All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 25, 2016 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:17:06
Edition 238 - Remote Viewing Adolf Hitler

This time - latest RV project from Courtney Brown's Farsight Institute - inside the mind ofhistory's most evil man...

| 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 Unexplained.
And if as you hear this, you are currently digging yourself out of the snow on the eastern seaboard of the US.
You have my thoughts.
I interviewed a weather forecaster on radio at the weekend who told me that in Washington, D.C., the snow was falling at the rate of about five inches, four inches an hour, seven centimeters, he said, per hour.
That's a phenomenal snowfall, and I know that the clear-up from all of this will go on throughout this week.
And I understand the back end of your snowstorm will come to us here in the UK as a big rainstorm very soon.
So we're going to get it too.
Thank you very much indeed to Adam, the webmaster for this show at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool for his hard work.
If you want to get in touch with me, you can send me an email, tell me about yourself, make a guest suggestion, tell me how you think the show's being done, go to the website theunexplained.tv, triple w.theunexplained.tv.
There you can follow a link and send me a message or make a donation via a PayPal link there.
Going to do some shout-outs on this edition, then we'll get to the guest, Courtney Brown, and an exciting new remote viewing project from the Farsight Institute who've been on here before.
Now this show is a little delayed, mainly because the guest I had lined up for it cancelled twice and then the third time said, don't want to do the show anyway.
Now he's somebody we've talked to before.
I have no idea why he decided to do that, but it threw out my schedule or schedule massively, so that's why we're a little bit late and I'm sorry for that.
But I do wish the guest had not done what he did.
But these things happen in life, I guess.
Let's do some shout-outs.
I have an awful lot of these to get through, so let's see if I can dive right into it all right now.
I've got paper everywhere at the moment.
Okay, I have to say that Ronald Mallet, says Jason in Cornwall, his story of wanting to travel back in time and meet his late father was very moving and touching.
I found it that way too, Jason.
You know, I've lost both of my parents, and I would do or give anything to be able to just have one more conversation with them.
Howard, like the show, but you do have a tendency, says Mark, to interrupt guests.
Mark, it's very difficult.
Sometimes, if you don't interrupt a guest, they're going to ramble off at a tangent.
And sometimes, if you do, then perhaps sometimes you might curtail the point they want to make.
It's such a fine balance, and I don't always get it right.
So, you know, I'll try harder.
Chris in Newcastle liked David Icke.
So did Brian in Ireland.
Kyle in Bakersfield, California.
Thank you for your email.
Gino, who runs KIYQ Radio in Las Vegas.
Nice to hear from you, Gino.
Don O'Malley in Santa Barbara, California.
All points noted.
Don, thank you.
Martin in Bangkok, thank you for your email.
Danny in Guernsey remembers me on the Chris Tarant show in London.
You've got a long memory.
Marcus in Reading enjoyed the show with David Icke.
Good to hear from you, Marcus.
Philip in Kyoto, Japan, thank you very much for your email.
Says that he recently met a man who says that he remembers a past life, where I think in wartime he fell, this man, from a plane.
If you can find him, I'd be interested in talking to him about his story.
Adam in Missouri, a fellow sufferer from Tinnitus.
You have my sympathy, definitely, Adam.
I've been there.
Den on the Isle of Wight in the UK, saddened by the death of David Bowie and wants to know if I have any David Bowie stories.
I did meet him once and a question that I asked him, and I wasn't sure how he'd react, I said, how do you feel, David, about all of those people who do impressions of David Bowie and try and do your voice?
And he looked at me with a smile and said, and how do you feel about people who do impressions of Howard Hughes?
So I think we probably won that one.
But a great, great talent.
Part of my life and part of yours too.
And now no longer with us.
Peter Riedel, thank you for your email.
Interesting point about conspiracy theories and those people who propound them.
Philip Jackson in Kyoto, Japan, thank you for your email.
Who else?
Chris in Austin, Texas, wants to talk about vector symbolism.
Thank you for that, Chris.
Roger Kujawa in Morton, Illinois says, love the show, but I can't believe anything that Marcus Allen says.
Okay, controversial guest.
Matt in Nashville, thank you for your email.
Mike in County Durham, UK, wants shows on Bilderberg, The Illuminati, and all that kind of thing.
Okay, Nick in Hudson Valley, New York, good to hear from you.
John Owen says, love the show.
Have you heard about the John Edmund case in Arizona?
No, but I'll find out.
Thank you.
Heike would like the Skype quality of some of the guests improved by using headsets.
Well, Heike, sometimes the guests won't use headsets, and that's the problem.
But I hopefully will never put out anything that is unlistenable.
But I understand what you're saying.
I wish people, all people, would use high-quality headsets.
Hi, Howard.
My name is Danny Z from West Bank, British Columbia, Canada.
Love the show going through your back catalogue of programs.
And have you done an episode about the hollow earth theory?
No, but I should.
George Coghill, keep in touch.
Thank you very much indeed for your email.
Marisha Fusco in Aliso Viejo, California.
Great location.
Says, can you say hello to Mike Fusco?
It will make his year.
Says Marisha.
Okay, Marisha.
Mike, happy new year if it's not too late to say that.
And Marisha and Mike, nice to know that you're listening in California.
Jeremy Brown in Washington State in the great Northwest says, I've just made a donation and want to thank you for all that you do.
Thank you very much for your thoughts.
Porik in Holland, good to hear from you.
Martin in Leeds, thank you for your email.
Raff near London has a few critical points to make.
He says, cut the small talk with guests and don't let them use you as a platform.
Thank you, Raph.
Damien Goodwin in Dorset, listening to these shows in Tenerife at the moment.
Very nice.
Max in Kalmar, Sweden.
Good to hear from you.
Peter in Stockton, UK, the flat earth theory.
Wants me to do more on that.
Gareth Munger says to suggest that paleoanthropological discoveries are being suppressed, which the guests on the show about giants did, is ridiculous.
And to suggest that creationism is a major factor is even more so, says Gareth.
Sean Knight says Jim Vieira's notions of social history are way off.
That was the show about giants.
But Holly Woolbert loved the whole show about giants.
Thank you, Holly.
Adam in Surbiton, Southwest London.
Thank you for your email.
Robert in Texas says he's a big fan and can't turn the show off.
This is good stuff.
Luis Jorge in Mexico, if you can put me in touch with any of your Mexican guests, Luis would like to talk to them.
Dr. Darren Hill at Leeds Beckett University has a case that he thinks David Paul Nidis needs to investigate.
Thanks for that, Darren.
Charles R. Beauregard in Florida says I've got guest suggestions for you.
Thank you for those.
And he listens, does Charles, on his three-hour daily commute.
Nice one, Charles.
Nice to hear from you.
Ralph Harrison in Germany.
He's a Canadian.
Ralph, thank you very much, and you know why.
Ralph Harrison in Germany.
Michelle Dawn in California.
Love the show with David Icke.
Rod in Portland, Oregon, kind comments.
