Important question re. Courtney Brown earth changes material.

[indigopete]

Hi

I was reflecting on the logic behind Courtney Brown's experiment where his team remote views into 2013 to discover the destruction of various southern hemisphere coastal areas ("Global Coastal event"). (See http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?46708-GLOBAL-COASTAL-EVENT-Courtney-Brown-Farsight-Project-2013-Timeline-Prediction )

Namely - if the experimenters themselves discover different outcomes based on altering only 1 condition (i.e. whether remote viewing became accepted by mainstream academia or not), how many other conditions exist that also alter the outcome ?

I don't understand how the results are useful if only 1 aspect amongst the infinite number of potential developments between the present and the target time can alter the outcome ?

Surely, if the outcome is conditional at all, then it can be conditional upon millions of criteria, not just the one that the experimenter designers happened to choose.

eh ?

I don't get it. What do people think about this ?

Pete

[sdv]

Never thought about it that way Pete, but I think you have a very valid point there. Although I think that his explanation is that if remote viewing is accepted, then the world will be prepared for the disaster and people will thus cope better with it.

I have had a look at the data from the experiment, and I don't see conclusive evidence of the disaster he is predicting anyway.

There are other groups who have remote viewed the same time and supposedly back up Courtney Brown's conclusions. It's difficult to get hold of their data though so I have not been able to check it out.

[WhiteFeather]

I questioned that myself Pete. RE: Your First Post. Perhaps Kerry Cassidy could elaborate on the question provided by the OP. Or you could try asking the question directly to Courtney at the www.farsight.org website. I'm sure he could give a valid statement.
I listened to this several times myself. An Interesting Interview.

[Kano]

Hi Pete,

I think one of the things he says about their data that address your question is that there are certain events, which are huge events, that transcend dimensions and would be the case no matter who is remote viewing. This "global coastal event" he talks about remote viewing is one such event. So my understanding is that the likelihood of what they are remote viewing being changed because of altering 1 condition or 25 conditions is that you still get the global coastal event scenario because it is such a world changing type of event.

Kano

[Operator]

Remote viewing is about focusing your unconscious mind in one direction. I think Courtney Brown is well aware of that and
explicitly states that this is someones future. There is also the experiment about multiple universes. That alone shows that the
2013 result cannot be the absolute outcome for us all.

Are you familiar with e.g. the 2 slit experiment and quantum communication by David Sereda ? As a conscious observer in - and
experiencer of this realm you influence the outcome of events/experiments. You are probably the main factor of influence in this all.

[indigopete]

I think one of the things he says about their data that address your question is that there are certain events, which are huge events, that transcend dimensions and would be the case no matter who is remote viewing. This "global coastal event" he talks about remote viewing is one such event. So my understanding is that the likelihood of what they are remote viewing being changed because of altering 1 condition or 25 conditions is that you still get the global coastal event scenario because it is such a world changing type of event.

Hi Kano

Thanks for the reply. Yes -you might have a point there, but on the other hand, what constitutes a "huge" event is very subjective. What is predicted would be a "huge" event from humans on earth points of view (in terms of life changing) but impact events are probably going on all over the universe the whole time.

The argument there is that "there are some things we can't change" (the fact of the impact occuring) and some things we can ("the reaction of human beings to the event"). But right there is a flaw in the logic: In both cases we are detecting a future event as if it had already happened (otherwise we would not be able to detect it). If it's already happened it's unalterable. Both cases (the event itself and our reaction to it) should be detectable with equal accuracy.

i.e. what I'm saying is, how could the "magnitude" of the event have anything to do with the fact of whether it happened or not once it's been remote viewed. It's information we're detecting, we are not experiencing the event directly. (Another example is, it's as easy for me to say "psunami" as it is to say "pastrami" even though a psunami is a much greater event than a pastrami sandwich).

