All Episodes
Previous Next
March 22, 2015 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:05:31
Edition 198 - Remote Viewing Mars

The first interview with Courtney Brown about his latest Remote Viewing project -Cydonia...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Across the UK, across continental North America, and around the world, on the internet, by webcast and by podcast.
My name is Howard Hughes, and this is the Return of the Unexplained.
Wherever you are, thank you very much for coming back to the show.
Our numbers are growing exponentially every month.
If you can make a donation to our continuing work here, that would be great.
Please go to the website, www.theunexplained.tv, the website designed, created, and maintained by Adam Cornwell, a creative hotspot in Liverpool.
That's the place you can leave if you want to, a donation for the show.
We're not trying to sell you anything here, but a donation would help us to drive this forward and keep it going, okay?
And if you want to also send me a message or a guest suggestion, whatever, you can do that.
We are a show truly interactive with listeners.
We give you shout-outs.
We mention you.
We take into consideration the points that you make, and they help to shape the show.
It really is interactive here.
A lot of mainstream media pays lip service to being interactive.
We genuinely are.
We're not going to do any shout-outs, though, this time on this edition, because we've got something important to do.
I'll get to those in the next edition.
Apart from the man who emailed to say, why do you sometimes say at the top of the show, this is the return of the unexplained, and sometimes you just say, this is the unexplained.
To tell you the truth, just to get a bit of variety into it, I think.
You know, just to keep the wheels turning and just to do something different occasionally.
And I've got no better reason than that.
It's just something that I do.
How strange is that?
But then, life is a funny old game anyway.
This time, we have a world first.
It is the first interview that Courtney Brown has done about his remote viewing project, the latest one.
This is about Sidonia on Mars.
And he's got his team of remote viewers to look at that area and tell us the history and what exactly happened there as far as they are concerned.
Now, as you know, remote viewing, very controversial stuff.
Some people just don't buy it, and some people think it is absolutely groundbreaking material.
You make your mind up about this.
We're going to talk to Courtney Brown on this edition of The Unexplained.
Just to say thank you, please keep the support coming.
Please tell your friends about this show, and we together can grow it.
I've had some lovely comments recently, and believe me, they keep me going with all of this, because, you know, it's not easy to make time to do it all and to do it properly.
But it's my labor of love.
And from the things that you tell me, it's worth doing.
So thank you very much indeed.
All right, let's cross now to Atlanta.
Courtney Brown, a real delight to have you back on The Unexplained.
Thanks for coming on.
Howard, it's a great thing to come on your show.
I want to thank you for inviting me back.
Well, you know, I'm really pleased and I'm very thrilled to be one of the first, if not the first, I don't know if I'm the first, but one of the first to talk about your latest project, which is a very surprising project.
It's not where I expected you to go.
I don't think it's where the world expected you to go.
But that's the great thrill of it, that we don't know what you're going to pick next.
This is Sidonia on Mars, and this is what they used to call the face on Mars, trying to get a handle on what exactly is going on there, or what went on there, more precisely.
Actually, we just released this, so this actually is the first interview I've had on it, so this was great.
It's nice to beat them, and you and I both know that I had this headlong dash to get the thing downloaded, and I did a speed watch on it.
So you're going to have to keep me on track here.
But once again, fabulous presentation, really nicely done, Courtney.
I don't know how much effort goes into this, but I'm assuming it's quite a lot.
Oh, it's huge.
We have, you know, no one buys groceries on anything that, on any money that we ever get.
We just keep everything gets put right back into continuing to do what we do better.
And so we really have state-of-the-art equipment and we have a full studio and we really invest everything in just doing this because the goal here is to change the planet, to change the way people think and redirect sort of the humanity in that sense.
And the only way we can do that is to keep upgrading what we do.
And we found out long ago that no outside studio, network, whatever is going to come and rescue us.
So if we have this stuff that we really think is important for people to see, this stuff dealing with remote viewing, then we have to produce the shows.
We have to present it the way we think it should be presented and just put it out there.
And people, there is a difficulty with this because when people see the stuff that we do, they just assume that we're like a big place, like got a building, secretaries, major studios.
They don't realize that we're working out of our homes and we're decentralized and we're scattered all over the place because the quality of the stuff that we're hitting out is absolutely first rate.
And so we get a lot of people get sometimes quite frustrated that they try to call and talk to the secretary and there is no secretary.
Well, look, sometimes it is the will and the desire to do a thing that can make you succeed.
I did years of radio news and I worked on a very big radio station.
I'm not going to bore people with this because I know I go there a lot and I don't need to talk about this again.
But the one thing I will say is that a lot of the time the public who were hearing this didn't realize that I was a one-person show.
I was a one-man band doing the news and I produced it on very few resources.
And similarly, there is a jingle company.
They make radio station harmonized jingles, those things you used to hear a lot of on American radio and British radio that go, you know, W whatever or K whatever.
This company's called Jam Creative Productions in Dallas.
And when they started, they were a two-person team.
And literally, they used to send out reel-to-reel demo tapes, little five-inch spools of tape showing the latest jingles that they sang.
This is back in the 70s.
And they started from an apartment in Dallas.
And they literally had a stamp.
And they would put all the tape boxes on the floor.
And they would have a session of stamp in the boxes to make sure the stamp got nice and square on the boxes.
It was a tiny little outfit.
And they would hire a studio and hire some singers and they'd go and do it.
Point of the story is that if you have a will to do something, you can.
And frankly, if you were to depend on people doing documentaries or independent productions About you rather than doing it yourself.
God knows what they would make of your work.
Yeah, that's the other issue.
Everybody puts a spin, and everybody's spin that they put on it is based on lack of knowledge of what we actually do.
And so they put sort of an independent spin that sort of comes out of their own experiences, their own biases, their own thoughts.
And so we never get from other people a clear presentation of what it is we're actually doing.
So we ended up doing everything ourselves.
The other thing that's sort of really weird is that some people, when they see our stuff on YouTube or Vimeo, or if they see a DVD or something, they sometimes get, I just, every once in a while, they get really,
really pissed off, really ticked off, and they start ranting on the comments section because they say like it doesn't click to them because they're used to people that do sort of fringy, new age stuff, having like really low-end type of production stuff.