Karen in Bradenton, Florida says, when Art Bell left us again, I decided to look on the internet for other podcasts.
I found many that I liked, but you, Howard, are a treasure, says Karen in Florida.
Thanks, Karen.
I don't know what to say.
Cody says, The Courtney Brown interviews, I believe you should have him on again, and put these cases to him for future investigation.
The Black Dahlia murder case, the death of Princess Diana, and Amelia Earhart's disappearance.
Courtney Brown's on this show, so I'll try and suggest those to him.
Jill in California, thanks for your email.
Martino, thank you for yours.
Chris, thank you for your email.
Heather in the Bahamas, good to hear from you.
Howard in Scarborough, thanks for getting in touch.
And finally, this time, Ben in New Jersey.
Right, let's cross now to the headquarters of the Farsight Institute in the United States.
Courtney Brown is going to be trying to get inside the mind, the evil, scheming mind of Adolf Hitler.
Courtney, thank you very much indeed for coming back on the show.
Howard, it's so great to be here.
I really enjoy being a guest on your podcast.
This is great.
Thanks.
There's so much that I want to talk with you about, Courtney.
You are a popular guest.
Some people think this is all nonsense.
Some people think this is all a great show, but they're not sure whether there's anything in it.
And some people absolutely think that it's fascinating.
I think I fall in category three.
I'm fascinated by this because I believe that the human mind has capacities that we can only scratch the surface of at the moment.
I think there are things that we had and perhaps have lost over the thousands of years, and we can rediscover those.
And I think part of the work that you're doing is about that.
But you talk to me.
It's not my show.
You tell me.
Yeah, no, it's okay.
They're actually among the people who study what they call psi phenomena, PSI.
They don't use the word psychic, but they use the word non-local communication, non-local perception, but PSI, psi phenomena.
In the peer-reviewed literature, the statistical results indicating that psi phenomena exist, and remote viewing is one form of that, is overwhelming.
And it's far more conclusive than any normal scientific result on any subject in any of the mainstream.
But the mainstream is very slow in the uptake with regard to things that really challenge the current paradigms.
So what basically it is, in the psi phenomena scientific realm, the people who study that, and I'm talking major researchers, lots of publications, PhDs, the whole thing, there's a schism.
There's a divide.
Most of them are working around the realm of statistics to get the mainstream to finally acknowledge that psi phenomena exist.
And we at Farsight did some of that in the beginning, and it was like banging your head against the wall.
The mainstream just wasn't going to move.
And I didn't want to spend the rest of my life fiddling on the edges with showing that a phenomena existed.
If it did exist, I wanted to see where it can go.
Like if you're given a brand new sports car that is really great, do you really just want to turn on the key to see if the engine runs?
I mean, you want to get in the sports car and see how fast it goes.
And you really cannot be standing around, sitting around waiting for affirmation from other people.
You know, you've got your sports car.
You might as well get and drive it.
Yeah.
I mean, there's one thing to say, you know, there's statistical evidence to suggest that if you turn on that key, the engine will run.
It's another thing to hop in the sports car and do it down the street.
So we decided, I decided at Farsight with the studies that we would do, we would do sort of a hybrid mix between sort of straight scientific stuff with super controls, way more controls than the standard scientific community uses, even in the psy realm.
And then we'd also do mysteries projects, which is basically getting into the sports car and zooming down the street and seeing how fast it goes.
And so our recent projects have been mysteries.
We're actually going to be going back to some of the scientific stuff, but with a lot of the theatrical panache that we learned when doing the mystery stuff.
So, you know, and the other thing that we learned is that among the scientists that do psi phenomena, that schism is so deep that they really get angry with each other.
The upsetness between the groups of people who study psi phenomena, and remote viewing, again, is one phenomena within that realm.
The emotional upsetness is as severe as that which you get with mainstream science versus the psi phenomena people.
So the psi phenomena people get really upset, like, how dare you do these mysteries and these things like that?
We should be studying the scientific stuff based on statistics and the probabilities.
And we look at their experiments and over the history of the experiments, we've actually, once we learned, once we sort of let ourselves be unfettered so we could do whatever we want, we found all types of fatal flaws in the scientific designs that the scientific community was using.
They were just, because they didn't really want to dive into it, the scientists themselves never learned the phenomenon.
They never really figured out how it works.
And so when we were trying to use it operationally and practical to solve mysteries, we actually figured out a lot of stuff about how the phenomena actually works.
So when we do scientific type studies, it's much, much, much different.
I mean, we literally wouldn't use some of the experimental designs that the rest of the community has dreamed up.
Okay, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
We have twice the number of listeners that we had when you and I last spoke, which I think was about a year ago.
This show is growing exponentially, enormously.
So for the people who are new to all of this and are just sticking their toes in the water, can you explain to them and to me again, what exactly is remote viewing?
Sure.
Remote viewing, it's a mental process.
So it's like psychic in the sense of you're conveying information, perceptual information, across time and space.
So a trained remote viewer is someone who goes into a room, sits at a desk, and an hour later comes out with a description of 20 pages of a description of a target.
And a target is a thing they're supposed to describe.
Now, it's always done, always, always, always done under totally blind conditions.
They cannot know anything about the target when it's done.
All they can be told is there is a target.
And when we do stuff at Farsight, we send the remote viewers a non-leading email.
So they can't even see my face, hear my voice, no inflections, nothing.
They just get an email that says, there is a target, remote view it.
Nothing more.
Now, if they were given any more, like something like, it's a location, focus on the people there, then their minds would go crazy with expectations, imagination.
So this remote viewing phenomena only works really well if the remote viewers are really well trained and if they know anything.
And if you tell them anything at all, even slightly, they get really upset and they sometimes will not do the target.
They will just refuse and they quit.
So you have to be really rigorous on this.
They have to depend totally on their mental perceptions with no help whatsoever.
And then when they're good, I mean, scary good, they are really unbelievable.
And those are the types of people that we work with.
Okay, well, it's very important that people understand that is how you do it, because anybody who goes into this watches the video and believes that these people have been led beforehand from what you've always told me, that is not so.
And you do it in a completely scientific and blind way.
Totally.
And in fact, with our scientific studies, which are different from our mysteries targets, we have the targets chosen after the sessions are done.
So in our scientific studies, and we're going to be starting up another long series of science studies as well that has public verification of the data collection and so on.
What we do is the remote viewing sessions get done first, and there is no target.
And the target is the place or event or people that they're supposed to be perceiving.
And then we put those sessions up on the internet.
People, you know, there's a time stamp on them.
People can download them, things like that.
Encrypted though, so people can't see it.
And then we wait for a period of time and then somebody in the future, predetermined person in the future, who picks a target.
And that target can be in that person's past, but it can be in the future of when the sessions were done.
So for example, if you do your session in January, something will happen in the world in February that's going to be interesting.
Some preassigned person in March will pick something from February.
Now, you did your session in January, a month before that, the event happened, but the person picked it in March.
So Courtney, what is that telling us about the nature of time?