I can understand how "big events" would be easier to predict from a deterministic point of view - i.e. I can predict the sun's going to come up tomorrow because that's a pretty "big event", whereas I can't predict with such accuracy if it's going to rain in my neighbourhood because that's a relatively smaller thing who's outcome is more affected by events between now and then.

But in the example above, I'm using deterministic predictive techniques - causual ones - based on what causes what.

Remote viewing, on the other hand, strikes me more like watching television. The TV uses exactly the same imaging technology, spends the same amount of energy and delivers the image with the same accuracy whether it's showing you a psunami or a pastrami sandwich. I assume, therefore, that if a remotely viewed event has conditionality attached to it (like a spanish bailout, say :) ) then the accuracy of all remotely viewed events must be similarly affected. *

Peter

* - using the TV analogy, if the screen's blurry, it will blur the image of the psunami as well as the pastrami. The psunami image won't be any sharper just because it's a "large magnitude" event.

[Kano]

I think one of the things he says about their data that address your question is that there are certain events, which are huge events, that transcend dimensions and would be the case no matter who is remote viewing. This "global coastal event" he talks about remote viewing is one such event. So my understanding is that the likelihood of what they are remote viewing being changed because of altering 1 condition or 25 conditions is that you still get the global coastal event scenario because it is such a world changing type of event.

Hi Kano

Thanks for the reply. Yes -you might have a point there, but on the other hand, what constitutes a "huge" event is very subjective. What is predicted would be a "huge" event from humans on earth points of view (in terms of life changing) but impact events are probably going on all over the universe the whole time.

The argument there is that "there are some things we can't change" (the fact of the impact occuring) and some things we can ("the reaction of human beings to the event"). But right there is a flaw in the logic: In both cases we are detecting a future event as if it had already happened (otherwise we would not be able to detect it). If it's already happened it's unalterable. Both cases (the event itself and our reaction to it) should be detectable with equal accuracy.

i.e. what I'm saying is, how could the "magnitude" of the event have anything to do with the fact of whether it happened or not once it's been remote viewed. It's information we're detecting, we are not experiencing the event directly. (Another example is, it's as easy for me to say "psunami" as it is to say "pastrami" even though a psunami is a much greater event than a pastrami sandwich).

I can understand how "big events" would be easier to predict from a deterministic point of view - i.e. I can predict the sun's going to come up tomorrow because that's a pretty "big event", whereas I can't predict with such accuracy if it's going to rain in my neighbourhood because that's a relatively smaller thing who's outcome is more affected by events between now and then.

But in the example above, I'm using deterministic predictive techniques - causual ones - based on what causes what.

Remote viewing, on the other hand, strikes me more like watching television. The TV uses exactly the same imaging technology, spends the same amount of energy and delivers the image with the same accuracy whether it's showing you a psunami or a pastrami sandwich. I assume, therefore, that if a remotely viewed event has conditionality attached to it (like a spanish bailout, say :) ) then the accuracy of all remotely viewed events must be similarly affected. *

Peter

* - using the TV analogy, if the screen's blurry, it will blur the image of the psunami as well as the pastrami. The psunami image won't be any sharper just because it's a "large magnitude" event.

Hi Peter,

I will try to answer as best as I can although I am no means an RV expert (obviously).

It's true that what one perceives as "huge" versus what another perceives as "huge" is totally subjective. However, when something happens that affects all people, or perhaps a critical mass of people, which changes the face of the Earth forever more, I think we can agree that type of an event would be viewed by most sane rational people as "huge". It's also true that "impact events" as you say are going on all over the world all of the time, but nothing like the scale and scope of what Courtney Brown is talking about. Therefore, I think the term "huge" becomes more objective and less subjective when you talk about a single event that changes everyone's lives on Earth in a single moment.

With regards to detecting with accuracy future events versus past events, I will have to defer to Courtney who articulates the variables which influence both in the Red Ice Creations interview below (although the one with Kerry Cassidy is very good as well). I will say that it is my understanding that in RVing, as with anything really, what is being RVed is about probability, not absolutism. So the data they are compiling about the global coastal event is not a certainty etched in stone which is out of our control. What they are RVing are probablistic timelines.

