This is the appropriate time to add some further explanation to the thrust of the announcement made about our newly released study of the origins of the Great Pyramid of Giza. Leading up to the announcement, I emphasized on this Facebook page (without elaboration) the words, “unambiguous,” “conclusive,” and “proof.” What did that actually mean? Now we can explain, and it is essential that everyone understand how these words relate to the announcement.
I have stated in written and verbal form, on video and in print, so many times it is hard to count, that all remote-viewing data MUST be considered “speculative” until verified by normal physical means. This is even printed at the end of the newly released documentary. If something is “speculative,” then how can it be “unambiguous,” “conclusive,” and “proof?”
To understand this, one needs to remember that there are two forms of remote-viewing data, (1) verifiable, and (2) new. The verifiable data can be confirmed beyond doubt by comparing the remote-viewing data to the actual target for a given project. In the past when working with pen and paper remote-viewing sessions, one had to be accustomed to how the data actually look given the procedures used to record the data to find the verifiable elements convincing. People who were not accustomed to the nature of the procedures might be confused, and thus less convinced. But what has changed now is the way the remote-viewing data are presented by more than one viewer, on video, and in a theatrically interesting manner that can relate to anyone, regardless of whether or not the person knows anything about the intricacies of the methodologies involved. That is a crucially important new element in this study.
What can we say about the verifiable data for this study? In my opinion, any reasonable person would have to conclude that Dick Allgire was describing a pyramid in his data contained in video. Moreover, any reasonable person would conclude that Daz Smith was describing the movement of large stone blocks during the manufacture of what he called “rising structures” as shown in video recordings of his work. Those elements are verifiable. The target indeed was a pyramid, and the target did specify to describe the movement of the largest stone blocks during the pyramid’s construction. Those elements were essential components of the target, and those elements were exactly described in the video records in a manner that anyone can clearly see. Thus, in my view, that part of the project is “unambiguous,” “conclusive,” and it constitutes “proof” that remote viewing was indeed involved in these perceptions that were recorded under totally blind conditions. Therefore, in my opinion, any reasonable person can conclude that remote viewing itself is real, and this claim has passed the test of “proof” for most people.
Of course, there will always be disagreements. 1,000 years from now there will still be people who do not believe that remote viewing is real. But again, in my view, most people can look at these video sessions and decide that the remote-viewing phenomenon itself is unambiguously a real phenomenon.
Now, what about the “new” information shown in the project. Such information involves the extraterrestrial as well as the high technology elements in the data, such as the so-called “Praying Mantis Lady,” the levitation of the stone blocks, etc. Can we similarly say that those elements are “unambiguous” and “conclusive,” and thus constituting “proof?” No. No “new” remote-viewing data can do this until it is verified in some manner using normal physical means of verification. But what we can say is that these “new” elements in the data are intriguing, and they do match the facts on the ground better than many conventional theories relating to the mining and movement of the largest stone blocks. The idea that manual laborers built those pyramids all by themselves with only crude tools is simply not believable in my view. The data for this study, including the extraterrestrial and high technology elements, is more believable. Nonetheless, these new elements remain speculative, regardless of how much they match the facts on the ground. We need further physical evidence of alien intervention and the use of advanced technology before we can move these elements of the data from the “new” to the “verifiable” category.
So some parts of the study are verifiable, and those parts are so uniquely described in the data that they constitute unambiguous and conclusive proof that remote viewing actually exists, in the sense that anyone can see the accuracy of the descriptions with their own eyes without having special training in remote-viewing methodologies. That alone is worth the claim that this is one of the most important announcements ever made in my view. Some will disagree, maybe many. But in my view, this is huge.
And other parts of the study are intriguing but new, and not yet verified. That is the way with all remote-viewing projects. There is always a mix of verifiable parts and new parts. This will never change. The verifiable parts take our breath away. And the new parts make us sit on the edge of our seats, wondering if they too are true beyond doubt. These new parts make us want to know more. And that is exciting.
Re: Courtney Brown Announcement for February (now March) 2014
Reply With Quote
: 
Bookmarks