That tells you that time is totally simultaneous, that everything in the past, present, and future happens at the same time.
There is no such thing as time.
By the way, you know, I don't do any of this at my university, but I am a mathematician.
And the mathematics of time is very interesting because in the deep equations, not in classical mechanics, but in the deep equations of the quantum and superstring type world, time divides out.
It just goes away.
And really, the physicists have not yet figured out time.
But time, clearly, these experiments indicate that time is an illusion.
And for your listeners, really quick, the one-minute thumbnail that sort of puts this all into perspective, everybody is very seduced by this illusion of 3D physical reality and time.
It's very persuasive.
But in all of the history of physics, no physicist has ever found anything solid.
Now, you can say, well, look at my desk, my body, my house, my car.
Those are solid.
No.
Inside that, that's just empty space and molecules.
Inside the empty space and molecules, inside the molecules, there's empty space and atoms.
Inside the atoms, empty space and subatomic particles.
Inside the subatomic particles, and down the rabbit hole it goes.
They've never found a solid billiard ball type thing ever that is solid.
So there is no solid thing.
The only thing they've ever found is energy, waves, frequencies.
That's it.
And so what we are, quite literally, you can think of it analogously to a hologram or a TV screen where you're watching it.
It's very persuasive.
And actually in the future, 10 years from now, television will be a hologram projection in your living room.
And when you walk into your living room, you will see Hans Solow and Luke Skywalker and Princess Leah as if they're standing there.
And it's like that.
And it's very, very persuasive.
And the only frequencies that can really interact among themselves are frequencies that the physicists call to be in a state of superposition.
They have to be near each other.
So the reason we don't see the past, the present, I'm sorry, the reason we don't see the past or the future is they're, in a frequency sense, out of sync from us.
And so it's like a Radio dial.
You don't hear the radio stations that are up the dial or down the dial because you're tuned into a certain frequency.
The radio itself is screening those frequencies, those other frequencies out.
So that's what our brains are.
Our brains are very sophisticated hologram generators that screen out all other frequencies and allow only one picture to show, which is the picture of the reality that you see.
So if you're a good receiver, and I'm doing something that one of my listeners criticized me for, and I do forgive me for interrupting you, Courtney.
No, please interrupt.
It's so interesting.
If you're a good receiver, and that's what your remote viewers are, you can then zone in on these frequencies.
What happens is there's a leakage.
It's not a perfect receiver.
It's really close, but it's not a perfect one.
And you get this, the leakage, you get in dreams, you get in intuitions, you get in subtle feelings.
And what the remote viewers are good at, they train so that they can focus in on the leaks, on the leakages, so that they get really good at focusing in on that stuff.
And then the conscious mind, which is normally screening all of that stuff out, over a period of time with training, the conscious mind learns to cooperate.
And so it lets those frequencies in without the emotions getting all involved and trying to chop them off.
So the remote viewers can focus on them and like grab hold of them and just look at those images.
And just now they do this in the normal waking state of consciousness.
So their eyes are open, they're listening and things like that.
So they're basically able to screen out everything else and they're like focused or concentrated on that one thing.
It's like, pardon the analogy, but it's like making love to that special person in your life.
What happens is when you're in the moment, do you really notice the pictures on the wall or the lights or the window?
I mean, you're focused just on that person and you're screening out absolutely everything else.
And it's kind of like doing a radio or a television show, too.
You know, when you're actually in the moment doing the thing, there can be all sorts of stuff going on around you.
You wouldn't know.
That's exactly right.
And remote viewers get really good at that.
And when they get really, really good, they get scary good.
And that's the type of things we do.
But it really fundamentally changes all of science.
And there's going to be, Howard, I guarantee you, a huge revolution in science.
It'll dwarf any political revolution that you've ever seen because it will change absolutely everything that you think, hear, see, feel, the history of humanity.
I mean, it'll change everything.
Well, that sounds great to me, and I'd be totally on board with that.
But of course, at the beginning of this, you said that you are facing enormous resistance and a great deal of naysaying from the mainstream scientific community.
How can that new enlightenment happen if that's the atmosphere?
It builds up like anything, like any revolution.
Tension builds up.
And before any revolution, you notice that the streets are calm.
But then you wake up one morning and everything is topsy-turvy.
So that's what happens.
What we're doing at Firesight is adding to the information that's available out there in as high-polished, a professional way as we can so that people like to see it.
And adding to the information that they have, building up the tension so that it eventually happens.
That's the only way progress happens in humanity.
You have to keep chipping away at it.
I mean, Copernicus long ago noted that Earth is not the center of the universe, that we are rather orbiting the sun.
But it took until Galileo, much later, to say, no, we have really solid evidence of that.
The Earth is not at the center.
Everything is orbiting.
And people then were still very upset by him.
And they threatened him with death.
And he finally accepted house arrest for eight years until he died.
And the Catholic Church took 350 years before they finally apologized or admitting they made a mistake.
But the point is that the resistance is huge because what it does is it's not just a simple observation that the earth is in the center, is not in the center, but rather things are, but you have to rearrange all the stuff that you normally take for granted.
For example, in the morning, everybody would wake up and say, Galileo, are you crazy?
Just wake up and look.
Look up.
You can see the sun moving.
It starts on one side of the sky in the morning and it goes overhead and then it goes to the other side.
It's obviously moving.
We're not moving.
We're not going around the sun because, look, we're standing still.
If we were moving, we'd be thrown all over the place.
It's obviously, just look up.
Everything else is moving.
We're steady.
And this was before Newtonian physics came about.
So they didn't understand the concept of acceleration and motion.
They didn't understand that a body that's absent acceleration is going to appear at rest.
So they didn't understand that.
So when we're talking about the acceptance of remote viewing, we're talking about a really strong reaction against that because they have to take everything that they see for granted, just like in the old days, seeing the sun move across the sky and realize that that's an illusion.
And that's a huge change.
And it doesn't come easy.
People are going to resist it to the end.
But eventually, the case builds and builds and builds until there's no other alternative.
And then, boom, you wake up one morning and you see everything is in the process of rapid change.
Well, now, Courtney, you know, you are one of the leaders in your field.
You get an awful lot of coverage online and you are an online phenomenon.
People know about you and then people like me interview you and mainstream media in the U.S. to a certain extent gets interested in you.
Just seems to me that after all of this time where you've done the projects, and we'll talk about this current project to do with Hitler, we'll get into detail about that in just a moment.
But you could really open the door for all of this if you decided to do a project that was of real practical value right now.
For example, the group calling itself Islamic State.
Now, this is not happening as far as we know, but just assume that they had decided to acquire for themselves some kind of nuclear weapon, and they were in one of those towns in Syria or somewhere developing this thing.
And you and your remote viewing team were able to see what was going on and pinpoint what was going on and who was doing it.
Then, in some kind Of chronicled way that you could later show the public.
You couldn't do it at the time.
You then said, Okay, this is the place to go, and the powers that be descend on that place and neutralize the threat and the problem.