With the pastrami/tsunami example you gave, it is my understanding that while you are correct about the TV analogy, the difference in RVing a pastrami sandwich versus a tsunami is that when an RVer is remote viewing a tsunami there are a lot more criteria to help assimilate the data into a coherent set circumstances. RVer's do not see these events in chronological order. This is part of what it means to be a great RVer. The ability to connect non-sequential data points by often times using information received that are not directly a part of the event or target being RVed. So the amount of information to pull from to confirm that there is devastation over vast areas, diaspora of huge populations, etc is much more prevalent than being able to determine something specific about a pastrami sandwich which most likely does not have as many tell tales to confirm that it is probablistically significant therefore making it more likely to occur.

Again, I am no RVing guru. But one thing that did occur to me which may lend some credence to the point that "huge" events transcend mutiple timelines as well as mutiple dimensions (and I acknowledge this going out on a limb) is if our decisions become less and less deterministic of our futures because no matter what we do we find ourselves at converging timelines, a singularity, which are brought together by a single event, that would certainly be a way that Courtney Brown's team could be seeing this singularity event. The one event that affects all things everywhere. A single event that affects all things across all dimensions and all timelines. It's almost like our consciousnesses are going through a wormhole. That would be quite a reason for all the ancient cultures of Earth to leave there progeny clues as to this event coming their way.
IJM8m4MPV18

[indigopete]

the amount of information to pull from to confirm that there is devastation over vast areas, diaspora of huge populations, etc is much more prevalent than being able to determine something specific about a pastrami sandwich which most likely does not have as many tell tales to confirm that it is probablistically significant therefore making it more likely to occur

That's quite a good way of putting it Kano.

I'll have to chew on it. Looks like my TV analogy is maybe the wrong one. RV'ing seems to be more like detecting a "bow wave" (like birds sense low pressure before it starts to rain) - if it's to do with probability that is.

That means it's likely to happen then. Ouch.

The only question for me is if the wave can get round the Cape of Good Hope, traverse another 10,000 miles of Ocean northward, turn right through the Pillars of Hercules into the Med., crawl up to the Spanish North Eastern Coast and fill the valley about 20 miles inland to arrive at my house at the 4th floor.

If it does, me and my family are screwed. From the drawings of Washington, (and the fact that it arrived at the foot of Mount Kilimanjaro) it actually looks like there's a good chance of it getting that far.

Pete

[Kano]

the amount of information to pull from to confirm that there is devastation over vast areas, diaspora of huge populations, etc is much more prevalent than being able to determine something specific about a pastrami sandwich which most likely does not have as many tell tales to confirm that it is probablistically significant therefore making it more likely to occur

That's quite a good way of putting it Kano.

I'll have to chew on it. Looks like my TV analogy is maybe the wrong one. RV'ing seems to be more like detecting a "bow wave" (like birds sense low pressure before it starts to rain) - if it's to do with probability that is.

That means it's likely to happen then. Ouch.

The only question for me is if the wave can get round the Cape of Good Hope, traverse another 10,000 miles of Ocean northward, turn right through the Pillars of Hercules into the Med., crawl up to the Spanish North Eastern Coast and fill the valley about 20 miles inland to arrive at my house at the 4th floor.

If it does, me and my family are screwed. From the drawings of Washington, (and the fact that it arrived at the foot of Mount Kilimanjaro) it actually looks like there's a good chance of it getting that far.

Pete

Not to be flippant but it comes down to a gut feeling for all of us. If you think RVing is crap, disregard it and live your life. If you think there may be something to it, meditate on it, or dive in on researching the hell out of it until your questions are answered.

You have some very good questions and as Whitefeather suggested, maybe an email to Courtney himself would not be a bad idea.