And so when they see like a polished production where the research was done well and it was presented properly, that like doesn't click to them.
It's not supposed to be that way.
And the other problem that you have is the problem that people always bring to my door.
Whenever you appear on this show, some people love it.
And some people say remote viewing trash.
And they are of the opinion that remote viewing has been discredited completely already and is not being used by governments and others.
And I know that that's probably not so, that the technique of remote viewing is still being used.
Yeah, I'd bet every penny I've got that actually, I know quite a bit about this, but the trouble is if I say something, I have to back it up.
So I have to say it sort of in a way of saying I believe.
But the reality is the U.S. government's investment into remote viewing is way bigger now than it was in the 1990s.
1995 in November is when their official program closed down.
And then they said it was an embarrassment and it was a mistake and so on.
And they had invested $20 million at that time in it.
And before then, everyone said, no, the U.S. government doesn't do that.
And then suddenly they found out that they'd been doing it for years and years and years and years and it became public.
Well, you can be absolutely certain that they didn't stop doing it.
They just closed down that program, started up another program.
But what they're doing now is actually, some of the stuff they're doing now is very innovative and very, well, it's very military oriented.
We don't, we're, you know, as you know, I'm the director of the Far Sight Institute, and that's a civilian thing.
So we're the very best leading venue for scientific research into remote viewing anywhere.
But the U.S. government, when they do stuff, they have a military orientation towards it.
So they're really interested in all types of stuff that are military applications, spy applications and things like that, which is totally different from what we do.
On the other hand, they do listen to what we do.
They learn a lot from what we do.
So, you know, we do different things, but yeah, and at some point in time, I suppose their current program will come out and then they'll say, oh my gosh, I don't know how that happened.
Some rogue general must have done it.
We didn't know what was going on.
They're going to close it down.
And then immediately they'll start up another one and you won't hear about it for 20 years.
And that's just what they do.
It's the nature of life and politics in the world.
Yeah, I mean, secrecy is what they do.
So I don't know why people are surprised when they hear that, oh my gosh, they did what?
I mean, that's what they do.
The military does secrecy.
In fact, the largest element of the entire U.S. budget that exists anywhere is the black box military stuff, meaning the stuff that has a black box around it, and no one knows what's in that box.
I mean, it's not like this is an aircraft carrier bill and that's how much they spend for the aircraft carrier.
There's a huge amount of military funding that just has just a giant black box around it.
It's the largest single expenditure that's spent anywhere.
And the U.S. military spending, if you add it up, is total bigger than the total military budget of every other country on the planet Earth combined.
Meaning you add everybody else's military together, and it doesn't come close to what the U.S. military spends.
And in the U.S. military expenditures, a huge chunk of that, the biggest element, is black, meaning there's no explanation whatsoever of what the money is spent for.
So, you know, people really shouldn't be surprised when all sorts of things happen.
They shouldn't, but sometimes they are.
Now, we have new people joining us all the time.
You wouldn't believe how the listening figures and download figures for this show are growing.
It is staggering even to me, and I do the show.
So let's spend two minutes now explaining to people to whom this is new what remote viewing is, how it works.
Well, okay, the 10-second thing, it's a psychic-mental thing.
All right.
But what reality is, is what happened in the U.S. military and the basically within the Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA, which is the biggest spy network on the planet, and the CIA, they invested in a set of procedures.
They wanted to be able to train people that had security clearances on how to do this psychic perception in a reliable way.
And so they developed a set of procedures.
And there are two dominant forms of procedures that are military and military derived on operation right now.
And that's CRV, which is controlled remote viewing.
And that came out of an official program in the U.S. military that was housed in the Defense Intelligence Agency.
And then there was an unofficial movement within the military, also within the Army, within Special Forces, and that was later called the 1st Earth Battalion, which was featured in a movie called The Men Who Stare at Goats starring George Clooney and Jeff Ridges.
So, the basic idea is that they refined.
They figured out what the brain was doing, what the mind was doing when these intuitive pulses, intuitive perceptions came through.
And then they developed it into a set of standard procedures that they were able to teach to people with security clearances to do spying, to do espionage, to do mental perception of what was going on, say, in the Kremlin walls and things like that.
And there was no explanation at the time for how it could work scientifically because it did violate the laws of physics as they are known with relativity and classical mechanics.
So, and actually I should say relativistic and quantum mechanics is the best way to look at it.
It violated those two things.
But they used it anyway.
And you have to understand that the dominant paradigms of physics that we are taught in the university are relativistic and quantum mechanics, relativistic physics and quantum mechanics.
And those fundamentals are 100 years old, meaning nothing has changed except the details for 100 years with respect to how humans think about the nature of physics.
And you know it's got to be wrong because nothing lasts 100 years.
I mean, nothing, it's screwy to think that any theoretical anything ever lasts more than a few years.
Now we can do quantum mechanics better than we used to.
We can do quantum computing.
We know the math.
And I'm a mathematician, so I appreciate the mathematics behind it.
It's very nice.
It's very elegant.
But it's the interpretation of quantum mechanics that is just plain bonkers.
And so what they have is they have this crazy rule that there is a line in the sand they call the line of decoherence.
And on one side, you have quantum mechanical stuff going on with its own set of rules.
And on the other side, you have the macro stuff, the big stuff, you and me, and that has a different set of rules.
And they basically live with the idea that there's two separate sets of rules and there's no way to connect the two.
Well, you know, that's crazy because everything in the macro realm is built on the micro realm.
So there is a movement within physics that was initiated by a guy called Hugh Everett, who studied under John Wheeler at Princeton, got his PhD there in 1957.
And currently, approximately 18% of all mainstream physics, they're younger, have thrown out the traditional model and have adopted Hugh Everett's view of it.
So things are actually changing.
There's a great BBC documentary, by the way, on Hugh Everett.
Really?
I haven't seen that.
Yeah, it's a very interesting BBC multi-show documentary on Hugh Everett and the other world's theory of physics and how it slowly...
And they have basically adopted the other world's interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is basically saying that we live in a frequency-based universe, not a solid universe.
And they have never, no physicist has ever, ever, ever found anything solid, ever.
Meaning, if you take your desk or your car or your house and you burrow into it, you find a lot of empty space and molecules.
And inside the molecules, you find a lot of empty space in atoms.
And inside the atoms, you find a lot of empty space and neutrons and protons and electrons.
And if you burrow into those things, and it goes on and on and on, it's just, and so basically what the only thing they've ever really found, they've never found a solid billiard ball type anything.
The only thing they've ever found is frequencies, waves, energy.
And, you know, basically we live in a universe that's totally frequency-based, totally energy-based.
There is no solid thing, which means that you can, which explains how remote viewing works, because the brain actually turns out to be a very sophisticated hologram generator.
And what it does is it produces pictures that you see by sifting through and sorting out and screening out all frequencies that it doesn't want you to see.
And so if you're out in the, well, if you're out in the outback and you see a lion, it lets you see the lion of today.
It doesn't show you the gazelle of yesterday or the elephant that'll be there tomorrow.
It shows you what you have right now.
But there's other frequencies that you're simply not tuned into.
So remote viewing is done by training people to be, basically to let their brains lighten up by being such a strict guard.
Bottom line of this conversation is what we believe today and what is established scientific fact today, as you say, it won't last 100 years, it may change.
So those people who diss remote viewing, well, they can't prove that it is bunkum.
They can't.
You know, you can't prove that this thing exists, but you use it and you use it to effect.
Equally, they can't disprove it.
All we know is it's there.
It does, but we also now understand the physics around how it works and why it works.
So, I mean, I have a presentation that's available on our website at www.farsite.org, F-A-R-S-I-G-H-D.org, where I do explain some of that.
But we do understand now the physics of how it does work.
But that's easy for me to say, but you're still not at a point where it's taught at the university.
All right, let's get to the project now.
The way that this works is that you have a seasoned team of a couple of remote viewers who you've worked with for a while.
One in the UK, one in America.
Dick Olgai, the Olgai, the American guy I interviewed separately on this show after your last project and found him very interesting.
This is neither art nor science.
Both of these guys do a bit of both.
They both strike me as being, to different degrees, scientists and artists.
And let me just explain, so we keep it short, the way that you tend to pick your projects.
You don't tell them about whatever target it might be.
You don't give them any clues.
And that's why they, I would assume, would not have been prepared for this one.
If I'd have tried to assume the next thing you would do, I would definitely have said, Flight MH370, he's going to do that this time.
So you hit them with Mars.
Yeah, no, it has to work under blind conditions, meaning you can't tell someone who's a trained remote viewer, go remote view the Eiffel Tower.
They couldn't do it because their memory, their imagination, everything would flood in.
So these procedures work only if they know nothing about it.
Now, the two remote viewers, as you mentioned, Dick Elga in Hawaii and Daz Smith, who's in Britain, he's in Bath.
And they're on opposite ends of the planet.
They didn't communicate during the entire time.
And none of them were told anything except an email that I sent that simply said, we have a new project.
There is a target.
Please do your session and send it to me.
That's it.
Nothing else.
And they didn't get a chance to like quiz me about it on the phone or anything like that.
Or, you know, they don't Skype with me about it.
So they couldn't see my facial expressions or anything like that.
So they just started their project.
They just started their stuff.
And then they do their sessions.
Now, in the old days, the military procedures relied on, and they still, the military people still rely on paper and pen.
Actually, the military people are doing other things as well, but it was basically a paper and pen thing, which was dreadfully boring to watch.
So what we have done at Farsight is to change that.
So we do our remote viewing on whiteboards standing up on video so that you get to see it live on video.
And that's really, really, really important.
I don't know if I've asked you this before.
I don't think I've asked you this before.
But do you put them under any time pressure?
Because these bits of video that make up your presentation are all clearly recorded at different times.
There are a few sessions involved here.
Do you tell them that you have to do this number of sessions or you can do it in one sitting?
What guidelines do you give them?
No, always there.
And for this particular project, for the Sidonia thing, there were two targets.
The targets are the things that they're supposed to be perceived.
They don't know anything other than this particular project was named 12, number 12.
So they had two targets known as 12A and 12D.
So they just, that's all they know.
And then I have to literally wait around till they get a time in their busy schedule.
I mean, Daz Smith, he's a graphic artist in the UK.
He's a very good graphic artist in the UK.
And he has other stuff he has to do.
And so I had to wait for him to get some free time to do that.
And it's not just one session.
I mean, he does it.
He goes back and forth multiple times.
He does, like when he did 12D, he did that session.
He did it on a whiteboard.
He has to, there's nobody in the room when he does it.
So you're talking about him being the cameraman, the sound guy, him setting it up, him setting up the whiteboard.
And then later he did a green screen thing.
So he had to set up his own green screen.
And it's all being done in his apartment.
And he has to find time when his family's not going to be around and everything's going to be quiet.
So it's, you know, it's sort of a, this is what you do when you were on a.
Yeah, it's a logistical effort, but is state of mind important?
In other words, have you got to be calm?
Have you got to feel calm?
You talked about the interruptions, family and all the rest of it.
Yeah, that's a big deal.
We have to, the type of remote viewing that's done at Forest, we have found that the best remote viewers that can do work on the level that Daz Smith and Dick Algire do it, both meditate.
They calm the mind.
It's absolutely impossible, in my view, based on huge experience, for a noisy mind to remote view at the level that these guys do it.
Meaning, if someone doesn't meditate, if someone doesn't know what it's like to calm the mind, to be able to hear a pin drop on the other end of the universe, to have that deep set of settledness, the mind's popping off like a firecracker.
I mean, it's just, you know, and if it's doing that, all types of crazy ideas are going to be jumping in.
So you have to have the ability to know what a settled mind feels like.
Okay, so it's about total focus.
I'm going to jump around this a bit because I want to try and get to the nub of it.
But before I do, why did you choose one of the most publicized places in the universe, the Sidonia region of Mars, where everybody's had their two cents worth about this one.