Now, you could be of real service if you did that now, and I wonder why you don't.
We did it twice, and it produced no visible effects.
However, that's why we are still around today, in my opinion.
You see, in the beginning, when we started working in the mid-1990s, we were visited by card-carrying members of the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency.
And we were told that they were concerned about how fast we were growing and that they were going to need to tap us down to keep us a little bit, you know, they didn't want us to become as visible as what we were doing.
And around that time period was the collapse of the former Soviet Union.
And there were, according to General Lebed, we found out later, 125 suitcase-size nuclear weapons that were missing from the Soviet arsenal.
Those were very small tactical nuclear weapons.
Literally, you can put them in a carry-on suitcase.
And there was a threat for the use of one of those that we actually uncovered, that we actually did a project on.
And it was a really big surprise to us.
But we did find the location where it was going to be launched, where it was going to be detonated.
And we really did not know who to give it to because the DIA people were not coming to our office again.
And so what we did was we just put it online and showed all of our information.
And then the world laughed at us.
But we did find out confirmation later that the agency took us very seriously.
And apparently they went out and captured the people who did it.
And we got some feedback later that some of the people who were apparently selling the detonation equipment had to escape the area and tried to get to another area and were arrested.
And that actually was in mainstream news.
So we can't prove any of this, but the location that we found to our great surprise, I was really surprised, was New York City.
And it was a UN building.
And the person who was involved in it was a former military general leader of the Soviet Union who was really, really upset with the U.S., really ticked off at the whole Western world.
And when the collapse of the former Soviet Union happened, was able to get one of those weapons.
And there were some people selling detonation equipment.
They were apparently Lithuanian.
They got...
They were caught.
Whatever happened, happened.
And you, Cautney, were involved in this, were you?
Yeah, yeah.
And we put it online and we got in front of the Lithuanian detonator people, they were arrested in Miami.
They actually were caught coming off a boat.
And they escaped from Long Island.
What year was this?
Long Island.
Cautney, you put it online.
What year was this?
It was like 1996, I believe.
Right, so the internet was very new then.
Yeah.
And everybody laughed at us, and we had no physical confirmation.
But now the point is that what happens, this is exactly what you wanted someone to do.
Did we get any credit for that?
No.
In fact, what we got was wildly laughed at.
Nobody, the authorities aren't going to come out afterwards and say, wow, they really saved the day.
This is really great.
Thank you so much.
In fact, the opposite happened.
We were left to hang out the dry.
And so, but on the other hand, and this also happened with one other instance, but the point is that we really did make a contribution, even though we can't prove it.
And, you know, and literally no one's going to ever acknowledge that it happened.
And everybody in the mainstream will simply say, oh my God, they're so deluded.
And they laughed at us and everything.
But it really was a contribution.
And that, in part, explains to you why we're still around.
We made some friends, meaning in the DIA, in the intelligence community, and in the government, it's probably split.
There's probably half of the people saying, no, farsight is a good thing.
We need them.
They're doing something, disclosure stuff that we can't do, and it's important, and they've helped us in the past.
And there's probably another half of them saying, no, we got to get rid of them.
This is the end.
So the reason we're still around is it's a conflicting situation.
We have somebody helping us.
That is very interesting.
So are you telling me, let's just make it nice and clear as far as we can, and then we'll get onto the topic at hand here, Hitler.
But are you telling me that in this era, you are actually on the quiet, as we say here, still doing those things?
No, we don't do any of those things like that.
We stop doing stuff like that.
And do you not think that at the moment it could be really helpful?
No, it didn't help.
I mean, it didn't help before.
If we saved the world with like a really bad terrorist event and we saved it, we would get absolutely no credit for it whatsoever.
So we go off and do it.
But you would at least have saved the world.
We did that with New York.
You get what I'm saying?
I can't tell you.
I can't prove it to you.
If I said that, and I mentioned it only because you asked so specifically about it, otherwise we just don't even mention it.
If I actually claimed that or said that, the authorities would deny it and everybody else would laugh at us.
So for what good is it?
So what we do is we solve mysteries that are of interest to us.
And so all the projects that we've been doing, using it and the science projects, they're no longer trying to save the world.
What they are is they're things that are really deeply intriguing to us.
And we're having Fun.
And they are also things, as you said yourself, that will give RV remote viewing currency and will enable eventually that scientific breakthrough, that change of heart, that change of mindset, enable that to happen.
Do you think when it happens, when it happens, however, what they're going to see then is a huge library of studies that were done under the best of conditions and all done recorded live, live on video.
People can see it for themselves with solid control of the scientific procedures that was used.
And so they're going to see that library.
So if you have a world acknowledgement that remote viewing is real, but the library doesn't exist, there's no examples.
It'll have no effect.
But on the other hand, if you have a world acknowledgement that the phenomenon is real and the library exists, so people immediately, you know, you can only introduce yourself to people once.
And the moment that they're introduced to remote viewing, to firesight, to the stuff we do, they're going to look at us.
And at that moment, they have to see, holy XYZ, look at all that you've done.
And that is the introduction that you get.
And you don't get a second one.
So these projects are all going to play their part at some point in the future.
Got it.
They're all bricks in the wall.
Just quickly, in just a few seconds, as far as you know, and you say that you have contacts and connections, the things that I talked about, those real and present threats in this world in 2016, do you believe that there are RV groups involved in researching those things?
I know you're not, but do you think there are groups, perhaps official ones, unofficial ones, that are doing that work now?
I am absolutely certain that the military's remote viewing projects now, their remote viewing capabilities, their stuff, is way more funded and huger, much bigger than anything that ever happened when the project was officially closed down in November of 1995, when it was made public.
I'm certain they started it up again, and it's like got much better funding.
You have to understand that the United States is military expenditures are bigger by many, many, many times than all of the military expenditures for the entire world combined.
And then you look at that and the largest piece of that military expenditures is the hugest piece is black, meaning you have no idea, there's no idea of what that money goes for.
It's a huge chunk.
The stuff you see, like aircraft carriers, Air Force bases, stuff like that, that's actually a relatively small portion of the U.S. military expenditures.
So you have to say all that black money around which there is no idea of where that money goes for.
Do you really think that they wouldn't be spending it on remote viewing?
I mean, it must be, it's absolutely huge.
Now, so, but on the other hand, I don't have the type of connections that I think you're talking about.
I don't have anybody in the DIA calling me up and things like that.
I do have some connections with people who still have their security clearance.
For example, Lynn Buchanan has never really retired from the military.
So he's sort of like on leave and he's on the board of directors of Farsight.
And he was hugely involved in the original military program.
So we still have sort of connections, but the sort of mainstream people in the intelligence community that are deep in Washington, they don't call us.
But on the other hand, I'm sure they watch everything we do and are interested in it.
And, you know, that's okay.
Let it be that way.
We're happy with the arrangement the way it is.
And they don't have any communication with us, but I'm sure they watch everything we do.
And we don't keep any secrets.
So we don't use any encrypted emails or phone calls or anything like that.
So we're playing some positive role that some people out there in the higher-ups must like.
Otherwise, we wouldn't be here.
They could squish us in an afternoon.
I was about to say that keeping it all open is a very good policy because that kind of ensures that you don't just disappear one day.
Yeah, it's more than that.
As long as we're totally open, we're not a threat because as long as you see, these intelligence people, what they really are concerned about is having to fight to get information.
So if they see things that people are trying to do in secrecy, then that's a concern for them.
But we are a totally open book.
And so they don't need to struggle to find out absolutely everything we're doing.
And that's okay with us.
I mean, that's the way we want to be anyway.
A world without secrets is what we're fighting for in the first place.
I'm glad we have that part of the conversation.
Let's move on to the project, which is what we're here to talk about.
This is a very different thing that you're doing now.
In the past, you've done things like the secrets of the Great Pyramid of Giza, who shot JFK, what went on in 9-11.
Those are events or things.
But the idea of actually probing the mind of the most evil man in history, that's new.
Why did you come to this?
Well, if you look at all the projects that we do, they're all oriented around something new that we haven't tried.
So if you're trying to predict what we're going to do, the best way to predict what we're going to do is to say, what's interesting to them?
And so we had never used remote viewing the way we do it for this Hitler thing.
For example, we never use remote viewing to, look, we can use remote viewing, and we've done it many times, to see events, places, people, and sort of in a detective way, follow things through to resolve interesting mysteries.
Okay.
But we and we also know that we are able to have the remote viewers pick up the tenor of thoughts, sometimes more specific thoughts, but mostly just the general idea of what they're thinking about and certainly the emotions.
So this was a say, this was an experiment to say, well, let's just do a sort of a combination of that.
Rather than just sort of have them go look at a place, let the fundamental thing that needs to be answered be the follow the thoughts.
And so what we wanted to do is to have the remote viewers find Hitler and all under totally blind conditions.
They didn't know what they were assigned to do.
So, they just were told there was a target, remote viewer.
But the target I had, and it was clearly defined, and the target was for them to find Hitler while he was giving a speech about the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.
And that speech, it's a famous speech.
It was done in the Reichstag.
That's the men of the German Reichstag, the German parliament.
Now, the German Reichstag itself, the building had been severely damaged under very suspicious circumstances back in 1933.
So they were actually doing it in the Kroll Opera House, which was like across the street.
It was nearby.
And that's where the Reichstag met after the building, the Reichstag burned down.
So the men of the Reichstag were meeting in the Kroll Opera House, and it's very ornate, very interesting building.
I mean, it was an opera house.
And Hitler was giving a speech to a jam-packed audience, and he was screaming about the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.
And so what I said is, let's actually find out where that thought came from.
So we had the remote viewers target Hitler.
So we had to get all the verifiable stuff.
They had to describe the Reichstag building, which was the Kroll Opera House.
They had to describe the person.
They had to then go into the mind of the person and come out somewhere else.
Now, where they were supposed to come out, and it could be different for different people, but all the verifiable stuff was Hitler, the Kroll Opera House, the people that were surrounding him, the nature of the environment in terms of the applause, the devoted followers, all that stuff.
All that was verifiable.
We have a video of that that we put into our video, our documentary.
So we have a video of Hitler giving that exact speech.
Plus we have another Hitler speech that's got a close-up of him.
So you get a real idea of his motions, his hand motions, the vitriolic passion that he puts into his speaking.
And so they went into the mind while Hitler was giving that speech about the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.
And they came out at a spot that would be the origin of that.
Where did that come from?
What caused that?
Now, Dick and Daz both describe the verifiable elements really well.
The audience, the people, who they were, the gender, what they were wearing.
Dick All Guy did a really great job.
If he knew absolutely nothing about any of this, which is the premise of, is the fundamental of doing this, then he did a great job of describing that venue.
He even drew a semicircle, which is the kind of thing that the stage at an opera house would have, and there is somebody on a podium.
It was remarkable.
Whereas I thought Daz in the UK, we've talked about these two guys before.
They are very complementary.
They're bookends in many ways.
He was very good on the emotions and the feelings and all the rest of it.
But I just thought the pair of them together made a coherent whole, but they are both very different in the way they go about things.
Yeah.
You know, that's a really good point.
Now, Daz did get, he did get a good description of the facade, the front of the opera house.
He said it was very ornate.
And inside, he did get a parallel description with Dick in terms of the nature of the people, men in the environment, and how he was giving, he was, this guy was giving a talk.
He was giving a speech.
But Dick gave a lot of details about the physical thing and the nature of the audience and the screaming, the loud, boisterous nature of the audience.
And he said it wasn't like a show.
It wasn't like a Broadway show, but it was a political event.
They both said it was political.
But it was, you know, Dick really gave some really good high points on the physics.
And again, we have the video in our documentary.
We have the video of Hitler giving that exact speech.
So you can see that it, in fact, is a very accurate description.
The remote feeling is a very accurate description of what was actually happening.
And for those who think that all of this is a setup, what we call in the UK a put-up job, that it's all a fix just to look good, I was particularly impressed by the point at which Dick paused at that board that he uses, the whiteboard, and said, I have an idea who this might be, but I'm not going to say it yet.
You know, it just looked real to me.
Just looking at body language, it looked completely real as the whole thing, the chronology of it unfolded.
I was impressed by that.
You know, when we do our science projects, those are specifically aimed at addressing your current question, which is how do you prove unambiguously that what they're doing is real?
And that happens because we have public verification of this data collection process where the data are done first, the target's picked later, and the public has a copy of the data before the target is picked, all encrypted so they can't see, but nonetheless, you get the idea.
So, you know, we have different projects aimed at different things.
And this project was a mysteries project, but it sort of complements our science projects.
The multiple universe project is the one that we used, that we did for an entire year, a number of years back, where we did that process of removaling future events for one solid year every month, and we did 11 of them straight.
And so we're going to redo that, but this time using video.
But yeah, so we have different projects aimed at different things.
So to look at the mysteries projects and say it could be a setup, you have to actually compare, you have to connect it with the science projects where the setup question is impossible.
Okay, Adolf Hitler, one of the most documented characters in history.
You know, books still being written.
I watched a documentary about Hitler and the Nazis only the other night.
They are on TV constantly.
You know that, I know that.
What was interesting about this project, and what gripped me from the beginning with the viewings of Daz here in the UK, we got into Hitler's mindset.
And on one level, we have a man who is determined, which is what I expected, completely steely, totally assured.
But on another level, here is somebody who is in what I wrote down here, I don't know whether this is a correct way of summarizing it, but in emotional turmoil.
That to me was fascinating.
Yeah, actually, Dick, I mean, I'm sorry, Daz was almost like a psychiatrist.
He clearly identified that the guy was schizophrenic, that he, when he went back in time, he found that the guy was a victim of physical abuse that may have included sexual abuse, or if it didn't have, if it wasn't sexual abuse, it had a sexual repercussion.
So, but he was clearly an abuse victim and that that abuse that happened early in his life was a fundamental cause of the vitriolic hatred and the passion that he expressed later on.
Meaning, he had a grudge and he had people.
He was fighting a world and he had people he hated and he was also mentally ill.
Daz was very clear that this guy was mentally ill.
It also, if you remember, Howard, Daz felt very uncomfortable with this personality.
In fact, this is something that's not in the documentary, but I'll tell you, I was actually concerned that Daz would quit in the middle of the project because he was sending me emails about how uncomfortable he was with this personality.
He was a very shifty, very mentally unstable, and he didn't like the person he was being assigned to remote view.
And I didn't tell him anything about who it was.
It could have been anybody, but he was picking up all this stuff.
And I was afraid he was not going to continue.
But I kept sending him emails saying, just continue, Daz, just continue.
We're almost done.
And he finished it.
Well, this is what made it unnerving for me.
And look, I watched this thing when it was completed and I was in the comfort of my own living room here with a cup of coffee.
But here we had a person in two states, and I wrote down here the real emotional turmoil for whatever reason this man was in.
But also a surreal calm that was around him.
Those two things pulling in opposite directions to each other.
He had a split personality.
Daz clearly described that he was schizophrenic.
But what about one bit I didn't get, and I didn't understand, and I watched it twice, were the sketchings of gaseous, gaseous clouds and forms of energy around this person.
I didn't understand that.
Daz did two things.
When he went into the mind of Hitler, he went forward in time and he went backward in time.
When he went backward in time, he went to the cause on the physical level of all the hatred and the passions that Hitler was having.
You know, why he was interested in killing so many people.
It all went back to physical abuse that he had when he was young.
And now, by the way, this is now known.
I mean, it's on the historical record.
He had a sadistic father who used to beat him virtually daily up to 32 lashes per day.
And the mother couldn't defend him.
So it was a sadistic father, a terrible abusive relationship.
So, you know, that's actually on the historical record.
But then Daz went in the other direction as well and found Hitler when he was no longer physical.
And that was very interesting because it actually connects in some way with some of the stuff that Dick does, although it wasn't so explicit.
But in my own mind, I make the connection.
But he went to Hitler when he was no longer physical, and it sort of answered a lot, meaning Hitler after death.
Hitler after death, the personality of Hitler, he described it as more diffuse, not focused, not concentrated.
And the interesting lesson that we got out of that, and Daz really spent a lot of time talking about that sort of dispersed sense of the spirit when it's no longer concentrated in a physical body, is that when the spirit is focused in a physical body, all of the emotions become really intense, really focused, and they become like inflamed.
And so that was sort of an answer to the other end of the question.
So here you have an abused child who has grudges against the world that treated him badly.
And you have a spirit of Hitler afterwards that when it's focused in a physical body, all those emotions become incredibly intense.
And that was an underlying element.
So you get a spirit of Hitler, which has its own elements, having physical abuse as a young child.
The spirit, which he didn't describe so much as much as in terms of the emotional nature, but it wasn't focused.
And then the abused physical human, Hitler, you take those two things and you forge them together into a Hitler that we knew in the 1940s, the designer of the Holocaust.
That produces a volatile mix.
So what Daz didn't do is go into much of the deep psychology of that non-physical Hitler.
He described the experience of that non-physical Hitler of being diffuse, dispersed, not focused, but you can pull it together.
And then he described the early physical experience of Hitler.
So he has those two things.
Now, if you take those two things and you leap over to Dick's session, now I'm going to extrapolate here in a way I didn't do in the documentary because I had to stick to just what the data are.
But if you extrapolate, what Dick found when he went into The mind of Hitler.
He had a very interesting experience.
He got what he perceived to be a demon.
Like he went into the mind of Hitler and he ended up someplace.
And, you know, like where he ended up is going to be the answer to why Hitler was vitriolically angry against the Jews when he was giving that speech.
And so the first thing he finds inside when he goes into the mind of Hitler and comes out somewhere else is he's face to face with this like creature, this person.
But the person didn't look human.
And the being had like ghoulish eyes.
It was like a horrific type of fearful thing.
To me, the sketch looked like something that you would find on the outside of a cathedral or a church here in the UK to scare off demons.
It looked like a gargoyle that you would put up.
But this being was different.
This being was not human because humans cannot tell if you're remote viewing them.
This thing could.
This thing instantly saw Dick.
And it snarled at him.
I mean, it was angry with him.
And it snarled at him.
And it actually did it twice.
It did it when he was doing the session on video, but it also did it when he did the session on paper and pen.
And I show in the video the paper and pen page where Dick was describing this.
So the being did not like that at all.
And it was clearly not a human.
And then Dick, this perception morphed out to people in caskets, skeletons and burial grounds.
And so as I sort of looked at that, I said, okay, so this Hitler personality at his core was at some point not a normal, not a human being, and probably not a human being on Earth because he didn't look human.
And he was clearly extremely telepathic and could pick Dick up in a split second.
And then Dick's higher self was trying to give him something that would explain Hitler, this being that could recognize Dick, and also the answer to the question of why he was so vitriolically angry with other groups and wanted to kill them.
And so the combination of the two things that Dick got was a non-human, very advanced telepathically aware person who was deeply involved with killing, killing fields, you know, with death.
So what, now this is, it's not explicit in these sessions, but I have to then make sense out of this.
I said, like, what does this mean?
So all I know is that he was sent into the mind of Hitler to go to a point where I would be then, I as the task or an analyst would be then able to understand why Hitler was the person he was.
Apparently, and this is me extrapolating, apparently Hitler was a person somewhere else, perhaps in a star system far away, who was sort of in control, in charge of the killing fields, death, a lot of very strong, meaning people repeat themselves.
So what happened here with the Holocaust is not the first time this person did this.
That's what I get from this.
People repeat themselves.
This is not like out of the blue.
People always repeat themselves.
And if you have a strong personality, first of all, Hitler was an incredibly strong personality.
A strong personality like that doesn't come out of the blue.
I mean, it doesn't just, he wasn't Mary Poppins in the past life.
I mean, it's something, he was a powerful person somewhere.
And he- Yes, absolutely.
That personality is around in some form now and evolving in his or her own, in his own way.
But as I interpret these data, he had a past.
I sort of think, you know, consider it like a Darth Vader type personality someplace far away, and there was a lot of death and control.
If I look at that type of personality, the Hitler type of personality, what I see is a personality that seeks control more than anything else.
It's not so much that he seeks to kill people, but he seeks to control elements so that things can be put back in order.
The element of total freedom is a polarized version of the opposite, which is total control.
And so I see Hitler on the control side of the equation.
And his experience of abuse as a child, which is what Daz picked up, helps to explain how this personality was forged into re-emerging as his former self, which is a person who desires extreme control.
And Hitler's answer for that extreme control is to annihilate people who he thought were causing problems.
And that apparently is what happened before.
That's how I read Dick's sessions.
That's apparently what his solution was in the past.
That's how I'm interpreting this.
So this is deep psychology.
Whether it's right or wrong, this is the first time we ever use remote viewing to try to answer some deep psychology like this.
And I personally think, Howard, that when the mainstream science eventually does look at this, our body of work, I personally think the first one that I think is going to make a major impact is going to be this Hitler thing.
I think they're going to look at the Hitler thing first.
Before they look at all of the other studies, I think this one's going to, this goes way beyond Freud and Carl Jung.
This is very, very deep psychology.
It's at a level that we, as normal human psychoanalysts, have rarely, if ever, gone.
And, you know, the question that is in my mind right now, that demon that Dick saw, where is that demon?
What was that demon?
And how was that demon reacting to him?
And, you know, if you want a fourth question to throw in just to make a nice, neat set, if I'd seen that as Dick saw it, I'd have been scared out of my wits.
I would still be having nightmares about it.
Dick was a bit unnerved, but he's done this type of thing a lot, a lot of remote feelings.
He's seen it a lot.
So he kept his wits about him.
But even he was nervous when he ran across this guy.
This guy was a powerful dude.
This guy was not like just a local hood.
This guy was a powerful person and he was not friendly.
And the ugliness in his facial persona was sort of a way of, like, Well, that's sort of what you get with this type of a Hitler creature.
This guy was scary.
And Dick recognized that immediately.
And his higher self, apparently, you know, Dick in the past, when he's remote viewed non-human personalities, and it's happened before, he's hung around a little while and often engaged in sort of an attempt to get more information.
He didn't hang around very far, very much with this guy.
It's as if his higher self said, I'm going to let you see this dude, but then we're going.
And then he went to another location that helped the analysts, which in this case was me, understand that scary dude.
And when I looked at that, his stuff, I said, holy blankety blank.
Now I get it.
This guy has done this in the past.
He's done this before.
This is a guy who seeks total control, and his means of controlling things is to kill people that are not, you know, that he thinks are causing problems.
But the visceral origins of that are in that demon.
Now, this tells us something, doesn't it, new, newish, about the nature of evil?
You know, we sometimes look at serial killers, people who do terrible things.
We think, how can a human being do such a thing?
This is offering us, it seems to me, but I might be wrong, a possible explanation.
Yeah, they're repeating themselves.
Now, one can only assume that people repeat themselves until they eventually grow out of it.
And so Wing had only, you know, this is going to sound really weird here.
It's easy to condemn Hitler and what he did, but those are very powerful experiences that Hitler had.
The experience of killing and orchestrating the killing of so many millions of people.
One can only assume that eventually he will grow out of that and have a different perspective.
And you can only imagine that the only way to judge Hitler is to say, I didn't like what he did when he was here, but you can't really judge what he'll eventually turn out to be.
It's actually possible that the very worst person ever to live a life on the planet Earth may eventually at some future point turn out to be one of the very best people because that person learned so much about evil by doing it.
I mean, how can you learn about the value of good if you haven't experienced firsthand the value of evil?
A very, very heavy point.
It seems to me one of the things that would set this research into context would be if you deliberately went and did the same thing, but with somebody who was documentedly good, if documentedly is such a word, if there is such a word as that, but somebody who is on record as being good.
Yeah.
Actually, we did do a project on Jesus Christ and the crucifixion.
But that was so controversial that the board of Farsight, I was the one who organized the project and Dez Smith was the only viewer.
But we did a lot of sessions and very interesting stuff.
But the board of Farsight was so concerned when they found out about the project, they voted it down.
So it had to be released as an unofficial independent remote viewing session.
I mean, a project that was not associated with Farsight.
But it's available for free on the internet, I'm sorry, on YouTube.
And people still watch it a lot.
But we did do that with Jesus.
And that was a very good question.
I can understand why that one might be controversial.
You know, one of the things, just as we draw this to a conclusion that impressed me about, you know that I did a whole show with Dick Olga, and I will in the future do one with Daz because he's nearer to me.
One of the first things that Dick uncovered, unearthed, found, viewed was not anything massively significant, but it was in a way.
It was the smell of a fedora hat.
Now, those of us who've seen all of those documentaries on discovery and other places in the History Channel about Hitler when he's in his Alpine retreat, they might remember that he's wearing a hat like that.
Yeah, you know, the smell back in those days was filled with that type of clothing, that type of hat smell.
It's like if you walked into that room, into that Kroll opera house where that speech to the men of the Reichstag was going on, that's the smell you would have gotten, like the smell of an old fedora hat.
And he picked that up and he described it and he was able to identify the time period.
He said, this is going on in the 1940s.
So he was able to identify the time period by the smell, which is interesting.
He nailed it very quickly.
I was impressed and amused by that at the same time.
A listener called Cody, who emailed me about a week or two ago to ask, when are you having Courtney Brown back on?
So I think maybe he was remote viewing you because he must have known something.
He asked if you would consider these three cases to look at.
One, the Black Dahlia murder case, which is a new one on me.
I need to research that.
I Don't know what that is.
Princess Diana, I know all about that because I told London that Diana had died.
And the case of Amelia Earhart.
Would those be, I'm asking this on behalf of Cody, the kind of thing that you might one day look at?
Well, maybe.
If we were on a television show in a series and the Amelia Earhart thing came up, we might be given that project simply because a weekly show was coming out and that's the target they gave us.
But it's not something that we would typically go after because we really know what happened to her because she was flying an airplane that was absolutely well documented and the airplane went down someplace.
And, you know, she probably landed on an island.
It's not that much of a mystery.
Some of the military guys used to tell me, Courtney, why don't you just do a normal project like Amelia Earhart?
That was the classic response they always gave.
And I always sort of said, it's just not enough of a mystery for us.
Anyway, so, and then with regard to Princess Diana, well, what really do we need to know?
We know where she was killed.
We know it was a car accident.
We know that there were paparazzi chasing her through the tunnel.
We sort of know a lot of that stuff.
But what we'll never know is the meat and drink of a lot of conspiracy theorists.
There will be a lot of people who will never be quite sure whether she died as the result of an accident.
Yeah, so, I mean, but you know.
Can I just say to my listeners that I don't have a view?
I was there and I covered it as a news story.
I don't know what to think, so I stopped thinking about it.
You see, the idea that she wasn't, there's going to be conspiracy theories about everything.
When we did the 9-11 and the JFK, we had a huge amount of physical evidence to suggest that the official story was not correct.
And especially because the events that took place with JFK and the 9-11, they involved official governmental type of things that happened.
We had a war in Iraq that came out and Afghanistan that came out of that.
We had the removal of a president.
So with Princess Diana, you can say, okay, she was popular, but she wasn't a prime minister.
She wasn't a political.
There would be no agenda for someone.
So in order for us to go after a mystery, we have to have, we invest months of remote viewing time that is not replaceable.
And it's a huge amount of investment.
There's only a few good remote viewers on the whole planet.
And we have to sort of say, I have to say, as an analyst, I have to say, is there going to be a sufficiently big bang for the buck of an answer?
And so with the Princess Diana thing, I'm sort of on the fence because, you know, if she was the prime minister at the time, for example, if it wasn't Princess Diana that was killed in the tunnel, but rather if it was Margaret Thatcher, then I can say, okay, there might be something to follow there because there would be people who definitely in power wanted her out.
Well, you know, there are people who are going to talk about this forever, I think.
And, you know, it was a hugely shocking story, and a lot of people will have their views.
Books have been written about this, and none of us is ever going to know.
I just thought as a project, what an interesting thing to do and to go and remote view the minds, the mindset of everybody involved on that night.
So to go into the minds of the paparazzi, the driver of the car, Henri Paul, who remains a mystery man to many people, and Dirty Firehead and Diana themselves.
You never know.
You never know what we're going to do.
And Howard, I have to remind you, I think I've mentioned this to you before.
I know what you're going to say.
Yeah, is that when people ask us about a future target, I will always lie and tell them, no, we'll never do that one.
In fact, by suggesting Diana, I've probably just moved her down the list.
So the thing is, I have to always deny that we'll do any target because if I ever said, yeah, I think we'll do that one, then that's something I literally can't do because then the remote viewers can't, they listen to these broadcasts and they wouldn't be blind.
So they can't even have the foggiest idea.
We don't have to say, I get entirely, we've done enough of these, I get entirely what you're saying.
Very quickly, very, very finally, new look, new style for the presentation.
Even you look different on it.
Was that a deliberate thing?
Why did you want to change the way that it all looks?
Well, let me be blunt, Howard.
The world isn't going to be changed by having three old white guys on video.
And so what we did is we looked at what we were doing.
And first thing is Dick was the one who really pioneered how to do this stuff with a dry erase whiteboard.
Then we had to get Daz off of paper and pen and start doing things on some type of a drawing surface that we could video.
Then we had to master how to actually do the video.
And all of this took lots of money and time.
And then we had to look at what we physically looked like.
If you look at Daz when he did the crucifixion ruse, he was really very overweight.
So Daz lost a ton of weight.
Now he looks very fit.
He looks really great on camera.
And Dick improved his style on camera as well.
And you're wearing a very, very smart Neru suit.
Very, very smart.
I used to be bald.
And I had a niece who looked at me and I said, well, what do you think?
This is really cool.
And she said, you ain't no pit bull.
Grow your head rack.
And pitbull, she referring to the rapper.
And I was so deflated, I thought I was cool and sexy with the bald look.
But then I started to ask around, and I found out that they weren't thinking of it as like the rapper pit bull who was cool and sexy.
And so I said, it was clearly not working.
So I let the hair all grow out.
and so, yeah, I have a completely different look, tile, feel.
So the youthful energy is still there, but it looks a lot different.
Yeah, it's a lot of fun.
It's getting sharper by the addition, I think.
Yeah, I think this is the way we really need to be right now.
And so we finally, I don't see much that we're going to be fine-tuning in terms of the look and feel of us.
So this Hitler presentation, this documentary is how we are right now.
And yeah, this is, we finally finished that reinventing of who we are.
You know, you have to, in this day and age, you have to, you have to look and sound in a way that's attractive to young people who are totally internet connectivity, mobile device, everything.
And also, in the terms of new people that we're training, the latest edition is Princess.
And Princess is an African-American and 23 years old, drop-dead gorgeous.
And she's now finished her training and is going to be starting to work on full-time projects.
She's actually finished her first project, which are hopefully going to release in February.
And, you know, so the world is no longer white, male, and old.
The world is, I mean, if you look at Comedy Central, Trevor Noah took over from Jon Stewart.
And who did they pick?
They picked a black South African to come into the spot.
And, you know, they lost a lot of the older white audience, but they picked up a huge international component and a huge increase in the young demographic.
And they are the ones who are going to inherit the earth, the young people.
So, you know, as much as they love Jon Stewart, they realize he had done his thing.
They have to attract a different type of, you know, the world is not the way it used to be back in Frank Sinatra's day.
Everything improves.
Everything evolves.
I'm not going to ask you the usual final question I ask many people.
That is, what's next?
Because you can't tell me, so I'm not going to go there.
I can't, because the remote viewing is already done for that.
Okay.
Princess is the one who did it, and she's finished the remote viewing.
We're working on the video.
And it's the complete thing of Martin Luther King.
And so she did a remote viewing session of Martin Luther King when he was actually giving the I Have a Dream speech.
And she did a complete analysis of the assassination, which is much different than what the mainstream reported in the news.
So you'll wait and hear for that one.
I think we've got to do that one about MLK without a doubt.
You always surprise me.
I anticipated your answer and I was wrong.
So there you go.
If people want to know more about your work, this one I always ask, where do they find it?
Yeah, we have a huge website and it's www.farsite, like seeing Far, F-A-R-S-I-G-H-T, like seeingfar.org, O-R-G, because we're a nonprofit.
And all of the documentaries that we do, including the Hitler one, are right in your face, right in the top.
We also have a free newsletter.
And we're a nonprofit, so we don't spend any money on advertising.
So you have to just sign up for the free newsletter.
We only send out it once a week, and so there's no spam.
We don't give the email addresses out to anybody.
And we also have a regular weekly video news blast that comes out called The Farsight Scene.
So if you subscribe to our YouTube channel, you'll get that as well.
But the newsletter is the most important, but it's farsight.org, F-A-R-S-I-G-H-T.org, O-R-G.
And that's where you'll find us.
And there's lots more coming.
You know, we were accused in a derogatory fashion by somebody who's in the remote viewing community who is apparently a little jealous, saying we had a media machine.
And I didn't take any offense to that at all.
I smiled from ear to ear and I said, what a nice thing to say.
Everybody's got a media machine these days.
If you don't have a media machine, you're not going anywhere, I think.
Yeah.
Courtney Brown, we're out of time.
Got to go.
But thank you very much, Needen.
You know that we'll do this again.
Yeah, and Howard, you're a great host, and thank you so much for inviting me.
Courtney Brown, remote viewing the mind of Hitler.
A very controversial project.
What do you think about it?
Get in touch with me.
Let me know.
You can contact me.
Send me an email.
Tell me about yourself.
Tell me what you thought of this show.
Make a guest suggestion.
Whatever you want to do is fine.
Go to the website theunexplained.tv and follow the link for messages and you'll get an email sent straight out to me that way.
If you'd like to make a donation to the show, there is a link there.
It's a PayPal link.
You can easily do that.
And thank you very much if you have recently.
We've got some very good guests coming very soon.
More details about those coming up and also some developments with this show.
They are very close now, but I can't tell you anything just now.
But as a great man once said, trust me, I have news for you coming soon.
But until next we meet here on The Unexplained.
My name is Howard Hughes.
I am in London, and please stay safe, stay calm, and stay in touch.
And if you're digging yourself out of the snow, please be careful.
Thank you very much.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection