other wave type things were interfering with it.
So the question was, where are these other things that the photon was being messed with?
And so the Copenhagen The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, and that experiment, by the way, is not dispute and it's been around for a very long time.
It's called the two-slit experiment.
So the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics basically says that one version of reality pops out basically when it's observed or registered in some way, as John Wheeler used to say.
And Hugh Everett The math doesn't suggest that only one version pops out.
The math suggests that all of these wave things are going to interact with one another.
And the math suggests that there will be interference with all of these probabilistic things as a constant form Of its existence, not just as something that will go away.
So the Copenhagen people said, no, what we're going to have is this probabilistic wave thing that's going on on the quantum level, and then something's going to happen and one solid thing will pop out of it.
And whoever said, you're just dreaming this up.
One solid thing popping out of it.
There's no evidence that you have to have some external event to witness something, to register it in some way, for it to actually materialize into a real solid thing.
You're actually coming up with reasons that don't flow from the math.
And so what he said, if you take it strictly from the level of the math, the interactions never end.
So what you get is us on a level of the macro-reality, the big level, are just large accumulations of these quantum things and you don't have to have a quantum world that works on one set of principles and a macro world that lives on another set of principles.
You have a generalization of the quantum mechanics and thus you must have a macro world in which the multiple things that occur on the quantum level also happen on the macro level which means that you must have multiple versions of us just like you have multiple probabilistic versions of quantum things and that's where everything got all heated because physicists said no I'm not going to accept the idea that there's multiple versions of me I only see one version of me and you
know but right now it's gotten to the point where 18 percent Literally, one-eight.
Eighteen percent of physicists now adopt that as the most likely explanation of physical reality, meaning they reject the Copenhagen interpretation, or the Standard Model, which says that it is like these particles floating around.
And so, this is a big movement, and what we need to do is wait for What Max Planck said, for the older scientists to retire and die off so that these younger ones that are accepting the idea of multiple realities will replace them eventually and then will finally move over 50% and so on.
But the movement is clearly in the direction of the multiple worlds.
So the answer to your question, it was to explain a phenomenon known as an experiment, known as a two-slit experiment.
The issue was not an issue of the math.
The issue was the interpretation of the actual, of the math and the interpretation of the actual experiment.
It was always an interpretation issue.
It was never an issue of whether the math was right.
Okay.
Someone is asking whether or not, let's see, well, this Marin may not be pertinent to anything you're doing, but have you had your group remote view the future where there are no humans left on the planet?
No.
However, I did sort of do that in my books, Cosmic Voyage and Cosmic Explorers, which sort of started the whole modern remote viewing industry field.
And that was actually a time in the future when I personally did remote viewing for that.
And I saw a time period in the future where we moved off the planet and basically became a spacefaring populace.
And the planet was left as a botanical and zoological Garden that was basically just tended.
And in fact, that's what it should be.
This is not a planet for a long-term civilization.
We have no business trying to have a long-term civilization on this planet.
Every few thousand years, we get ground to a pulp.
If it's not one thing, it's the next.
There's a zillion different reasons why it happens.
But if you just look at Robert Schock's book, Forgotten Civilization, you'll get it.
And here again is the book.
He goes through all of the evidence for, you know, one thing after the next.
This planet, we just get ground to a pulp and then we have to start all over again.
Just think of it.
Imagine it.
We live on an 8,000 mile diameter ball of molten rock.
Can you imagine how stupid that is?
It's not a good idea to live here.
It's very tumultuous and we get crushed to nothing every few thousand years.
You need a million years Where nothing happens to fully mature a society.
So my thought is, and that's what I got in my original remote viewing that was published in Cosmic Voyage and Cosmic Explorers, it seemed to be that in about a thousand years there won't be people here.
I mean, there will be people visiting and studying and tending the garden, but there won't be, you know, major civilizations.
And that's how it would have to be.
Because if it's not one thing, it's the next.
Any civilization that stays here long enough is going to get crushed to nothing.
Okay.
We've been going for quite a while.
It's actually two hours and 42 minutes at the moment.
Yeah, let's wrap it up.
You've been extremely eloquent and covering everything very, very well.
I'm going to try to pick out if there's any last-minute questions here that look absolutely crucial.
Somebody is asking, this doesn't really have anything to do with this per se.
Again, last question.
Someone wants to know if you agree with Ed Dames about the kill shot.
I don't talk about what other people do.
For a reason.
I like to talk just about what we do.
So we don't have any remote viewing sessions of that.
And to be quite honest, I've never seen any remote viewing sessions of that.
I've only heard about somebody getting on late night radio talking about that, which is no different from hearsay.
It would be thrown out of a court of law.
What we do is public experiments where We have public access to all of the data, all of the remote viewing data, all of the sessions.
We have track record histories of all of the viewers so you can see who they are by their identity and then, you know, so you know they've been doing it for a long time and what's been going on.
You know the whole story.
This whole idea of just saying something's going to happen, trust me, that's the same thing that I've been arguing against for Mainstream science people doing experiments and not letting everybody sort of know all the details.
So the reality is, with regard to that person or any other person that does experiments without everybody knowing all the details of the stuff, I have no comment whatsoever because that's not what we do.
How can you comment on something that you've not seen anything about it?
Okay, well that's fair enough.
So at this moment, Courtney, is there any wrap-up comments that you would like to make just to take everything that we've covered here and sort of...
Maybe say some last minute comments and then also give your website and that sort of thing.
Sure.
The basic idea is you must understand everything, the technological wizardry that we have today.
We have all done it before.
It's not an ancient society in another galaxy far away, different people.
It's us.
It's our ancestors.
We are their descendants and we are doing the same thing over again.
And what we need to do is to learn from our past.
And that's why the whole Atlantis Project is so important.
It finally turns ourselves to look at where we've been.
And when you see where we've been, what we've done, and how much secrecy is associated with science today, you realize this is something that has to stop.
Because the end we already know.
We already saw it happen 70,000 years ago.
You do the same thing, over again, you get the same result.
Everybody dies.
We've done that.
We've been there.
We want to do something different.
How do we do it differently?
We learn from our mistakes.
Again, the Farsight Institute's website is www.farsight.org.
And remember, when you do buy the DVD, you do help us with our research because we only have like a couple thousand dollars in the bank.
It's not like we don't get any National Science Foundation grants or anything like that.
And so by buying the DVD, you help us do our next project and get the next project out.
Also, if you contribute to our institute, we're a 501c3 nonprofit organization.
It's tax deductible.
We get very few contributions.
Anything you give is always, you know, very useful.
We're all volunteers also.
You're never paying for a salary.
You're just paying for electric computers, you know, paper, things like that.
You're paying for supplies so that we can continue doing stuff.
Okay.
Okay, great.
So thank you very much, Courtney Brown, and thank you for your patience.
Sorry for the slow start here.
You've been a real trooper and hanging in there.
Thank you, everyone, for listening.
I do want to say that I am guiding a trip to Malta.
We plan to do a documentary there of what we find.
We believe there might possibly have been some interesting secrets hidden on Malta from the fall of Atlantis, where Atlantis is, and what we're talking about there.
I think it's very accurate of you, Courtney, to say that there were Many civilizations that did probably fall and that we don't know their exact names, and so there is a mystery there as well.
But I just want to encourage people, if they're interested, to register on my website for the Malta trip at this point.
Just show your interest if you're interested.
So thank you very much again.
The proceeds from this that were earned as people registered will be used and split Evenly with Courtney and the Farsight Institute, as well as Project Camelot.
And thank you for taking the time.
So thank you.
We'll hopefully connect again in the future and see what else you've got going on.
Yeah, I would like to say one last thing, and that is everyone should recognize that the technical difficulties that were experienced in the beginning of the program are a result that Kerry is a very courageous person.
That tries to put all this on by herself.
And even when she depends on only one webmaster who has a computer that blows up, you understand the difference between her efforts and, say, CNN or New York Times, where they have huge amounts of staff, huge amounts of resources.
And when Kerry is trying to pay computer bills and other things like that, that gives you an idea of, you know, of the...
Of the difference in resources that mainstream has from the non-mainstream.
And the information that we talked about today should give you an idea of how important the non-mainstream information is, and that you don't get it through any other means.
And so, those of you who were able to put up with some of the technological challenges, understand that you're Doing what needs to be done by putting up with it because there is no other place you get this type of stuff other than through these venues where people try their absolute best.
And so, you know, hats off to people like Cary for doing something that's not just fun, but very useful on a planetary level.
Thank you.
And likewise to you, Courtney, and your team as well.
And so thank you for listening, everyone, and please do support these efforts.
Have a great night.
Take care.
Okay.
▲
Export Selection