You know, everybody said face on Mars, that's definitely man-made or that's creature-made, that's not natural.
And then we came around to the view that actually, no, it's just a visual effect.
It's a distraction.
It's not really what it appears to be.
And people these days, you say face on Mars, some of them laugh.
Some of my colleagues laugh at me when I say face on Mars.
So you've picked something that has been, it's had people amazed, but it's also been discredited.
Why go there?
Well, because the whole circus that has been focused on the so-called face on Mars was ridiculous, in my view.
The object that they're talking about is three kilometers long from corner to corner.
And the idea that someone would spend that much time carving a Sphinx-like thing that's that big was just sort of nuts.
Also, when NASA came out with their final picture on the face on Mars, it had these really clear perpendicular and parallel lines on it, plus a semicircle on one end.
And they came out with this big story saying, see, it's not a face, see, it's not a face.
And the media, which basically ignored the whole face thing, immediately chimed in at that point.
And they said, yeah, meaning the mainstream media always says what NASA wants them to say.
And so when other people are saying there's a face on Mars, they basically kept quiet.
But when NASA says there's not a face on Mars, the media was like shouting, see, it's not a face.
And I was looking at it thinking, this is very much like a magician.
What a magician does is distract you so that you're looking at his hand over here when something else is going on over there.
And you don't see what's going on over there because of the distraction.
So, this whole issue of the face for me was like a magician's trick.
And I was sort of saying, look, something is so clearly unnatural in that thing, the parallel and perpendicular lines.
And everybody's ignoring that because they're focusing on the facing.
So, I was actually very much amused by the whole spectacle of how the thing was treated.
Secondly, we had to have, I had always promised the remote viewers, basically the remote viewers that work here at Forest want mainstream acceptance.
They want mainstream credibility.
They don't want to be laughed at.
And they were always concerned that if we do any type of target that's extraterrestrial in content, then we might be laughed at.
And I don't like rules like that.
But I had promised them for like ever, like 15 years, I won't ever ask them to do an extraterrestrial target because I don't want to upset them.
And so, and I did that purposely and repeatedly over and over so that they would really believe that I would never ask them an extraterrestrial target.
Now, I was lying, of course, because I was, I had a full intention to eventually ask them an extraterrestrial target, but I wanted to make sure they didn't believe I would ever do that so that when they did the viewing...
They'll get it on Mars.
The gravity is different.
The air is different.
But if they've listened to any of your interviews with people like me and the many others who've interviewed you, they will know that that's exactly the merry dance that you lead them because you want to throw them off the scent so they don't come to it with preconceived notions.
I have to trick them into thinking that this couldn't possibly be.
So they keep on going at it, saying, and it worked.
To the very end, they were saying, and to the very end, they were saying, this can't be.
This just can't be.
Courtney never assigns an extraterrestrial target.
So they kept on describing it with their conscious mind in tremendous doubt.
And what we got was a perfect description of what is there in Sidonia now and a really good description of what was there long ago that perfectly matches what we see on the surface today.
Well, what we see is something we've described by the guy in England as something with linear corners, not natural, eroded terracing, and something that has been in use, note in use, but is no longer in use.
That's exactly right.
And those perpendicular and parallel lines, which are so clear, and on our website and in the video, we have, I show what those lines actually are.
They're absolutely unambiguous.
I mean, you've got a corner there that's straighter than any corner in your house.
I mean, it's perfect.
And the parallel lines on the huge sides of the, what I call the perimeter of the thing, are absolutely perfectly parallel.
It's not like they're slightly askew.
I mean, they're totally, perfectly parallel.
And nature doesn't do that stuff.
Nature doesn't ever produce perfectly parallel or perpendicular lines.
And so when we got the stuff, one of the reasons we picked Cydonia is we had a picture.
The reason when we do something, we want to do something where it's not just hearsay.
We want to do a project where you can actually say, these are the actual data we got, and this is the picture.
And it's a high-resolution picture gotten from NASA, JPL, and its partners.
And this is the picture.
And you can compare the results that they got with the picture so that that stuff is verifiable.
So we have the verifiable stuff dead on.
And then we say, well, in addition to the verifiable stuff, if the remote viewers got that stuff and it's exactly correct because I can see it in the picture and in tremendous detail, then what else did they get?
Because the other stuff, which is new data, becomes very believable, very persuasive at that point, because the verifiable stuff that they can see in the picture is spot on.
And, you know, they explained.
They found the linear lines.
They found what the contouring was, what looked like the terracing, which was not terracing, but it's stepped type structures that are buried under the system, under the thing that is, you know, it's been withered for a very, very, very, this is a very ancient structure.
And it looks like it's a city, basically.
It's the size of a city, but it's a city.
And if you look at the perimeter surrounding, it looks like it was surrounded by water.
But the first indication it seems to me, I'm sorry for interrupting, but the first indication it seemed to me that the penny was beginning to drop, that this thing may not be here, was this description of the enormous forces of nature, the enormous storm forces that were at work on this thing.
You know, clearly the kind of thing that whatever elements we have here, we don't get them on Earth.
No, it ended in a bang.
It wasn't like something that just went away.
There was a sudden inundation where the water just like tidal wave type stuff, it just covered the whole thing and it was destroyed.
That place on Mars, which was essentially an island city, was inundated and there were tunnels.
There still are tunnels underneath.
Everything was flooded.
The city became washed away.
Just imagine an island that is surrounded by water and suddenly the water overwhelms and waves over everything.
Something happened on Mars that was cataclysmic.
Now, what we do know from Mars, now it's now official that NASA has officially accepted that Mars, half of the planet was covered with oceans and that it lasted.
This is just actually, they just acknowledged this like two weeks ago, and that the oceans weren't short-lived, but they lasted for zillions of years.
I mean, they were like long, long, long oceans.
So NASA is slowly, the European Space Agency and NASA are slowly, slowly, slowly releasing information to the public.
They're scared to death about what will happen if they tell the whole truth.
They know everything, by the way.
They know the entire situation of their having been life on those.
They have very good high-resolution pictures of stuff on the planet, including fossil stuff and other things.
I mean, they know darn well what was theirs, but they're slowly releasing this information, hoping to cushion the public slowly, slowly, slowly.
And so, what we do is we just say deck with all that.
We just dive right in.
So, we did Sidonia because the public circus that was surrounding the image and the information about Sidonia was so stupid, it was so wrong, and secondly, it was so distracting.
It said, this is a perfect thing.
We have a perfect picture, and we've got a lot of public confusion.
Let's be the first ones to actually tell people exactly what was there.
It was a city.
It was an elevated city with an ocean surrounding it.
It died cataclysmically with inundation, and this is what they did, and this is how they lived.
And the reason that these ruins don't look like artifacts that we would be familiar with is brilliantly summed up by Dick Olgai towards the end of it all, where he says of the decay.
Imagine the Moscow subway 1,000 years after World War III.
How would that look?
Yeah, actually, yeah, imagine 100,000 or a million or a couple of million.
I mean, it's like, yeah, it's just been weathered and beaten down.
And Daz also says the same thing.
He says, this thing has just been beaten down.
You can't even see it from the surface.
You can see just elements of it from the surface, but most of it's underneath.
But, you know, they describe the hill in the center and the environment and the surrounding terrain.
I mean, even Daz even gets the gravity.
And one of the funniest things, someone's actually, a couple people have actually mentioned this on my Facebook page.
One of the funniest things that they said is when Daz actually perceives the air, you can see him raise his head up and he's like sniffing.
He's like, imagine like, you know, like a dog smells something new and it raises its head and sniffs.
Well, Daz sort of raises his head up and says, the air is different.
It's very thin.
And you can hear him sort of, and that's what you do.
You actually go through these things.
And the way Dick Algaier and Daz described these sort of micro elements in such exquisite detail is just fascinating.
And it is something that assaults the senses, literally, isn't it?
It's like you watch with Dick Olga.
These things are just kind of bang, bang, bang, occurring to him.
And he's sketching them down as best he can.
At one point, he says, of the structures, there is a roadway here with a series of vertical posts, and he draws those things in.
For it to be man-made here seems out of place.
There is no sense of human activity.
Yeah, now that's when he was describing Sidonia now.
And, you know, then the other target, which was our internal number 12A, was Sidonia in the ancient past when whatever was there was in its optimal state.
And so, yeah, so what you're talking about is how he was perceiving it now.
And he was perceiving these elements that were there that were out of place and that were like man-made stuff in an otherwise natural-looking terrain in terms of right now.
I mean, it was spot on.
He didn't, you know, if you were going to have sort of a scenario where you're trying to describe how remote viewers would fantasize about stupid things, you'd probably say something like they would have picked up the Eiffel Tower or the Taj Mahal.
Nothing like that.
What actually happens with really great, what we call scary good remote viewers, is they describe what's actually there perfectly in really exquisite detail with no major mistakes at all.
And both Dick Elgire and Daz Smith did exactly that.
And it's, it's, literally, some people call it, this is not a word that I coined.
Other people coined it and they said it's scary good.
Well, it's certainly food for thought, but then it always is, whatever you do.
You know, it's controversial.
And as usual, I'll get the emails telling me, what have you got Courtney Brown on for remote viewing is all rubbish and it's been proved to be and all the rest of it.
Well, that's fine.
That's their view and everybody's entitled to a view and I'm sure you accept that.
If we think about the site and what it was, I'm intrigued by this idea of ancient knowledge and records being kept there.
Talk to me about that.
Well, it was a city.
And so let's drop the whole idea of it being something like the Sphinx.
It was a city, and it was apparently surrounded by water, an island city.
And it was a place where a lot of people lived and they congregated.
And it had a mixture of technology.
There was poor areas that were like cities that we have today that have poor areas.
And there were like really well-built up infrastructures.
So clearly they had people there that had money and then people there had very little money.
So they were very much like us, Howard.
They were very much like us.
In fact, what you might think about them, the Martians, is that they were us when we were there.
That's a good way to think of it.
It was before us, and they were us when we were there.
And of course, there are still people who say that indeed they were us, and that they came here.
That's why we're here.
Yeah, well, if there's one thing that remote viewing demonstrates unambiguously is that we are not limited by our physical bodies.
So obviously, when we were there and we died, obviously our physical bodies may have been the end, but the remote viewing clearly indicates we're bigger than that.
So after we died, we had to do something.
So where is the next logical place?
Well, there's still a habitable, nice planet in the system, and we might as well go here.
So when we get born again, it was a nice place to start.
So it's natural for Martians to have migrated from a planet that was no longer habitable to a planet that was still habitable.
But one half of Mars, literally one half of Mars, is covered with huge craters.
And the other half of Mars has no craters, very few craters.
I mean, it's just basically nothing, flat.
So clearly something happened with Mars in the ancient past That was on an astronomical scale.
Clearly, something happened on one side.
And we have actually done research on that.
There does seem to have been a huge explosion at one point in space and it fragmented a large body.
And that body pelted.
Think of a shotgun hitting Mars all on one side.
And apparently that's connected with the beginning of the death of Mars when you get the huge shifts in water, the inundation of the Sidonia area.
And apparently that didn't kill off everybody, believe it or not, but it did.
It was a bad day, and that was the beginning of the end.
And exactly the kind of thing that they're saying one day will inevitably, not in our lifetimes, probably, happen here.
If we get hit by an enormous asteroid, it hits in the wrong place.
That's what it's going to do.
Well, actually, the event that triggered the end at Mars was not an asteroid.
It was a planet.
There was a planet where our asteroid belt is the refuge, is what's left over of that planet.
Now, you know, there's some people that are listening to your broadcast at this point that are probably rolling their eyes.
But actually, we did a large study on that to determine whether it was the classical interpretation of the asteroid belt, which was its refuse or garbage that was left over from the primordial solar nebula when the solar system was formed, or whether it was a planet that exploded.
Now, the exploding planet concept was really...
But that was actually championed in recent years by Thomas Van Flandern, who was head of his Department of Celestial Mechanics at the Naval Observatory, an extremely mainstream astronomer.
And he collected an enormous body of celestial planetary data indicating that indeed there was a planet and it did explode there.
Now, mainstream astronomy is not adopting that, has not accepted that, but the evidence clearly supports it.
And it's only a matter of time before mainstream astronomy does accept it because the evidence can't go away.
I mean, we're not going to spend time today to go through that, but the evidence, the planetary evidence for that, including meteor evidence, asteroid evidence, the nature of the burns of the asteroids, the heat that the asteroids have been exposed to.
I mean, everything points in the same exact direction that there was something that exploded.
Now that we know that Mars was heavily populated, then we can also speculate that something happened to destroy that other planet.
And that planet plus Mars would have been in the habitable zone of the solar system.
So one of the possibilities, and we have not done a study of this, so we really don't know.
But one of the studies, one of the things that you have to accept is if Mars was inhabited and it was near this other planet, very near this other planet, then it's a very distinct possibility that this other planet was inhabited and it basically blew itself up, meaning it could have been a war, it could have been a war situation.
Now, for those people who may be rolling their eyes again, it's easy to blow up a planet.
You may think it's impossible to blow up a planet.
It's not hard to blow up a planet.
All you need to do is, we have these so-called super, super atomic weapons, these so-called doomsday bombs, but we have these cobalt-type bigger than hydrogen bomb weapons.
If you have a large aggregation of these things in a space, like a bunker, someplace to hold them, store them, and then if you have an enemy wanting to knock them out and successfully manages to send a nuclear device into the core of them and destroy them, if they detonated, they would blow the planet up.
Now you have to understand, planets are more fragile than you think.
Earth is an extremely fragile planet.
Earth itself is an 8,000-mile diameter ball of liquid molten rock.
It's basically an ocean of liquid rock, and it has an eight-mile thick crust on top of it.
It's really very easy to blow up this planet because it's a body of liquid.
So if you smack something into it, you start to scare me now, but if you smack something into this planet, which we think is so solid because it's, you know, we depend on it, we have to think that, then because of what we're living on top of, it's going to blow up.
It's a balloon.
It would pop.
In fact, we did another study, the so-called Atlantis study, where there was, in fact, we have, and again, almost all of our projects involve very clear, undisputed images.
We had some images that were based on U.S. sonar data that was available on Google Earth.
And we have images of anomalies that are on the bottom of the ocean, like three miles deep, a thousand miles off the coast of Portugal and Morocco.
And they clearly looked like the ruins of a city.
And there was some other stuff down there, Antarctica.
So we did a study on that.
And in fact, we found the entire thing.
And that's called the Artlantis Project, for lack of a better word.
That's what we used.
And what happened was that there was, and we actually have dated it about 70,000 years ago, there was a vibrant human civilization on Earth.
It was us, our ancestors.
And they were a little more advanced than we are today, about 100 years more advanced than we are today.
And they had a scientific, a secret scientific project going on where they were trying to drill a hole for energy purposes, to try to drill a hole through the crust to tap the heat in the center.
And they thought they could control it, but it was a balloon.
They popped the balloon.
And so basically what happened is they blew it out.
And it was a spot down near, well, off the coast of New Zealand.
That's where it happened.
And New Zealand has the thinnest spot, the thinnest level of crust on the planet, that area.
And it also has the largest concentration of volcanic rock.
And what they basically did is they blew a hole in the balloon.
It popped the balloon.
And you had a dent on the antipode.
The antipode is the exact opposite spot on the planet from where the blowout occurred.
On the premise that if you push a thing in at one place, it comes out at the other.
That's exactly right.
And so you had a dent go in.
And so Europe that you're familiar with 70,000 years ago actually used to extend almost halfway out into the middle of the thousand miles out into the middle of the Atlantic.
Not halfway out, but about 1,000 miles out into the middle of the Atlantic.
And so what you think of as the Atlantic Ocean a long way is what used to be solid.
And it sunk as a result of the dent.
And you can sort of say, but that doesn't make sense.
It's stupid.
How can you dent the planet Earth?
You're not thinking when you're saying that.
The planet Earth is a ball of liquid.
It's an 8,000-mile ball of liquid.
It's easy to pop it.
You make a...
But what happened back 70,000 years ago is they were drilling this huge set of boreholes straight through.
They essentially created an unbelievably huge volcano.
It produced a huge explosion, way bigger than like a nuclear explosion.
So yeah, a planet is pretty easy to pop.
You think it's hard to do, but it's actually easy to do when you think about it.
And you can say, well, look, we don't see any planets popping.
We've only been here in terms of a recent civilization, the last few thousand years.
We've rebuilt our civilization, say, over the last 3,000 years.
That's nothing.
This planet can easily go through major cataclysmic changes on periods of like 20, 30, 40,000 years.
But what you're saying about Mars is that somebody deliberately crashed, perhaps in a conflict situation, a planet into Mars, hence the cataclysm that overtook the planet.
Another planet exploded, and the debris from that explosion smacked into Mars.
Right, which was a huge amount.
You know, the crust on the side of Mars where the craters are is actually like three kilometers, is actually thicker by a couple kilometers than the other side.
So whatever hit Mars hit it.
It was really close.
In fact, there is one theory that Mars may have been a moon of that other planet, which is why it was so close to it and why it absorbed such a huge amount of the blunt of the explosion.
But yeah, it looks like something happened.
It was cataclysmic on Mars, and that's what ended in Sidonia.
And so for the very first time, we not only have a very clear description of what is there in Sidonia now, which is the ruins.
Dad Smith and Dick Elgar clearly describe the ruins, meaning they describe the tunnels underneath, the caverns underneath.
There's a lot of stuff there, but there's no people there right now.
It's like the ancient subways, and imagine like what you said.
New York subway system, thousands of years into the future, after the end of life on Earth.
If the impact was so cataclysmic and so huge, why is there anything left?
One half of the planet was not hit.
The craters are on one half of the planet.
But that half of the planet was still affected.
It had to be because of the forces involved.
But it wasn't, apparently, Mars.
Well, obviously, Mars was not completely destroyed.
Evidence that we have clearly indicates that one half of the planet was totally destroyed because it was covered by literally debris from this exploding thing.
And the other half was not, but the water shifted.
It would have been the worst nightmare that anyone can ever imagine.
The most amazing thing is that apparently it didn't end all life on Mars when that event occurred.
We have a fairly good dating of when that explosion actually occurred.
We can pick that up because the dating of asteroids.
But the other thing is that there is very solid evidence that's really not in dispute among people who are willing to look at the evidence and acknowledge it and people who are in the know, that Mars survived that civilization of some sort, rebuilt itself, and that there was a nuclear event that occurred on Mars in the not too distant past.
So you're talking, you know, like 100,000 years ago or whatever, but it's not like millions and millions of years ago.
So they rebuilt their civilization, and there was a nuclear event that occurred.
And we know that because of the isotope readings that we have from the planet.
We have really good isotope readings on the planet.
And there are very clear radiation signatures that only result from nuclear explosions.
And we actually have a good idea where the nuclear explosion occurred and its effect on the antipode.
So on Mars, there's actually a spot, and there is a mainstream science guy who's actually done, written a book just on that, where the explosion actually occurred and the radiation signatures and stuff like that.
So what are we saying here, Codney?
Are we saying that they had nuclear technology like we have and they weaponized it?
Or are we saying that there was some kind of accident with nuclear power, which is something that happens here from time to time?
Yeah, it's your guess as well as mine, but there was a nuclear explosion at some point.
But that happened long after the big cataclysm.
So they apparently rebuilt their civilization, stitched it back together enough in order to keep life going.
But the nuclear explosion was the event that finished off the atmosphere.
That was the end of the end.
That's when you couldn't breathe anymore.
So it was, believe it or not, the planetary explosion that was nearby, that wrecked everything, but it didn't destroy all of the water that was on Mars.
It didn't kill everybody.
I don't know how many people survived, but it didn't kill everybody.
And they were able to rebuild and produce a nuclear civilization that did have a detonation at some point in time.
And really, the isotope regions are really not in dispute, but they're not publicized, of course.
But nonetheless, they are available for people who really want to see them.
Because radiation occurs naturally.
Could we not say that this radiation was there for natural reasons?
No, they have very clear radiation signatures for specific types of events.
And a nuclear explosion has a very specific radiation signature in the isotopes that can only come about through that type of event.
They can identify the tracing, the forensic for the nuclear forensics for nuclear physicists is very well established.
They really can identify that.
So the synergies between the people who were there and us, which we talked about at the top of this, are very real and very chilling because this is the kind of thing that we could very easily do to ourselves here on planet Earth.
It's just like us.
They were just like us.
In fact, when we look at them and look at their civilization, and Dick Algire and Dad Smith, actually, they described the people there in the ancient past.
They described the civilizations that was actually there on Sidonia.
There's an almost beautiful description that Dick Algaire has of people going to a structure to worship, and they worship in reverence and peace.
Exactly.
It's just like us.
They were, I mean, other than the fact that it was on Mars and they were picking up the gravity and the air and everything like that, other than the fact that it was on Mars, you'd swear it was just us.
And yeah, we were, that's why I like to say it was us when we were there.
Is all of this that you say you've discovered, and perhaps governments know about this too, the U.S. government particularly, is this the reason why there's such a clamor on now to get people to go to Mars?
That there's something there still that the powers that be want to get hold of or want to know?
Well, there's a lot of stuff that they want to know and to get hold of.
A, there's technology, but you know, the biggest thing about governmental stuff is we, because of the way we think, we rely on secrecy in order to govern.
So when you have stuff going on in Parliament and Britain or stuff going on in the Congress and the U.S. and the presidenties, there's a huge issue with secrecy.
I mean, the whole issue of WikiLeaks, the Snowden stuff, the whistleblowers, it's all based on the idea that the governments don't want to give information out.
We base everything on secrecy.
And so it's this information that I'm sort of bringing to you today that is, you know, that for all the projects that we do, these are things that the governments do know about.
This is a civilian effort to come up with these things.
The only thing that's really interesting for me is that the government people that I've had contact with, they actually watch us.
They actually learn from us.
So we actually are discovering things that is new to them in very many ways.
But there are, for example, when the Atlantis thing happened 70,000 years ago, that was a very sophisticated, technologically advanced us version of us.
And they had lots of facilities in Antarctica, lots of stuff.
Now, Antarctica wasn't Antarctica back then.
So that explains why we sends so much stuff down to Antarctica, why there are so many people digging in Antarctica.
They're not looking for mastodon bones.
The public image is that they have a bunch of scientists down there that are just looking at the ice and recording solar cycles and occasionally coming up with a bone here and there.
That's not what they're doing at all.
They're digging for technology.
They've got stuff that's down there that's buried underneath the ice.
That's why the governments are so ferocious about trying to get to Antarctica on those very hostile climates and explore.
That's why they have the bases there.
And that's why they're less than keen for independent people to go down there and have a look.
That's exactly right.
They don't want other people to go down there.
They want to dig the stuff up themselves.
There's a lot of tech stuff down there, and it's been preserved perfectly under the ice.
And they want to dig it up and get it.
And that's the big investment.
Now, the same thing is true of Mars.
There's a lot of stuff there.
And, you know, when it gets to the point where other countries are going to get there, then you're going to see a mad rush.
Everybody's going to try to get there really quickly.
But, you know, there is the other issue of whether we have the capability of getting to Mars already.
Because since we're dealing with an extraterrestrial society on Mars, it's unambiguously existing in the ancient past, then it raises the whole issue of extraterrestrials, UFOs, and stuff like that.
And it raises the whole issue of crashed ships and us being able to reverse engineer.
And if, in fact, we have spacecraft capable of getting to Mars already, you can be absolutely guaranteed that the U.S. government would not publicize it.
We'd keep it on our secret basis.
I mean, the last thing the government's going to want to do is to say, by the way, there's lots of extraterrestrials out there.
We have a lot of their ships.
They crashed.
We reversed engineers.
We have a whole bunch of stuff we do.
And this whole thing of sending up rockets with NASA was just a smokescreen, so you wouldn't ask any questions.
But that also explains why they closed down the U.S. manned spaceflight program.
You know, the U.S. program is out of business.
We don't send anybody up anymore.
And you could sort of say, with all that huge investment in the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo stuff getting to the moon, you mean we just walked away from it?
Like, wake up.
We didn't walk away from anything.
So the real question is, you know, does the U.S. government in particular have capabilities of getting there anyway?
We certainly wouldn't have walked away from an entire space program.
I mean, just think about that.
Think of the nuttiness of that thought of taking that entire investment and then just wiping your hands and saying, well, that was fun, guys.
We're going to do other things now.
I mean, that is just stupid.
The U.S. government would never do such a thing.
The most chilling stuff that happens in remote viewing, Courtney, are those occasions where you go somewhere, your remote viewers go somewhere, and they sense something or someone watching them, watching the target.
Did that happen in this case?
Well, actually, no.
That's why the Martians were very much like us.
They couldn't tell if you're remote viewing them.
They're just like us.
Humans normally cannot tell if you're remote viewing them.
On the other hand, other extraterrestrials can tell.
Now, this is part of a three-part project.
You see, I had told the remote viewers forever that I would never assign them an extraterrestrial target, knowing full well I was lying, but I had to convince them.
And so when I did this, I said, I'm possibly never going to get a second chance, meaning they'll quit on me if I ever do this again.
So for this project, we assigned, there were actually three separate extraterrestrial things all in one.
And the Cydonia thing was the first one.
And the video, which you just seen, is really to die for for this one.
But we have two more coming out.
And the next one deals with Iapetus, meaning we have a facility on Iapetus that is just unbelievable.
You won't believe what we actually found.
The only thing I'll give you as a teaser for Iapetus is, A, the biggest, the richest people on the planet Earth are like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, stuff like that, right?
You have no idea how rich people have been in this solar system.
Some dude was so rich, we know the whole story.
He built something on Iapetus.
And you've heard of rich people like buying an island, building a castle, things like that.
You have no idea what we found on Iapetus.
Not only do we have a really nice photo of it, care of NASA, but we targeted it and we found the whole story of the whole thing, of what it was used for and everything.
We're not talking a secret military base or a spying facility.
We're talking some guy, some dude, being richer than any person ever on Earth having this idea.
And if you think about it, what's probably the most beautiful spot in the entire solar system?
Imagine Iapetus, a moon of Saturn with the rings right above and the perfect sky.
It's probably the most beautiful spot in the solar system.
So it's the ultimate holiday destination.
Yeah.
Really?
It's the ultimate holiday destination.
We found the whole story about it.
And anyway, that's coming out next.
And then after that, we have fundamentally and absolutely and totally resolved another one.
Not another one.
I'll tell you what it is, but it's something.
But these are clear things that we have absolutely unambiguous, verifiable elements for.
So that's why we did Cydonia.
We had the picture.
That's why we did the Iapetus thing.
We had the picture.
And with the third one.
But you're not going to tell me about.
The third one after you interview me when we come out with the iapetus thing.
But in the meantime, if your audience would actually watch it, you'll learn more about remote viewing and how it's done.
And there won't be any ambiguity.
If you go to the website, farsight.org, F-A-R-S-I-G-H-T, like seeingfar.org, O-R G, because we're a nonprofit.
And if you watch the video, it's a long one.
It's a three-hour video, but it's worth every minute of it.
I've never heard anybody complaining about it, that it was boring.
And I mean, it's like you're on the edge of your seat.
When you watch them describe what's actually there, knowing full well that they do not know what the target is, they're just remote viewing it.
But you as the audience is actually knowing what they're supposed to be describing.
And when you see them describe it in such explicit detail and then go off into the other things that are the new stuff, it's to die for.
Whatever view people take of all of this, I think we can comfortably say that you're the Barnum and Bailey of remote viewing.
You know how to present this stuff and you know how to put a show on and it is for the public who watch it and view it and take it in to determine whether they believe it or not.
I mean, I don't know whether I do.
It's not for me to judge, but I am fascinated and amazed as always.
You know that.
Yeah, yeah.
By the way, one last, you know, one thing I really do want to emphasize is since you're in Britain, somebody's got to really understand that there's only a couple countries on the whole planet Earth where you have these remote viewers, and you have one of the world's best remote viewers right then and there.
It's a planetary, Daz Smith is a planetary resource, and he's right then and there.
And, you know, it's like, I don't know if everyone in Britain realizes how important it is to actually have somebody like him there.
And similarly, you know, Dick Algire, and we've had some people in the United States that were really stellar remote viewers.
But right now, no one's really come close to the level of Dad Smith and Dick Alguire in recent memory.
What they do now on video, live on video, has never been achieved before.
And, you know, I'm really glad that you're interviewing me in particular because I hope a lot of Brits out there are realizing that you have an extraordinary resource that's homegrown.
Well, we said last time I've got to go to Bath and meet him.
It's not that far from where I live, so I can go down the M4 motorway here and actually talk to him.
I've talked to Dick Olga.
By the miracle of digital connection, Daz, I could do face-to-face if he's up for that.
I'm looking forward to Iapetus and whatever Project 3 is, I'm looking forward to that too.
Courtney Brown, thank you very much indeed.
Howard, it's my great pleasure to be on your show.
I want to thank you again for inviting me here.
Remote viewer Courtney Brown, there will be a link to his work on my website, www.theunexplained.tv.
Designed, created, maintained, and lovingly owned by Adam Cornwell, a creative hotspot in Liverpool.
Thank you very much for your support.
If you can make a donation To the show, please do and thank you if you have recently.
Thank you very, very much indeed.
And thank you for your emails and guest suggestions and all of the interaction you have with me and this show.
I love to see what goes on in your life that you tell me about in your emails, to hear your stories, to know where you are and how you use this show.
You know, it's really, really fascinating and really interesting to me.
So thank you very much.
Until next, we meet here on The Unexplained.
Please stay safe, stay calm, and stay in touch.
My name is Howard Hughes.
This has been The Unexplained.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection