Farsight Institute -- I now have Proof of Disinfo [Archive]

bsbray

12th September 2016, 18:42

Okay, I'm going to have to start this off by acknowledging Mr. Fred Steeves and Divine Feminine on this one. I was giving Courtney Brown, with his CIA connections, the benefit of the doubt on his remote viewing organization the "Farsight Institute." His viewers seemed genuine to me, and still seem genuine to me, but I have just caught Brown himself in a totally manipulative lie, and the lie can be proven using the Internet Wayback Machine.

Here's the long story short: They are doing a "Time-Cross Project" where they try to remote view a news-worthy event a month in advance. It was clear from the beginning that this prediction would be a description of one, single news event. For June and July they seem to have gotten fairly accurate results, but each event (mass protests in the US, the Orlando shooting, and the Istanbul attack) were all government-sponsored events, which I think is interesting but is not important for the moment. What is important is that their predictions for August were all over the wall, and in response they have quietly changed the stated goal and method on their website in order to cover for their failure. The Internet Wayback Machine proves it.

I've already posted elsewhere a summary of their results for August:

From paper sessions predicting an August event:

Dick Allgire (http://farsight.org/demo/Time_Cross_Project/Time_Cross_paper_Sessions/August_2016_Event/Dick_Allgire_TimeCross_July_August_2016.pdf) sensed some object moving rapidly through the atmosphere. For the sight of this "fast motion" he associated "searing" temperature. He subsequently writes, "Boom!," "hot" and "molten." He writes "impact pieces rain down," re-emphasizing the fact that he is predicting an impact event, with "scorched soot," "residual heat" and "fused material." He goes on to describe the feel of the blast in more detail, uses the words "atomic" and "nuclear." On page 8 of the PDF he has a nice drawing.

Daz Smith (http://farsight.org/demo/Time_Cross_Project/Time_Cross_paper_Sessions/August_2016_Event/Daz_Smith_TimeCross_July_August_2016.pdf) says that "the ground shakes and a structure or structures wobble then fold on themselves downwards," which is about as close to the description of an earthquake as any of the four viewers got. Other than that he mostly just describes generic destruction without attributing a specific cause.

Princess Jeannee (http://farsight.org/demo/Time_Cross_Project/Time_Cross_paper_Sessions/August_2016_Event/PrinCess_TimeCross_July_August_2016.zip) only described generic destruction of an urban environment, when examining the subjects, said that they spoke English and were racially a mix of white and "brown" people. She also spent a lot of time on a flying or hovering object over the action, which she thought had something to do with the destruction, and was emitting something like water. She wondered if the city was being attacked by the flying object.

Aziz Brown (http://farsight.org/demo/Time_Cross_Project/Time_Cross_paper_Sessions/August_2016_Event/Aziz_Brown_Time-Cross_August_Event.pdf) focused on an energetic force rocketing upward from the surface of the earth. Some words are jotted down describing what's going on: "big fire," "explosion," "gas fire," "olympic torch." Aziz then focuses on a massive fireball/explosion, drawing it out and also writing the words "Hiroshima," "Nagasaki," "atom bomb," "Iraq/Syria."

So between these four viewers we have indications that could have covered any of the following:

- Meteor impact
- Nuclear/atomic blast
- Earthquake
- UFO attacking a city
- Urban disaster in an English-speaking country
- Urban disaster at the Olympics
- Urban disaster involving Iraq and/or Syria

Out of all of these indications from the written sessions, it seems like somebody got lucky that a major earthquake just happened to occur in August, because none of the other crap they were seeing panned out at all.

Okay, so the results for August were a mess. They got it wrong. That doesn't mean they're disinfo does it?

Not in itself, no. But then Courtney Brown made this video where he claims that August's results were accurate and that it is a "well known" phenomena in remote viewing that, for some reason, they can't target a single news event for each month (as they were previously claiming they were doing!) but can only target a group of multiple major news events and aren't able to tell in advance if they are related or not.

Here is the video where Brown makes a lot of excuses for the terrible August results and claims they were successes anyway:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UrZcue8s7w

Like I said, he is now claiming that they're not targeting a single event, but a group of news events and can't distinguish them. A "well known" phenomena. There's just one problem.

They have quietly changed the text of their website to reflect this new excuse, when the website previously said the exact opposite, that they were definitely targeting only a single news event.

This is what the website says now:

https://s13.postimg.org/lhroye9nb/The_Farsight_Institute_Time_Cross_Project_Mo.jpg

http://farsight.org/demo/Time_Cross_Project/Time_Cross_Farsight_main_page.html

See "events," in plural? And "one or more major newsworthy events"? That's not what they were claiming before. This is what the website said in August:

https://s21.postimg.org/fdx2peorr/The_Farsight_Institute_Time_Cross_Project_Mo.jpg

https://web.archive.org/web/20160806143506/http://farsight.org/demo/Time_Cross_Project/Time_Cross_Farsight_main_page.html

That is the Internet Archive's cache of the same web page for August 6, 2016, about a month ago. You can check it yourself. It clearly said "major event" (singular!) and "a major newsworthy event."

Conclusion: Courtney Brown has retroactively changed the method of this "project" to allow himself a greater fudge factor in trying to convince us that the failed predictions were nonetheless accurate. This is dishonest and immoral manipulation, and they must have intentionally done this because the website was deliberately changed and Brown himself has clearly changed his story. I guess he is hoping that people aren't paying very close attention.

The Farsight Institute is disinformation. I didn't believe it before, but now I have to. The above is the proof.

Fred Steeves

12th September 2016, 19:25

Nice catch, bravo!

Bob

12th September 2016, 19:38

Sounds like what politicians do all the time - adjust, refine, hone, and deal with mis-understood topics, to clarify when something was hyper-ambiguous to be less in-credible.

It still doesn't define though that if they had a "success record" prior, that something didn't deliberately 'mess with' the quantum predicted outcome. What certainly is happening is there are folks specifically now wanting and claiming beyond question, that Farsight is "disinformation". Is it? or is the dude being typical of correcting a reach which was too boastful in retrospect..

Divine Feminine

12th September 2016, 20:03

Hey Bob, once CIA always CIA right? A leopard doesn't change his spots....wink, wink

@bsbray

Good job, good job....I look forward to seeing what you uncovered!

Divine Feminine

12th September 2016, 20:24

Something else of interest.....anyone notice the huge funding given to Emory Institute? Emory Institute is the location of Courtney Brown's employment last time I checked...Can't help but wonder if this might be where some of his funding is coming from? And while this is no smoking gun...it does raise eyebrows as to what's really going on at this institution. Scroll down and look at where some of this funding is going and you'll see what I mean:

EMORY RECEIVES RECORD FUNDING 572.4 MILLION IN EXTERNAL RESEARCH FUNDING FOR 2015
http://news.emory.edu/stories/2015/09/research_funding_2015/campus.html

"Researchers at Emory University received $572.4 million from external funding agencies in fiscal year 2015, a 9.69 percent increase over last fiscal year. This marks the largest amount of research funding in Emory’s history and is the sixth consecutive year that research funding has exceeded $500 million.

Federal agencies awarded nearly $375 million, or nearly 66 percent of the total, led by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) with nearly $300 million in awards. NIH funding represented 80 percent of total federal dollars awarded to Emory."

bsbray

12th September 2016, 20:37

It still doesn't define though that if they had a "success record" prior, that something didn't deliberately 'mess with' the quantum predicted outcome.

I noted above that the results they seem to have had the most accuracy with (rioting, Orlando shootings, Istanbul attack) were things that I personally believe were state-sponsored, ie false flags. In the case of the political riots, those clearly had an organizational structure that had to have been funded and overseen by someone, no doubt with a vested interest in the current election. The Orlando shootings have lots of problems as all the false flags of the last several years have, and the Istanbul attack was attributed to terrorists who are well-known CIA assets.

So why is it that all of their most accurate results involve false flag type events?

Maybe they are not predicting. Maybe Brown is just structuring these sessions in a way that the Farsight Institute is just passing on what the rogue intelligence faction is planning to carry out themselves. I actually believe this is exactly what is going on because the rioting wasn't nearly as bad as they were predicting, and other doom-and-gloom things they were "predicting" also didn't pan out, and I believe this is because the rival faction in the current in-fighting has thrown wrenches in their schemes.

What certainly is happening is there are folks specifically now wanting and claiming beyond question, that Farsight is "disinformation". Is it? or is the dude being typical of correcting a reach which was too boastful in retrospect..

Well Brown is lying in the video above. There are no two ways about it, they even went back and changed what their website said and are now acting like they've been saying this the whole time. That's obviously intentional, and dishonest.

Bob

12th September 2016, 22:26

Hey Bob, once CIA always CIA right? A leopard doesn't change his spots....wink, wink

@bsbray

Good job, good job....I look forward to seeing what you uncovered!

By your post, am I to believe that you feel CIA created a false-flag lying episode to discredit one of their former what, employees? Courtney Brown? Why would they do that, discredit him now with having a lying episode in the forefront? Who is the group going after CB? if that is a valid question to ask?

I would say if there is any conspiracy someone doesn't want people to believe that RV'ing has any merit. Wouldn't you agree?

In your next post, you mention Emory - can you post some background on who they are and WHY would THEN THEY go after CB?

I want to see the dots connecting please, not just speculation - I stated I don't care that the guy changed his webpage to deal with what appears very clear to me, that he stuck his chest out and someone somewhere wanted to show him, one cannot legitimately predict the future. One can present potentials - and one can be lead around by the nose by "potentials" and scenarios.

When they go wrong, the RV'er and the organizer, the founder, that group is discredited as well as the concept of RV'ing itself.

Dots tying Emory into needing to discredit CB - are there any? You bring it up, show me please.

Aianawa

12th September 2016, 23:27

RVing I like to see as reading the potential field of happenings in front of one and/or humanity, I can read the field around me and sometimes others and sometimes on a larger scale, believe anyone can usually with their consciousness growing to at point where this is natural, doing what CB is doing helps people create their own scale by observing paralells/results/fails and evidence etc, correcting fails imo is a no no in our times especially if not communicating if's and why's, have not watched the sep potentials from CB, feel I better now, cheers for bringing up the false flag side of things as it is an angle that I never looked at.

bsbray

13th September 2016, 00:00

By your post, am I to believe that you feel CIA created a false-flag lying episode to discredit one of their former what, employees? Courtney Brown? Why would they do that, discredit him now with having a lying episode in the forefront? Who is the group going after CB? if that is a valid question to ask?

No, no, you're making this entirely too complicated. Maybe you should have been a lawyer Bob. But this is a losing case. Courtney Brown blatantly lied and there was a deliberate effort to cover up what the original methodology of this project was.

Their results were bad, but instead of admitting they got it wrong, they went back and edited the website to make it look like they had a different objective from the beginning.

You do realize that right? Can I at least get a yes/no response, that you understand what I posted above? Maybe then we can talk about the million other directions you are trying to go in.

Also, just out of curiosity, do you have any personal ties to this field, Bob? I just wonder why you are being so nice to Courtney. It's a pretty cut and dry case of someone lying and trying to cover their tracks. If only political scandals were this easy.

modwiz

13th September 2016, 00:20

Bob

13th September 2016, 02:07

I forget which head of the mentioned agency said that their job will be done when people believe what is not objective reality. Paraphrasing here, of course. Another thing to remember is the agency is part of Nazi International. J.P. Farrell has done exhaustive and scholarly coverage of this. This is not conspiracy theory. So, the alternative media MUST be penetrated from their perspective. CB is just such a penetration, IMO. Short memory spans and a gullible audience eager to be thrilled and intrigued (Corey Goode anyone?) are perfect for this kind of mindfark. If a portion of the population is believing anything resembling the real way the world works the agency will see its job as not being done properly. Getting into our heads is the most strategic space they can occupy.

Furthermore, compartmentalization allows for actual patriots to work for an agency without their decency alarm going off.

Agreed without social media the whole system of control would not work - such was limited to bosses, people reading newspapers, or listening to talk show hosts. With the advent of the internet, anyone can post anything and spin it hard enough to make it believable. I guess I am further old fashioned. I just don't believe :)

Divine Feminine

13th September 2016, 02:21

By your post, am I to believe that you feel CIA created a false-flag lying episode to discredit one of their former what, employees? Courtney Brown?

No Bob, not even close.

Often you hear how people involved in the CIA never leave the CIA and you yourself have even stated such and considering your open association with former CIA director Woosley(posted by you on Project Avalon) I would have to believe you of all people would know, correct?....Was it not you who stated the following on the Stubblebine thread again on Project Avalon?

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?63367-Gen.-Bert-Stubblebine--Gnostic-Media-Interview--Sept-13-2013&p=730223&viewfull=1#post730223

“It is about control, and a controller does not change their stripes as is said once in the Company (C.I.A.) for instance one does not retire but gets involved as a consultant to some high paying government job (the pretty boy contracts). Every one of them have the pretty boy contracts with the pretty boy contractors. It is just the way the "club" works. It maintains order, a smooth flow of information, and no rabble rousers are allowed too much leighway to say too much that rocks the boat.”-BobD

Are we to believe this doesn’t include the likes of Courtney Brown and Co.? Anyone else find it a bit ironic that the members of Farsight Institute are former CIA? Let’s be blunt here, under the current climate the CIA has lost its credibility, so anyone who associates themselves with the likes of this organization and/or people associated with this organization can be deemed questionable in my book as it’s come down to a matter of INTEGRITY. The American people are tired of being lied to, bullied and shoved into corners against their will; because like it or not, that is the public perception we are left with by the obvious disarray being allowed to transpire within our country and god knows all the other merit-less, conniving scenarios created in other countries all in the name of the CIA.

Seriously how can one not come to this conclusion? Please explain why the citizens of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA(all capped on purpose and not cause I like it) should deem this organization or its people as credible and in service to their fellow countrymen? FWIW I never followed Courtney Brown and Co. as they didn't pass the sniff test right outta the gate for obvious reasons, but it doesn’t mean I don’t believe in RVing.

I would say if there is any conspiracy someone doesn't want people to believe that RV'ing has any merit. Wouldn't you agree?

Uh...no. This has nothing to do with what I’m suggesting nor what bsbray is suggesting as you’ve been already told.

In your next post, you mention Emory - can you post some background on who they are and WHY would THEN THEY go after CB?

His employer, duh? He shows up on their roster so I can only assume he’s not a former employee as you’ve stated, but an active one, unless your sources know otherwise or the website was incorrect?......

I want to see the dots connecting please, not just speculation - I stated I don't care that the guy changed his webpage to deal with what appears very clear to me, that he stuck his chest out and someone somewhere wanted to show him, one cannot legitimately predict the future. One can present potentials - and one can be lead around by the nose by "potentials" and scenarios.

When they go wrong, the RV'er and the organizer, the founder, that group is discredited as well as the concept of RV'ing itself.

Dots tying Emory into needing to discredit CB - are there any? You bring it up, show me please.

I was very clear in my statements in my post. I never said Emory needed to discredit Courtney Brown. Did you not read the link I provided about Emory Institute?

I am alluding to the fact that his employer sure gets a helluva a lot of funding from the federal government for ridiculous projects that are NOT in the best interest of the people which means there’s a major integrity problem with Emory Institute from what I can see, so likely the same integrity issue trickles down amongst the employees and don’t tell me it doesn’t. Just because it’s not provable where all can see doesn’t mean it’s not going on. And if I have to explain why some of these funded research projects are concerning, wow oh wow is all I can say. Those who do the homework and research themselves will understand the issues.

I’m also alluding to the fact it would not surprise me if Courtney Brown was being allocated money from this funding for his so called ‘Institute’. I didn’t say he is, I said: ‘And while this is no smoking gun....’

Anybody else ‘creeped’ out by some of the projects receiving funding? See the integrity issue there? Do we need to break some of these down to understand? Though really it’s off topic for this thread.

Is what’s written in the article even an accurate breakdown of allocation? What’s perfectly clear in this reality is often what’s portrayed as fact isn’t even close to the actuality of what’s taking place.No one plays by the rules. Through the years of exploring alternative media concepts one can tell organizations have been created, promoted and elevated in order to control the outflow of information. It’s no mistake to find former CIA members incorporated into the cornucopia mix of alternative celebrities,...'build it, and they will come'.

Also, just out of curiosity, do you have any personal ties to this field, Bob? I just wonder why you are being so nice to Courtney. It's a pretty cut and dry case of someone lying and trying to cover their tracks. If only political scandals were this easy.

Oh yes, I was wondering the same....human nature to protect one's 'own'?

Bob

13th September 2016, 02:27

No, no, you're making this entirely too complicated. Maybe you should have been a lawyer Bob. But this is a losing case. Courtney Brown blatantly lied and there was a deliberate effort to cover up what the original methodology of this project was.

Their results were bad, but instead of admitting they got it wrong, they went back and edited the website to make it look like they had a different objective from the beginning.

You do realize that right? Can I at least get a yes/no response, that you understand what I posted above? Maybe then we can talk about the million other directions you are trying to go in.

Also, just out of curiosity, do you have any personal ties to this field, Bob? I just wonder why you are being so nice to Courtney. It's a pretty cut and dry case of someone lying and trying to cover their tracks. If only political scandals were this easy.

It's a simple question - who get's traction by trying to damage the credibility of anybody? Generally starting with some smere followed up maybe with some supposed belief that there is more than what is on the surface. In this case as brought up by you, CB and Farsight, and with the other girl's incomplete data questions about the OP are being asked. I think it juvenile behaviour to pick somebody and then go to destroy them don't you? That you believe changing a webpage to correct for errors in either judgement, or for other reasons known only to CB and/or his RV group is a "high crime" warranting calling their website, and or the owner as such to be "total disinformation", seems to me to be an extremely broad generalization.

I don't see how you believe that CB attacked you warranting your attack on him really. I just don't see it. Attacks on people don't get anyone anywhere, and in social media, it breeds a nasty undercurrent which would not be something that I personally enjoy seeing or feeling.

Defining the thread something as "CB's Farsight Website CHANGED !" WHY did HE DO IT? opens up discussion about why it was changed, and doesn't force feed what is shown as "objective" disinformation (is that a concept?) Objective Disinformation - again fascinating seeing that in a campaign against that group.

What I see from the surface, how it was presented to me on another forum (my first exposure to CB, and Farsight), was that some group had with 3 members seen a type of disaster coming. And they chose to warn people. I assume that what was being requested was WHERE would the disaster happen? I'd definitely want to know if a majority of credentialed individuals saw something happening so that one could do some research to see if such disaster scenarios were possible.

I went and looked up everything that I could find on asteroid near miss potential situations, including looking at what could be described as "asteroids coming out of the solar glare, without much notice, which could be substantial and pose a threat". I would not have looked at any of that otherwise.

I took a stab and RV'ing looking for whatever "group vibe" might be present, and I got "Cheyenne" in the mountains, at night bright light, explosive airburst. And I posted that when I was able to sort out what was being perceived. And I thought it was Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado springs, CO - basically where the old NORAD would be. Interestingly enough there was an AIRBURST, an asteroid exploded over CHEYENNE WYOMING, in the night and was extremely bright.

So that's my observation and my sole understanding about CB, Farsight and whatever back ground is there I am hearing about from those who say they have researched him I have no idea why he'd create a Farsight institute or pull together RV'ers. I think my only other contact with somebody claiming to teach RV'ing was a guy named Bill Moore who was a speaker at a conference in Houston many years ago. I never met him in person and didn't care to.

What bothers me is very simple here, a person is being branded and their organization (and I suppose by proxy) their RV'ers that they are dishonest in the statement made by the OP post 1 because "he changed his webpage" which is used as the "evidence" and that the man is correcting his bravado in my opinion.

I saw additional points in a post being made by a girl talking about Emory. I have no clue who or what they are, and why they what-ever they are would be relevant to this thread. I don't buy it that a webpage update as being such a point of warranting the attempts to damage him or the people who RV'd for him. Prove that he is a guilty party who is dastardly deceiving people, only out to harm them, that is the "feeling" I get reading your posts. I don't support him, or Farsight or anygroup. I do get ****ed when I see someone being branded making it seem that they are creating "high crimes" - those who seem to be "humanity's" saviors certainly get a lot of "press". It is OPINION period. And opinions are able to be discussed provided there is substantiation - a good use of a Forum - sharing opinion and sharing reasons why such and such means something to someone or why it should mean something to someone else.

As to RV'ing, that is a separate thread topic right?

Aragorn

13th September 2016, 02:48

Without replying to any of the participants directly here — there's an intelligent exchange going on here which I don't want to disrupt — I would just like to throw in that according to Laura Knight-Jadczyk and the information she supposedly receives from beings whom she refers to as Cassiopeians (or "the C's" for short), Courtney Brown would be (and I quote) "an agent provocateur". This is something that these so-called Cassiopeians had already stated to Laura K-J about two years ago.

I remember this being posted on a thread back at Project Avalon, and I was only a member there from January 2014 until March 2015, so it must have been within that timespan. I think that particular thread was still posted in 2014, and if I remember correctly, then the thread itself wasn't necessarily about Courtney Brown per se, but this information was something that came up in the transcription of one of Laura K-J's sessions with "the C's".

Remote-viewing is very real — the CIA wouldn't have been wasting tons of US taxpayer money on it since the 1960s otherwise — and like bsbray, I believe that the remote-viewers employed at the Farsight Institute would be legitimate and working in good faith, but when it comes to Courtney Brown himself, I have always had my reservations. There's something about him that just doesn't jive. Like Bill Ryan and David Wilcock, he seems to be primarily preoccupied with his ego and his public image.

I do not necessarily believe that Courtney Brown would be on somebody's payroll, but I'm having a hard time believing in his truthfulness. He's got an agenda, whatever that agenda may be. :hmm:

Bob

13th September 2016, 02:48

No Bob, not even close.

Often you hear how people involved in the CIA never leave the CIA and you yourself have even stated such and considering your open association with former CIA director Woosley(posted by you on Project Avalon) I would have to believe you of all people would know, correct?....Was it not you who stated the following on the Stubblebine thread again on Project Avalon?

Mr. Woolsey was at a meeting organized by Nora for his interest IN FREE ENERGY. I HAVE NEVER HAD ANY - NO OPEN OR CLOSED OR OTHER ASSOCIATION WITH ANY AGENCY, nor ANY MEMBER what-so ever for any reason what-so ever. I resent your repeated insinuations and underhanded attacks. Period.

I was very clear in my statements in my post. I never said Emory needed to discredit Courtney Brown. Did you not read the link I provided about Emory Institute?

I am alluding to the fact that his employer sure gets a helluva a lot of funding from the federal government for ridiculous projects that are NOT in the best interest of the people which means there’s a major integrity problem with Emory Institute from what I can see, so likely the same integrity issue trickles down amongst the employees and don’t tell me it doesn’t. Just because it’s not provable where all can see doesn’t mean it’s not going on. And if I have to explain why some of these funded research projects are concerning, wow oh wow is all I can say. Those who do the homework and research themselves will understand the issues.

No I didn't go to the link. What you said first was "WINK WINK" - what is that supposed to mean? I frankly don't go to the links you post as I don't buy into the conspiracy that you seem to need. I don't see it. When I ask a question is because I am wanting to know an answer if you have it. IF you can reply that makes for a legit use of a forum for Q/A and not bashing people in the open or with covert hostility and insinuations.

Let’s be blunt here, under the current climate the CIA has lost its credibility, so anyone who associates themselves with the likes of this organization and/or people associated with this organization can be deemed questionable in my book as it’s come down to a matter of INTEGRITY. The American people are tired of being lied to, bullied and shoved into corners against their will; because like it or not, that is the public perception we are left with by the obvious disarray being allowed to transpire within our country and god knows all the other merit-less, conniving scenarios created in other countries all in the name of the CIA.

That's a great opinion and it's quite amazing that you can speak for the whole of the American People. As to generalizing CB and Farsight and using that as justification for your statement does not impress me - it shows me how far you are reaching to attack this group.

I don't care if they are ex-cia, ex-kgb or ex-disney. If they can RV and provide accurate data I want to know HOW and WHY. I want to know if something doesn't go right with a RV, WHY DID that happen?

Branding anyone looking at such a phenomenon with such sarcasm, such antagonism I think puts the whole subject of RV'ing back into witch hunt days.

Amanda

13th September 2016, 03:03

bsbray - excellent work and very thorough. Thanks for sharing, in particular all your working out as a teacher would be likely to comment.

Just want to mention that some years ago I chanced upon the term 'remote viewing' decided to research and I think I even have a dust covered dvd sitting somewhere. Anyhoo... at some point in my research I realised that 'remote viewing' is in all likelihood a made up psy op - pushed onto those within the awakened and awakening society.

Truly gifted people have a telepathic ability to sense what is going to happen. Some of those people may sense in the near immediacy of time and anywhere along the spectrum of what we know to be time. The 'remote viewing' subject is just one of many psychological operations aimed at derailing those who are truly gifted and those who are awakening to their true potential.

As always - my comments are not aimed at me being right and everyone else being wrong - merely expressing myself and at least here on theonetruth - I know I can safely express myself.

Much Peace - as we share all that we discover on this journey called life - Amanda : Sherlock::wiz::fire::yoda::unity:

Bob

13th September 2016, 03:03

Often you hear how people involved in the CIA never leave the CIA and you yourself have even stated such and considering your open association with former CIA director Woosley(posted by you on Project Avalon) I would have to believe you of all people would know, correct?....Was it not you who stated the following on the Stubblebine thread again on Project Avalon?

OFTEN WHO HEARS ? That is a generalization and is used as manipulation to force forming conclusions in the readers, total manipulation at the outset. It is NOT FAIR to any newbie reading such a thing in a thread.

As to my comments on Stubblebine, there was a clear reference that I FELT in NO WAY WHAT SO EVER (and I had to make my point clear over and over when confronted with those bent of defending Stubblebine) did the guy come over to the light and cited numbers of articles where he was extremely instrumental in leading campaigns to mislead anybody wanting to know about how the mind could be manipulated. I also pointed out his "wife" was presenting spun information as well which was leading to people NOT doing proper medicine, running the risk of harming themselves. THAT to me was correcting mis-information and disinformation by pointing out fact over and over. No assumptions, no insinuations, no covertly hostile attempts at character assassination of a FORUM MEMBER.

As to Woolsey, he was a guest who was interested in switching over the government/industry into FREE ENERGY, getting OFF OIL. To brand him as forever criminal when he took efforts to do something positive (I think the conference was on new energy that might be on the horizon) is typical it seems when one is branding anybody who doesn't adhere to status quo mentality it seems. So people cannot change for the better in your humble (cough) opinion?

Such is irrelevant to this thread and it's clear it is a distraction attempting to stay on topic when I question if changing a WEBPAGE is ground for calling the group and what they are doing disinformation. That is how it came across to me. If that wasn't the intent let us all know.

I agree with Aragorn -
Remote-viewing is very real — the CIA wouldn't have been wasting tons of US taxpayer money on it since the 1960s otherwise that seems very logical.. And that guy Stubblebine mentioned by that other girl in one of the posts above. That guy does not strike me as honest and would have "as a leopard, would change their spots" to paraphrase that girl. PS - I know of Knight, "know of" are the key words. I never followed CB or Laura on PA or otherwise. I don't believe in channeling as my opinion on such is it is ego being misrepresented by a "third party" (the alleged 'source' of the channeling) and that use of some so called 'third party' is ripe for 'hiding' what ego manipulation is happening with (or to) the channeler.

:back to topic:

Aragorn

13th September 2016, 03:28

Okay everyone, here's the deal. We are having a serious conversation here about a serious subject. It is okay to have an opinion, and it is also okay to vent that opinion. But let us keep the ad hominems or feelings of personal resentment — for whatever reason, and against whomever — out of this, shall we?

We're all looking for the truth here — behind many different events, and many different claims — and if we're going to allow ourselves to be sidetracked by certain interpersonal dissonance, then we're never going to get the answers we're looking for. So let's focus on the facts instead, and let us work together to uncover what is really going on with Courtney Brown and his Farsight Institute.

I've stated my own opinion a few posts above this one, and at this point, without any new information having been presented in the meantime, I still stand by that opinion. The information which Divine Feminine has brought to the table regarding Emory is definitely interesting. This is new to me, but then again, I must admit that I've never really given much attention to Courtney Brown. I do however — as I wrote higher up — still believe in the integrity of the individual remote-viewers of the Farsight Institute themselves.

On account of Bob's suggestion of renaming the thread, I am personally open to that, and I think that Bob provided for an acceptable alternative thread title in the above post. However, this is not my thread, nor is the thread title deliberately misleading or full of spelling and/or punctuation errors — in which case I would of course put on my mod hat and edit the title myself. The thread title is opinionated — speaking as an individual, I will agree with that — but bsbray is the thread starter, and he is entitled to his opinions just like every other member is, so I'm leaving the decision on whether or not to rename this thread into his hands.

http://img.picturequotes.com/2/21/20966/keep-calm-and-let-karma-finish-it-quote-1.jpg

Innocent Warrior

13th September 2016, 03:39

Lucky catch, The Wayback Machine only has this one capture so far and Google's is yesterday's, which is the new version.

As usual, I proceeded with my likely somewhat annoying vetting process to see if there are any alternative explanations, like it being an honest mistake, for example. To do this I began by checking the data that determines what the target is (same page, beneath the sequence of happenings), here is the original version (emphasis mine) -

Data used to determine the target for each month are linked further below. The criteria for the chosen major news event are as follows:

1. The event should involve significant physical activity by objects and subjects.
2. The event should involve something unexpected or unscheduled.
3. The event must be a leading headline news story that is featured on prominent web sites for four major news outlets: CNN (U.S. and International), The New York Times, and the BBC. That means that the story appears somewhere on the main news page of the news outlet, usually in the top section of the web page where headline stories are posted. (Stories for most major events change daily. Some links to more dated events remain unchanged in content and format on the web site for longer periods, and such links are often located further down the web page. These are called "residual links" and are not considered headline news stories unless the linked articles/stories are updated.)
4. The event should involve more than one daily news cycle for the month, preferably with numerous and related stories.
5. The target must be of significant public interest.
6. The target must be of international interest, as evidenced by being covered as a headline event on both the U.S. and International editions of CNN.
7. If there is more than one major news event that satisfies the above criteria for a given month, then the event (or category of events) that involves that largest number of daily news cycles with the largest number of cumulative links will be the target. The total number of cummulative links will be the dominating and deciding factor when there are multiple events that cover a number of daily news cycles.
8. If a significant event occurs near the end of the month, then the counting of news cycles and cumulative links can extend into the next month until the event fades from the headline pages so as to fully evaluate the importance of the event. Rarely does a news story remain on the main page of a news outlet for more than a week.
9. If two or more events of a similar nature and/or cause occur on different dates of the month, then the target would be the combination of the two events. For example (obviously fictional in this case), if the Moon disappears into another dimension on two different dates during the same month, then the target would be the general or combined disappearance of the Moon during that month. Examples of types of events that would be combined within the same month are (a) scattered fires that are part of a larger area that is aflame, such as scattered statewide California wildfires, (b) terror events caused or inspired by the same group in a larger campaign, (c) wartime events from a larger military engagement, such as various elements of the Normandy Invasion of World War II, (d) multiple large political gatherings (including demonstrations) with similar characteristics, (e) weather related events that are the result of the same general weather condition.

As you can see, Daz's August news viewing sessions deviated from the target, according to the data, an earthquake and a war zone do not fit the events of a similar nature criteria (#9).

With the amended sequence of happenings, it now contradicts the data requirements for the target (see #7) ...or does it?! I checked the new version of the page to see if the data has been amended and dayum, Courtney, what do we have here?

10. The news analysis that determines the target event uses a weighted pool of potential targets. The viewers are expected to perceive one or more of the targets that are highly weighted in the target pool for each month. Whether or not there is a single target or multiple targets for a given month is related to the weighting that occurs within the target pool. This can be complicated, and the audience is encouraged to watch the "Theory" and "Overview" videos relating to this project.

Another point has been tagged onto the bottom to rectify the contradiction, AFTER Daz's deviation.

So if there's no announcement of that amendment and that's just been slipped in there then that was a silly and unnecessary thing to do. Daz has nothing to prove, he's a highly skilled viewer and the more advanced ones like Daz often deviate a little from the procedure, which could explain where it went wrong for him. Easy to see how he could trip himself up here like that with an experiment like this and it would have served well as a lesson in the possible problems of deviating, no matter how experienced they are, just an example. It is an experiment after all, that's what experiments are for, to test our theories, to explore, to make mistakes and to learn. Totally unnecessary to be slippery about it.

Bob

13th September 2016, 03:54

Quote by Aragorn (above): I believe that the remote-viewers employed at the Farsight Institute would be legitimate and working in good faith, but when it comes to Courtney Brown himself, I have always had my reservations. There's something about him that just doesn't jive.

OK that to me then says there is a way to sort out what is it that doesn't jive. Just saying, along with that logic, and I agree, the people being Ex-CIA viewers could mean that they are in some way 'credentialed" by whatever measure is possible. Saying that they have historical accuracy with that group. All dots connecting.

I ask why would CIA out their own credentialed members, and their group's founder? It's a simple question, maybe there is no simple answer.

Amanda said maybe RV'ing is the wrong term as that is what has been commercialized or sensationalized. I agree, using telepathy to view future events or past events, or read a rock, or artifact which has been handled (quantum contacted), certainly is a skill. I didn't find it too hard to just be still, blank my mind and look at the "vibe" coming across when presenting to, I guess, "the allness" what is that is supposed to be happening that is a disaster from the skies? That is the question I used for myself to present to the allness. And shortly after that question posed some sensations came in, some visions, some names of places.. Getting my interpretive preconceived MIND out of the way is what I found to be important. To just be still, to be, and then to perceive, without judgement calls, without preconceived notions of what is "status quo".

I suppose the Rv'ers if their background is military, or agency or whatever they are or were, would be the mental "stuff" that they would have to turn off.

I was also supposing that MAYBE (and never got a chance to post this because of the attacks coming out and poo poo'ing happening when their dire prediction didn't happen) what the RV'ers did was in essence tune into their own "drama" being created, and the internet "fluff" happening, and a type of closed time-loop feedback happened.. in other words the amount of drama built which they were receiving in the 'past' from the internet fluff happening in the future of their prediction..

If that is a case, that is a real problem with social media getting involved with telepathic reading of vibration. I also look at a matrix of vibration, the allness, a lot like vibrations with a given time delay, like how a spider's thread can pick up to those in the center of the thread (the spider), what is happening elsewhere in the web. That vibration has to be interpreted, what does it mean?

The spider may feel a vibration like what a fly would make means that a meal is going to happen in the future, and the spider by picking up what is happening on the web may 'predict' it's future, and the future outcome of the trapped fly. But if that vibration is something more like the crash of its web by a jaguar moving thru the bush, its future prediction ability may be quite curtailed. Did it predict the jaguar going to crash its web? Maybe it has a memory that at times things like that happen, but its intentions are to survive and get food for itself, reproduce and catch more flies.

If the OP's assumption is that we all know who CB is why he does what he does, well as I pointed out, I neither know the guy, nor know what he represents, or who he works with other than HEARSAY being relayed by those who report what they believe, in their opinions who or what he is and why he does what he does, and who he gathers around him for support. I don't have time to spend on "reading links" or watching videos which would take up my day.

As to RVing, or telepathy, or remote healing, group visioning, "creating a good future" all of which are topics I am interested in. Group survival at good levels, not requiring one to live in a TeePee in the woods somewhere, trying to escape from being social isn't what I think to be a positive evolution for civilization. If the idea of RVing, or telepathy, or remote healing, group visioning, "creating a good future" is possible, then maybe we should look at how to fix what may be out instead of branding irrevocably, an attempt to "help" as being low and dastardly. That is how I see it and that is why I am responding. And reiterating our opinions are that, they are not FACT, they are our beliefs and if we are not hamstrung, and we have compassion, we reach out to our fellows and look for solutions, and understandings.

Divine Feminine

13th September 2016, 04:17

Mr. Woolsey was at a meeting organized by Nora for his interest IN FREE ENERGY. I HAVE NO OPEN OR CLOSED OR OTHER ASSOCIATION WITH ANY AGENCY, nor ANY MEMBER what-so ever. I resent your repeated insinuations and underhanded attacks. Period.

Uh bob, I remember you making a comment about being ‘best friends’ with Woosley on Project Avalon...and I wasn’t the only forum member who read it, but you can deny if you want. I believe it was even mentioned in this link on the CIA thread I started:

https://isgp-studies.com/coast-to-coast-am-radio-on-ufos-aliens-and-conspiracy

Which by the way, I have no affiliation with the author. Oh and I am well aware of Todd and Nora Hathaway’s association with Woosley...wasn’t he at their wedding? ah yes...I do seem to remember reading that in the paper or some article of the who’s who. So clearly there is an affiliation which does have merit to the conversation. Who you align yourself with does make a statement. And that is on topic to this thread.

To answer your question, it's not just me saying it:
"You admit you were once in the CIA. There are no alumni in the CIA. Once a CIA agent, always a CIA agent. If you attempt to get out or expose them, you either go to jail or you die."

"Do the righteous people of the world a service and, like other slimy creatures, slither back into the hole from which you came."

-- Ex FBI Agent Ted Gunderson to Barbara Hartwell"
Source:
http://barbarahartwellvscia.blogspot.com/2008/09/once-cia-agent-always-cia-agent.html

No I didn't go to the link. What you said first was "WINK WINK" - what is that supposed to mean? I frankly don't go to the links you post as I don't buy into the conspiracy that you seem to need. I don't see it. When I ask a question is because I am wanting to know an answer if you have it. IF you can reply that makes for a legit use of a forum for Q/A and not bashing people in the open or with covert hostility and insinuations.

What I see in writing and the witness to one’s behavior is all I have to go on, as is the same for most. I’m sorry you are unable to read and want to label things as a conspiracy...Hey..isn’t that verbiage a tactic used by the left to discredit?? . But truly I’m not worried if you ‘get it’ I’m more worried that the viewer who is uniformed ‘get’s it’ so they can make smarter choices and be aware of ‘potential’, let me repeat ‘potential’ issues involving people and their associations and that was the point of bringing up the provided funding at Emory Institute. I do believe I am allowed to have an opinion? Like anyone is going to publicly state what's really going on?? yeah right.....

I have no interest in bantering back and forth with you and it appears I will not be ‘allowed’ to answer your remarks as I will be accused of going off topic and ad homeium or whatever... I’ve seen enough, I’m sick of people lying and manipulating and I’m sick of people covering up for those who make those choices. And regardless of whether you can honestly acknowledge there’s a credibility issue or not, many of us have and are and it is the point of this thread.

And by the way, it wasn't my idea to start this thread.

Oh ya...:back to topic:

bsbray

13th September 2016, 04:42

Agreed without social media the whole system of control would not work - such was limited to bosses, people reading newspapers, or listening to talk show hosts. With the advent of the internet, anyone can post anything and spin it hard enough to make it believable. I guess I am further old fashioned. I just don't believe :)

I'd have it the other way around, Bob. Social media is the democratization of media. Any historian can tell you that all major media has been bought and sold in political struggles since the earliest days of our nation. But you can't buy and sell everyone posting on Facebook.

Granted, any idiot can post on Facebook, but I would rather have a sincere idiot than a liar or political hack any day. Let alone intelligence operatives, who we also know are in media, thanks to the leaks on Operation Mockingbird (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.php).

When it comes to the Internet, the spooks just have to work several times harder to try to cover all the ground. And it doesn't look like it's going so well for them either, if Trump making conspiracy theories mainstream is any indication. That's one genie you'll never be able to put back in the bottle, as Farrell says.

We might as well all learn to live with each other in an open and honest way. It isn't going to get any easier from here on out for the sociopaths.

bsbray

13th September 2016, 05:07

Mr. Woolsey was at a meeting organized by Nora for his interest IN FREE ENERGY. I HAVE NEVER HAD ANY - NO OPEN OR CLOSED OR OTHER ASSOCIATION WITH ANY AGENCY, nor ANY MEMBER what-so ever for any reason what-so ever. I resent your repeated insinuations and underhanded attacks. Period.

If you're open to it, Bob, maybe one day you can sit down with a Skype interview with us. You might not have CIA connections, but from some of the things you've posted previously, you certainly have an interesting background and you might want to take the opportunity to talk about it. I'm sure there'd be interest in it here. I know you've mentioned holographic technology before, something to do with dolphins, and have some experience with remote EM effects on the human brain and emotions, and that's all pretty interesting stuff. Now you're mentioning being out at Cheyenne Mountain. You've talked to Linda Moulton Howe before. Not just anybody has so many interesting things to talk about. I think it would make for an interesting discussion, to talk about how you got into all of this stuff and what all kinds of work you have done. And we can set the record straight.

Defining the thread something as "CB's Farsight Website CHANGED !" WHY did HE DO IT? opens up discussion about why it was changed, and doesn't force feed what is shown as "objective" disinformation (is that a concept?) Objective Disinformation - again fascinating seeing that in a campaign against that group.

Personally I am not a big fan of trying to have thread titles changed just because someone else doesn't agree with the way they're worded. Next you'll be asking me to change the rest of the content of my posts because you don't like that either. There is something distinctly authoritarian about that idea, that pricks my sense of sovereignty and freedom of speech. I have my opinion and you have yours, and I started this thread. If it comes down to any other authority than who started the thread then I'd like to know on what basis you would be the one to have the thread name changed, because it's clear that we do not agree on your defense of Courtney and so falling back on anything based on reason seems out of the question. You are always free to start your own thread with the title you suggested, and you can try to steer that discussion in any direction you want.

Anybody can have their say here as long as they're within the forum guidelines, including me. :p

However, this is not my thread, nor is the thread title deliberately misleading or full of spelling and/or punctuation errors

I have to object to the word "deliberately" here. :p

Simple Definition of disinformation

: false information that is given to people in order to make them believe something or to hide the truth

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disinformation

I'm not sure if you meant to imply it or not but the thread title is not misleading in any way. Courtney Brown lied in a recent video update and changed his website to conform with the lie, again, proving intent.

Bob

13th September 2016, 05:17

With forums, social media, facebooks, or whatever exists, wiki's anyone can write what they believe, and use persuasion to try to convince others, and the extreme amount of viewing, the quantity of those being "convinced" is vastly greater than for instance people being indoctrinated in schools, specifically grades where kids would be most suggestable.

I would say social engineering goes way back, where newspapers, the "rags" were the media, and people could only talk about such during water cooler sessions. And then bullying would be the way of convincing the weaker that the more eloquent or harder fisted (or one's boss) would be the guiding light. If one went to church, one's pastor would be the programmer commanding respect, and there by blind obedience to that status quo. So in essence I agree with one statement, that there is democratization, the GROUP forces itself on those others who are not in the MAJORITY - dissenting views are shunned by 'authority' peer pressure and other forms of mind games.

A mention about this thread's topic 'proof of disinfo' - I stated should it have been toned in a way to elicit dialog about WHY would CB have changed webpages, instead of making him wrong at the outset, to convey that assault just rubs me wrongly. If one is going to make a statement such as that, I believe one should expect lively dialog if one is not going to sit back and be lead. No sheeple here.

If the thread is going to be a forum for bashing members instead of sticking on topic, there is an error there I feel. The topic is about CB and Farsight, and what appears to be their credibility.

Focus about shall CB be attacked it seems to me should be another thread and discussion. Pointing out that a person may change their webpage apparently shows they have a right to do so. If it doesn't meet one's opinion of course, by all means, state it doesn't meet with your expectations of a quality webpage.

If the guy is a habitual liar, one who rapes kids, by all means point that out. That then focuses on community. If the guy in one's opinion has a high ego and is strongly capable of manipulating others for an agenda, by all means point that out and show exactly how. That way community is benefited and attacks and high level of social interaction is facilitated instead of pushing confrontations.

We could argue citing statistics between when newspapers and letters to the editor where the means of reaching groups - they could reach millions (not the BILLIONS which the internet reaches now). I don't believe any of the so called mind control programs had any MASSIVE outreach with the majority of tools of magazines, the armed forces (boot-camp), or the drugging of select groups of kids in school. One doesn't abduct billions. Boot-camp, enforced conscription, becoming 'property' owned by governments is a worldwide problem with enforced military mandatory conscription. And at that level many are programmed. And they jump to the key words afteerwards, right? Mockingbird/Ultra and so forth, is that what you are saying? I say with the internet the tools are there now to reach in-masse those who had lain in them, beliefs from programming.. TV and Radio were big in "programming" in sharing with their audience what "proper" expected behaviour is.

The quantity of outreach by the internet is vast, which reaches into the darkest reaches of the most far away places for instance in Africa. And people listen and they make up their minds.

When they are given data, carefully explained with facts and opinion is stated clearly as opinion and belief, they are able to make up their own mind. The radio/TV or minister preacher of old moved to the internet because programming outreach is greater. Of course IMHO.

I find being coerced to accept a "belief" as a fact to be less than the best use of enlightenment efforts. I find being shown examples of beliefs and how they can become constructive useful. I find when one offers solutions to issues, it gets a group vibe into pulling together. Positive outcome then spills into other avenues about one. I find conspiracy, pointing fingers, the covert hostility appearing to be a cancer that erodes away group cohesion. Any doctor who understands selfless non-ego serving would fix the situation and move towards solutions for in this case of CB and Farsight, fixing what went wrong. To me it is still an ego with the man, the political correctness he is trying to fix, where his crack team got it wrong. He did more than one focus. Bad bad, slap on hand right? Or is he just human?

I'd have it the other way around, Bob. Social media is the democratization of media. Any historian can tell you that all major media has been bought and sold in political struggles since the earliest days of our nation. But you can't buy and sell everyone posting on Facebook.

Granted, any idiot can post on Facebook, but I would rather have a sincere idiot than a liar or political hack any day. Let alone intelligence operatives, who we also know are in media, thanks to the leaks on Operation Mockingbird (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.php).

When it comes to the Internet, the spooks just have to work several times harder to try to cover all the ground. And it doesn't look like it's going so well for them either, if Trump making conspiracy theories mainstream is any indication. That's one genie you'll never be able to put back in the bottle, as Farrell says.

We might as well all learn to live with each other in an open and honest way. It isn't going to get any easier from here on out for the sociopaths.

bsbray

13th September 2016, 05:22

Easy to see how he could trip himself up here like that with an experiment like this and it would have served well as a lesson in the possible problems of deviating, no matter how experienced they are, just an example. It is an experiment after all, that's what experiments are for, to test our theories, to explore, to make mistakes and to learn. Totally unnecessary to be slippery about it.

Exactly. If this was really an open and transparent process then getting a prediction wrong is a good thing. James Joyce said "Mistakes are the portals of discovery."

Instead, when they get something wrong, they go back and change all the rules of the game and start trying to fudge all the data into multiple holes instead of just one. Then, the icing on the cake, he has the nerve to go on video and act like it's always been that way, and that the problem is "well known." I guess it's so well known that he just completely forgot to ever mention it for three months while this project was already going on. This is like sociopathic behavior.

With forums, social media, facebooks, or whatever exists, wiki's anyone can write what they believe, and use persuasion to try to convince others, and the extreme amount of viewing, the quantity of those being "convinced" is vastly greater than for instance people being indoctrinated in schools, specifically grades where kids would be most suggestable.

Bob, what you are doing right now is also trying to convince people of something. So I find it very ironic that you are criticizing the Internet for what you are doing too. I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a form of doublethink that no one is supposed to notice, or if the point was just lost on you. This is the democratization of media. Everyone has a voice. That's a good thing.

Bob

13th September 2016, 05:23

If you're open to it, Bob, maybe one day you can sit down with a Skype interview with us.

You might not have CIA connections, but from some of the things you've posted previously, you certainly have an interesting background and you might want to take the opportunity to talk about it. I'm sure there'd be interest in it here.

I know you've mentioned holographic technology before, something to do with dolphins, and have some experience with remote EM effects on the human brain and emotions, and that's all pretty interesting stuff.

Now you're mentioning being out at Cheyenne Mountain. You've talked to Linda Moulton Howe before. Not just anybody has so many interesting things to talk about. I think it would make for an interesting discussion, to talk about how you got into all of this stuff and what all kinds of work you have done. And we can set the record straight.

What you just stated above, Cheyenne mountain is in error.. THIS EXACTLY it seems to me is how rumors or other mis-information or God Forbid, DISINFORMATION comes about. I said, I PERSONALLY WENT TO TRY THE RV STUFF, and SEE IF I COULD PICK UP what Farsight was claiming as a significant disaster scenario. I SAID I PICKED UP the WORD CHEYENNE and I saw what I thought was MOUNTAINS. I THEREFORE concluded that CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO was the target that Farsight viewed.

How could anyone get that wrong?

Could it be that, assumptions, presupposed beliefs could do what is called "DUB-IN"?

In other words, believing disinformation, gossip, negative covert hostile undertones lain in by those with agendas maybe? Looking at how psychology works, the programming, the setup causes actual data to be slanted or skewed. I suppose that is why RV'ers technically doing correct viewing will remove all programming, slanting statements. Can they do that? Maybe, maybe not. I think human nature focuses more on reactive programming statements more-so than staying 100% objective all the time. It is a human problem I think.

Just asking how it looks from this end hearing myself misquoted. I have never BEEN to CHEYENNE mountain. One could easily read in what, "stationed at Cheyenne Mountain", or AT IT in what capacity? Never been there have no interest in mucking around that place.

This is what I said a page back:

I took a stab and RV'ing looking for whatever "group vibe" might be present, and I got "Cheyenne" in the mountains, at night bright light, explosive airburst.

And I posted that when I was able to sort out what was being perceived.

And I thought it was Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado springs, CO - basically where the old NORAD would be.

Interestingly enough there was an AIRBURST, an asteroid exploded over CHEYENNE WYOMING, in the night and was extremely bright.

I added some whitespace betwen the paragraphs so it would be a bit clearer.. and underlined what I felt was key for my understanding what the RV attempt produced.

bsbray

13th September 2016, 05:31

What you just stated above, Cheyenne mountain is in error.. THIS EXACTLY it seems to me is how rumors or other mis-information or God Forbid, DISINFORMATION comes about. I said, I PERSONALLY WENT TO TRY THE RV STUFF, and SEE IF I COULD PICK UP what Farsight was claiming as a significant disaster scenario. I SAID I PICKED UP the WORD CHEYENNE and I saw what I thought was MOUNTAINS. I THEREFORE concluded that CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO was the target that Farsight viewed.

Okay, okay, my bad. I was reading through the posts I missed on the first page quickly, so you corrected me on that and that's good.

Still, you've had a very interesting life. I don't think it's fair that Divine Feminine accuses you of all this stuff (which is against the forum guidelines, so really it should not be happening) without you being able to set the record straight yourself. I mean you don't dispute the rest of what I listed above. You've led a very interesting and colorful life but you only drop mysterious bits and pieces here and there. So just think about it. Maybe one day we can record an interview. I'm sure it'd be more interesting than a lot of others that have been done. It couldn't hurt anything and might make some people feel better.

Bob

13th September 2016, 06:21

It's a forum BSBRAY - shall I sit on my hands? Not state my opinion? Everyone has a voice good thing, not in China tho, pbly not in N. Korea either. CB has his voice too and it appears slaming him is the right thing to suppress and detract credibility right?

Get the man on the forum, have him say why he wants to present the way he does, if one doesn't then it is speculation and belief why he did what he did and why he didn't do certain things. The thread title started with an attack on a man for changing his webpage, and for what seems to me that he was trying to come to terms with his ego and maybe he couldn't just get it right and maybe he was trying to keep up his status. I don't feel that approach was the best approach to ask the right questions, what was going on with him Disinformation is quite a slamming term and that was quite a slam in my opinion at him and his organization by proxy, meaning his Rv'er's were also by proxy slammed.

bsbray

13th September 2016, 06:38

Bob, stop trying to downplay the fact that the man blatantly lied. You make it sound like he just innocently edited the page. Read Innocent Warrior's post if mine don't make sense to you.

Innocent Warrior

13th September 2016, 06:41

Exactly. If this was really an open and transparent process then getting a prediction wrong is a good thing. James Joyce said "Mistakes are the portals of discovery."

Instead, when they get something wrong, they go back and change all the rules of the game and start trying to fudge all the data into multiple holes instead of just one. Then, the icing on the cake, he has the nerve to go on video and act like it's always been that way, and that the problem is "well known." I guess it's so well known that he just completely forgot to ever mention it for three months while this project was already going on. This is like sociopathic behavior.

Yes, it does make you do these ones O_o when the response is to alter the criteria and not just objectively and openly assess the issue and continue on from there. I'm not comfortable with making the leap from that to it being like sociopathic behaviour though. It is what it is and if they make a habit of it then it goes from, "that was silly and unnecessary" to "that's dodgy". Short of that, I agree with Bob on that one.

BTW, I had to correct my post, I wrote Dick instead of Daz, it was Daz who viewed the earthquake, same applies to both regarding their level of skill and same applies to the point that was made but thought I should bring that to attention to avoid the waters being muddied.

modwiz

13th September 2016, 06:43

Here is some food for thought. First, there is no alternative "community", with few exceptions maybe, there is an alternative audience waiting for the next installment of a view of their future from whatever source. RV, channeling, space brothers/sisters, whistleblowers and whatever else. A real community would be planning their future, discussing what is would look like and come to agreements. Then they would implement that plan. The future is ours to create but, it takes discussion, debate and agreement. An audience sits raptly while listening and watching the plans of others unfold around them. Various agencies have lots of plans and they do what they can to carry them out. Their numbers pale in comparison to the audience but, they strategize and work together. Like the farmer and one or two sheep dogs.

I could care less what Courtney does. He gives me the creeps but, gotta give him credit for being organized. Something the "audience" is not. A mostly faceless and anonymous audience who would not know each other on the same bus sitting face to face. One thing the RVers do not see is people coming together and creating a future they would like to live in. That is the most chilling report of all from those who peer into our future.

The video I will be posting in my two main threads will cover some of the unity needed as well as the paucity of real talent and creativity from the controllers. Controllers who listen to the men and women whose paychecks they approve and wait for the ideas to be fed to them. Then they administrate/direct/choose. The real talent would the minions that come from our brothers, sisters and other regular people.

Do we really like a future where we continue to get shit on? It is a choice and a matter of will.

Bob

13th September 2016, 06:57

Bob, stop trying to downplay the fact that the man blatantly lied. You make it sound like he just innocently edited the page. Read Innocent Warrior's post if mine don't make sense to you.

U mean I should comply with another's belief and change my own? hmmm... I can't evaluate for the man's action(s). I don't know him, I can only go on hearsay about his personality his motivation. I think I will stick with my opinion. I'd like to see CB as a member and state his reasoning for doing what he did. Of course that probably won't happen, but that is a wish and desire, something that I would like to understand more about from him what his motivation is. The forum would have a great opportunity to understand from their viewpoint what RV'ing is about, why they do what they do, or don't do.

I certainly appreciate your wanting to tell us why you feel this man has a problem with the way he goes about persuading the public that his Institute is not about "disinfo". If we don't talk, nobody can benefit from what sharing thoughts means. I value you and I value your opinion. Good job !

I actually prefer ModWiz's approach which seems pretty darned objective about what's happening and what's not happening.

bsbray

13th September 2016, 07:32

Yes, it does make you do these ones O_o when the response is to alter the criteria and not just objectively and openly assess the issue and continue on from there. I'm not comfortable with making the leap from that to it being like sociopathic behaviour though. It is what it is and if they make a habit of it then it goes from, "that was silly and unnecessary" to "that's dodgy". Short of that, I agree with Bob on that one.

If he spent $2000 on giving his website a design makeover, that would be unnecessary. But what Brown did was to go back and "alter the criteria," exactly as you put it, and this by itself is already very dishonest. It gets worse when he doesn't tell you that he did so. It gets much worse when he then goes on video and acts like this new method he's describing has been the same method through the whole time-cross project, when it most certainly has not. The blatant lying, and I really mean a blatant and barefaced lie straight to the camera, a lie which is proven by the Internet Archive cache, is what strikes me as sociopathic. It is intentional and manipulative.

He even goes so far as to start claiming that the problem of narrowing down one single event is "well known" despite the time-cross project being a few months old already and I've never heard him mention that one time before. Of course he never mentioned it before because previously his website said the exact damn opposite. That makes lie number two that he told.

I cannot imagine any possible scenario where Courtney Brown did this and it was an accident, or he didn't really mean to, or he was just being "overconfident," which isn't even relevant to anything. The problem is not that the data was wrong. The problem is that he tried to cover it up and then lie about it, which is totally ridiculous.

modwiz

13th September 2016, 07:41

Outlander

13th September 2016, 08:47

Perhaps it's an idea to contact Courtney Brown in person and ask him why he did what he's done?

http://courtneybrown.com/contact75.html

bsbray

13th September 2016, 09:00

While we're at it we can ask Simon Parkes and Corey Goode if they are telling the truth too.

Also I hear that Hillary Clinton is saying that she is in excellent health.

Innocent Warrior

13th September 2016, 09:01

If he spent $2000 on giving his website a design makeover, that would be unnecessary. But what Brown did was to go back and "alter the criteria," exactly as you put it, and this by itself is already very dishonest. It gets worse when he doesn't tell you that he did so. It gets much worse when he then goes on video and acts like this new method he's describing has been the same method through the whole time-cross project, when it most certainly has not. The blatant lying, and I really mean a blatant and barefaced lie straight to the camera, a lie which is proven by the Internet Archive cache, is what strikes me as sociopathic. It is intentional and manipulative.

He even goes so far as to start claiming that the problem of narrowing down one single event is "well known" despite the time-cross project being a few months old already and I've never heard him mention that one time before. Of course he never mentioned it before because previously his website said the exact damn opposite. That makes lie number two that he told.

I cannot imagine any possible scenario where Courtney Brown did this and it was an accident, or he didn't really mean to, or he was just being "overconfident," which isn't even relevant to anything. The problem is not that the data was wrong. The problem is that he tried to cover it up and then lie about it, which is totally ridiculous.

I can think of another possible scenario, it's possible it is a misunderstanding because he didn't discuss the amendment to the target criteria but he is explaining the complexity of viewing one target (and how the complexity lies in the weight of the events in the news) at the beginning of the video, hence why I wrote this -

So if there's no announcement of that amendment and that's just been slipped in there then that was a silly and unnecessary thing to do.

When he explains the complexity of viewing one target he addresses specifically the elements of the target criteria that have been affected by the amendment. So it could be a case of Courtney seeing the amendment as an adjustment due to the complexity issue and the video as a clarification. In that case it would be that he didn't communicate that clearly enough and we have a misunderstanding, or you could be right. Until I can see clearly that he's lied and until he's been approached about it so I can hear what he has to say, I stand by what I've written.

My apologies if I've missed something, I haven't yet got the chance to read the rest of the thread, but I watched the video and I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say he was lying on the video. Could you please point out exactly what he says when he's lying and where it is on the video? If he did definitely, willingly lie then I'll amend my position once I've heard what he has to say about it, if appropriate.

modwiz

13th September 2016, 09:08

Perhaps it's an idea to contact Courtney Brown in person and ask him why he did what he's done?

http://courtneybrown.com/contact75.html

He's following the golden rule of agencies. Those who pay the gold, make the rules.

While we're at it we can ask Simon Parkes and Corey Goode if they are telling the truth too.

Also I hear that Hillary Clinton is saying that she is in excellent health.

Considering the position she seeks. I think she is in excellent health. Just the kind we like to see.:eyebrows:

I can think of another possible scenario, it's possible it is a misunderstanding because he didn't discuss the amendment to the target criteria but he is explaining the complexity of viewing one target (and how the complexity lies in the weight of the events in the news) at the beginning of the video, hence why I wrote this -

When he explains the complexity of viewing one target he addresses specifically the elements of the target criteria that have been affected by the amendment. So it could be a case of Courtney seeing the amendment as an adjustment due to the complexity issue and the video as a clarification. In that case it would be that he didn't communicate that clearly enough and we have a misunderstanding, or you could be right. Until I can see clearly that he's lied and until he's been approached about it so I can hear what he has to say, I stand by what I've written.

My apologies if I've missed something, I haven't yet got the chance to read the rest of the thread, but I watched the video and I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say he was lying on the video. Could you please point out exactly what he says when he's lying and where it is on the video? If he did definitely, willingly lie then I'll amend my position once I've heard what he has to say about it, if appropriate.

Yes, a few words would help.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7b/MaxheadroomMpegMan.jpg/250px-MaxheadroomMpegMan.jpg

bsbray

13th September 2016, 09:32

I can think of another possible scenario, it's possible it is a misunderstanding because he didn't discuss the amendment to the target criteria but he is explaining the complexity of viewing one target (and how the complexity lies in the weight of the events in the news)

Originally, Jim Marrs was picking the target at the end of the month, from the given month's major news events. Remember that? He picked a single target. It was a very simple method by comparison and no one complained about it being "not possible," obviously, because they were doing it.

Then they changed it, so that it was a formulaic way of picking the target event based on the criteria that were still explained on the website as of early August. Brown made it clear at that point that it was a straightforward process that would result in a single target event chosen at the end of the month. Again, no one said anything about it being "not possible."

Now he is saying that this can't be done, that it is "not possible" (see the vid, 1:55) to focus on a single target (as they had claimed they were doing before!) because of a "well-known phenomenon with remote viewing."

It must not have been too damn well known back in June and July, because it didn't stop them from picking a single target back then, did it? No, it did not. But in case anyone remembered that fact, he went back and edited the website and put out this video acting like it's been that way the whole time, that it's complicated, that most people don't understand, etc. etc. That whole spiel was actually what finally triggered my bullshit meter, because he was saying none of this before. That's when the idea popped into my head to check the Internet Archives. And I was validated by what is shown there.

There are at least two lies in the video. The first is that the time-cross project is based on these pools of news targets that can't be limited to a single target, so they can get results for all kinds of different stuff. That is a lie because it is not what they were saying earlier this summer, it is the exact opposite of the originally-stated method of picking a single target, either by Jim Marrs or the formulaic method. The second lie came when he started justifying this new claim, stacking bullshit on top of bullshit by saying that news targets can't be singled out because of a "well-known phenomenon." This could not possibly be true considering that earlier this summer they were attempting exactly what he is now calling impossible, and making no disclaimers about it whatsoever.

When you say two things like that which are mutually exclusive, one of them has to be false. They can't both be true at the same time. And by quietly editing the website, and then acting as if it's been this way all along, intent is demonstrated. That's how you know it's not just confusion. Following me? That's why I say you can't just accidentally cover up what the website used to say.

Innocent Warrior

13th September 2016, 10:48

Originally, Jim Marrs was picking the target at the end of the month, from the given month's major news events. Remember that? He picked a single target. It was a very simple method by comparison and no one complained about it being "not possible," obviously, because they were doing it.

Then they changed it, so that it was a formulaic way of picking the target event based on the criteria that were still explained on the website as of early August. Brown made it clear at that point that it was a straightforward process that would result in a single target event chosen at the end of the month. Again, no one said anything about it being "not possible."

Now he is saying that this can't be done, that it is "not possible" (see the vid, 1:55) to focus on a single target (as they had claimed they were doing before!) because of a "well-known phenomenon with remote viewing."

It must not have been too damn well known back in June and July, because it didn't stop them from picking a single target back then, did it? No, it did not. But in case anyone remembered that fact, he went back and edited the website and put out this video acting like it's been that way the whole time, that it's complicated, that most people don't understand, etc. etc. That whole spiel was actually what finally triggered my bullshit meter, because he was saying none of this before. That's when the idea popped into my head to check the Internet Archives. And I was validated by what is shown there.

There are at least two lies in the video. The first is that the time-cross project is based on these pools of news targets that can't be limited to a single target, so they can get results for all kinds of different stuff. That is a lie because it is not what they were saying earlier this summer, it is the exact opposite of the originally-stated method of picking a single target, either by Jim Marrs or the formulaic method. The second lie came when he started justifying this new claim, stacking bullshit on top of bullshit by saying that news targets can't be singled out because of a "well-known phenomenon." This could not possibly be true considering that earlier this summer they were attempting exactly what he is now calling impossible, and making no disclaimers about it whatsoever.

When you say two things like that which are mutually exclusive, one of them has to be false. They can't both be true at the same time. And by quietly editing the website, and then acting as if it's been this way all along, intent is demonstrated. That's how you know it's not just confusion. Following me? That's why I say you can't just accidentally cover up what the website used to say.

Yes, I follow you, thanks for the clarification. I think you have raised valid concerns, especially the not announcing the amendment to the target criteria part, however, I'm not satisfied that we have enough information for me to agree that what you've made of it has been proven as fact. I don't see the point in going into why because I can't see you being satisfied with my reasoning and without Courtney's answers to the following questions, I can't see this disagreement being resolved.

What was it about the complexity of the August news that caused you to decide, only now, that it's impossible for the viewers to always view a single event (they evidently thought it was possible before, as you pointed out Bsbray, and the viewers had done so before)?

Could you please expand on what the "well-known phenomenon" is?

How is it that you did not foresee this issue when the phenomenon was already well known previous to the August results?

Why didn't you inform the public of the recent amendment to the target criteria?

Dreamtimer

13th September 2016, 13:03

I forget which head of the mentioned agency said that their job will be done when people believe what is not objective reality. Paraphrasing here, of course. Another thing to remember is the agency is part of Nazi International. J.P. Farrell has done exhaustive and scholarly coverage of this. This is not conspiracy theory. So, the alternative media MUST be penetrated from their perspective. CB is just such a penetration, IMO. Short memory spans and a gullible audience eager to be thrilled and intrigued (Corey Goode anyone?) are perfect for this kind of mindfark. If a portion of the population is believing anything resembling the real way the world works the agency will see its job as not being done properly. Getting into our heads is the most strategic space they can occupy.

Furthermore, compartmentalization allows for actual patriots to work for an agency without their decency alarm going off.

I know so many people who believe things that are not objective reality already. Is the job done then? Hopefully we undo it with our collective efforts at critical thinking.

Bsbray has done some critical thinking and research that shows that things were changed after the fact to make it look better. Really, an explanation of results and announcement of a change in approach is what would be appropriate. Not retroactively changing the appearance of what you were trying to do. That's not part of good research or investigation.

Fred Steeves

13th September 2016, 14:08

There is really a dichotomous discussion going on here, almost IMO worthy of a thread split as going back and forth, it's difficult to stay on topic. On the one hand we have the original topic of one Mr. Courtney Brown being busted red handed doing a little razzle dazzle smoke and mirror disappearing act to cover his ass, and on the other we have questions as to some possible much darker motives behind who and what created the original remote viewing program in the first place.

First off, I would *love* to see Courtney come on here or elsewhere to explain his actions. I seriously doubt he would as people who do that sort of thing seldom if ever do that, but I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong. Whatever the case though, shit hot job bsbray for snatching the original guidelines from the waste bin of internet oblivion, and placing that blatant deception in the public spotlight where it rightfully belongs. Courtney got sloppy through his ego and arrogance, and he got caught with his pants down.

Bob, pointing out the naked Emperor is not an attack or a smear. That sort of pointing at the truth equals a smear double think may smooth things over at Project Avalon when things like this get pointed out about certain individuals, but not so much here. Come on man, seriously now...

Now as to the original program itself, who set it up? And for what purpose? It's Genesis came from some of the highest levels of Army Intelligence, and other assorted alphabet letters, and the purpose was not so the whole world could link up telepathically and sing we are the world we are the children together.

Quite the opposite, as the task at hand was to experient, test, and then ultimately weaponize this psychic phenomena. We had high ranking generals and full bird colonels who were black ops at it's finest, the true men in black running the show. And what was their specialty? Psychological warfare and "non lethal" (can you say tazer?) weapons. They had nothing else on their minds but war, spying, and controlling the hearts and minds of people and nations alike. Why was it released out into the public domain, under the care of original participants? I know the company line, and I don't buy it.

Can I prove anything? Hell no, good luck getting a finger to stick on mirage men. But my bet is that at a high enough level, exists a consciousness redirection Project.

Dreamtimer

13th September 2016, 14:40

"But my bet is that at a high enough level, exists a consciousness redirection Project." Probably a whole lotta consciousness projects. :magic:,

bsbray

13th September 2016, 20:54

Yes, I follow you, thanks for the clarification. I think you have raised valid concerns, especially the not announcing the amendment to the target criteria part, however, I'm not satisfied that we have enough information for me to agree that what you've made of it has been proven as fact. I don't see the point in going into why because I can't see you being satisfied with my reasoning and without Courtney's answers to the following questions, I can't see this disagreement being resolved.

If you or anybody else wants to ask CB those questions I'm all for it. I'd be interested in how he responds too. I just hope that no one takes everything he says as gospel at this point. We have been given more than sufficient reason to question the guy. I'm also not sure what reasoning you mean when you say "I can't see you being satisfied with my reasoning." You don't think I would be satisfied with your reasons for thinking intent to deceive hasn't actually been established because I would be too hard-headed about them, or because you think the reasoning itself is unsatisfactory at this point, or some other reason?

I was all about the Farsight Institute before yesterday. I'd even paid for a couple of their videos (probably like $30 to them altogether) and contacted Brown to suggest future targets for their sessions. I enjoyed watching their presentations. I was right there with it. So no one can say I was previously harboring any ill will towards Mr. Brown. Someone might say I'm just being a hard ass, but I'm trying to keep my feelings out of this. After a long list of other frauds that we know only too well, that we inevitably become emotionally invested in and don't want to believe are pulling our legs, when I come across something as straightforward as the manipulation shown above, I don't feel like I need to take time out to try to imagine complicated scenarios just to give Mr. Brown the benefit of the doubt no more than I should have spent time trying to justify Simon Parkes' actions or any of the other long list of frauds.

When Simon Parkes first came on the scene I watched hours of his interviews and presentations and took it seriously. He pulled my leg too, and a lot of other peoples' legs. Now I don't know of many people who would even try to still defend him. It's a blessing to be given such straightforward evidence of manipulation on Brown's part. If he hadn't changed his story so blatantly, and if the Internet Archives hadn't stored that single cache in August to prove it definitively, we'd still be too much in the dark to even ask the questions you list above, which are very good questions.

No matter what his answer is though, we have his words and text on the record and we already know they don't match, and that there was intent in editing his website to change the stated methods.

Innocent Warrior

14th September 2016, 00:37

If you or anybody else wants to ask CB those questions I'm all for it. I'd be interested in how he responds too. I just hope that no one takes everything he says as gospel at this point. We have been given more than sufficient reason to question the guy. I'm also not sure what reasoning you mean when you say "I can't see you being satisfied with my reasoning." You don't think I would be satisfied with your reasons for thinking intent to deceive hasn't actually been established because I would be too hard-headed about them, or because you think the reasoning itself is unsatisfactory at this point, or some other reason?

You and I are coming from completely different perspectives and consequently have completely different approaches to assessing the concerns you have raised. I’ve spent far too much time banging my head against that brick wall throughout my life to not see the fruitlessness of such debates. I enjoy the peace of allowing, appreciating and respecting the views of others while staying true to myself too much to bother arguing a point with you when we clearly aren't going to see eye to eye on this.

I appreciate your wariness regarding the integrity of others and their work, however, this is an example of how very different our approaches are. If someone wants to pull my leg, they can go for it, they can knock themselves out doing for all I care because I know that by being a loving and true person that it’s only a matter of time before their BS comes to light. If I need to know, I’ll know, it’s never failed me before.

I don't feel like I need to take time out to try to imagine complicated scenarios just to give Mr. Brown the benefit of the doubt...

Me either, I don’t find my alternative scenario complicated at all, it’s pretty simple actually. They altered the target criteria and, in the video, Courtney addressed the exact issue that was rectified by the alteration. He didn’t inform the public of the alteration, is that an error? Yes. Does it mean he’s a liar? Not necessarily. If you don’t agree with that then that’s fine, I’m comfortable with that, I don’t need you to agree with me.

Now I think I need a dance and a sing along, you wanna dance Bsbray? C'mon, it's good for ya....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6o9zrTh1X5A

Fred Steeves

14th September 2016, 12:20

OK, I just contacted Courtney through his Time Cross page. He's now aware the unannounced alteration of protocols has caused a controversy, and I await his response. I was straight to the point, and exceedingly polite. We'll see what happens.

Cheers

pointessa

14th September 2016, 16:29

Thanks Fred, I think that was the wisest thing to do in this situation. Members of the alternative audience (Modwiz, I have taken to heart your comments about the alternative community) are suspicious and curious by nature. I can't help but wonder if the answer is simpler than most think. Courtney is aggressively promoting RV. I believe he may strongly enjoy being a bit of a celebrity as well. Could not his strong desire to paint RV in a good light cause him to make changes in his previous criteria to paint a better picture of RV outcomes. He has used aggressive advertising tactics in the past.

bsbray

14th September 2016, 18:34

In the mean time I tried to go back and map out the evolution of the stated methodology of the time-cross project, to see how it has evolved from Jim Marrs picking the targets, to the automated process of picking one target, to now an automated process of picking multiple targets that are "impossible" to separate because apparently Brown believes they are too similar (as if earthquakes and terrorist attacks at the Olympics and UFO attacks are all way too similar to distinguish :rolleyes: ).

All that seems to exist anymore is that one single cache that the Internet Archives has, back when he was still claiming at the methodology was an automated process to pick a single target. All the Jim Marrs stuff has been scrubbed from the website too as far as I can tell, as if it was never part of the project either.

I also asked Courtney Brown yesterday why he has not documented the changes in the project methodology on his website. He is acting as though the methodology has been the same the entire time. But that is obviously not the case. He has removed all evidence of earlier methodologies from his website.

bsbray

15th September 2016, 05:02

A discussion has developed between Courtney and I as follows.

Me:

Courtney -- I asked this elsewhere but maybe you missed it. Why do you not make mention of the fact that you've changed the methodology during the time-cross project at least twice already? First you used Jim Marrs to pick the target and then the "automated process" to also pick a SINGLE target. Now it's multiple targets. I'm NOT asking why you changed the method, I'm asking why you don't MAKE IT CLEAR that you have changed the method and the method you're talking about now was NOT the method you used earlier this year. When people watch your videos and read your website they think you've consistently used this one method the whole time and you have not. If you really want to make this scientific it goes without saying that you MUST record your method for each month's sessions, including changes in that method from month to month.

Courtney:

I am glad you are observing our project so closely. But nothing nefarious is going on. And I (Courtney) have described in numerous videos the changes that occurred in the beginning during the first month when we tried to start the project. When we started this project in April (sessions) and May (the event month), we set things up with a human tasker. But there were logistical problems and other issues that made that approach untenable. So after the first month, we changed the process to the new automated news analysis method for having the news outlets pick the targets using a weighting scheme based on the number of links for each event. The project has not changed since then. But your mention of a second change is not correct. When we changed from the human tasker to the automated approach, there were a few instances on our Time-Cross web page where all the corrections were not made in the text. That was a editing error, not a change in the experimental design. That was discovered in early August, and the affected web pages were corrected. But the process itself has not changed. Also, it is important to note that the first month where a human tasker was used (May) is not included in our official Time-Cross Project since the experimental conditions were changed after that month. We have clearly spelled that out in our videos. See particularly the Overview video. Finally, this is an ongoing project that we offer free to the public. A fixation on a initial attempt to start the project in May misses the point. We encourage everyone to keep watching the project as the months go forward. We hope to continue this project for a long time, so you can make your evaluations after you see more. It is fun also.

Me:

I have a copy of your website from August 6th thanks to the Internet Archive's "Wayback Machine." You have indeed changed the methodology a second time since then (dropping Jim Marrs was the first change), because this cached web page shows that between then and now you have added a 10th point to the method (previously there were only 9) and you have changed the word "event" to "events" (plural) in several places. This sounds trivial but in effect it allows more wiggle room in interpreting the extremely diverse results (to put it nicely) that you received in August. I hope you can understand why this appears so intellectually dishonest from where I am sitting, not to mention the fact that you never brought attention to this publicly. The paper sessions from August are a quick read from the 4 viewers, compared to sitting through the long videos, and they clearly suggest everything from a terrorist attack at the Olympics to a UFO attacking a city, to a meteor impacting a city. I would consider it a sign of sincerity and true willingness to be open with the public if you add a disclaimer to your website that you have changed the wording and added an extra point to your methodology after the August sessions were recorded.

Looks like his argument is going to be that it was an "editing error" but I have been following this project the whole time and it was clearly a focus on a single target at the start. Jim Marrs was not picking multiple targets, regardless of the fact that he was a human tasker. I'm going to make sure he is pressed on it a little more before I give it a rest.

Elen

15th September 2016, 07:17

Anybody that is making predictions of doom and gloom, and I don't care who they are or how important they think they are, are very suspect to me, I always wonder who they work for and what the intention is behind their words. This is why I don't follow predictions of any kind. A "good butcher" always has the foresight to kill when the animal is relaxed, and so this is my attitude towards life; if we are to die…then do not worry about it…it will make things worse if you do.

Nobody can think straight when in fear, it's simply impossible. Well, they can rattle off some common phrases, but when it comes to thinking or feeling, they cannot create anything that is good and wholesome. Try it out for yourself: draw a circle or even curves when angry or scared. It will most certainly end up as zigzag or angles with a hole in the paper. ;)

At best you experience memory loss or oblivious to anything delicate and subtle in nature. I would ask, is it advisable to loose our finer senses?

I don't think they counted on you, bsbray, looking into this material.

bsbray

15th September 2016, 08:32

A "good butcher" always has the foresight to kill when the animal is relaxed, and so this is my attitude towards life; if we are to die…then do not worry about it…it will make things worse if you do.

Nobody can think straight when in fear, it's simply impossible. Well, they can rattle off some common phrases, but when it comes to thinking or feeling, they cannot create anything that is good and wholesome.

That is some very down-to-earth wisdom Elen, and it's very true. I know from personal experience that remote viewing is a real possibility so I guess I got so wrapped up in this project that I lost sight of how much of it really is doom-and-gloom forecasts, and not something I should have been putting a lot of commitment into in the first place. What you say about fear really is true. It is only beneficial to tyrants.

It looks like Courtney is going to stick with his story that it was a "editing" or "clerical error." The guy seems nice enough when he speaks and on a certain level I still want to believe him, but he acknowledges himself that I have been paying close attention, and I really have. I remember the videos and discussions earlier this year and it was a much less convoluted process. It was a single target -- very simple. And the results reflected that. Now videos have apparently been removed, including any references to Jim Marrs, who also was tasked to pick a single target. And of course the website changed. And I absolutely am not satisfied with the August results.

I think what I have seen and went through in this experience is a great example of someone's feelings telling them one thing but their head telling them something else. I still feel like Courtney would be an interesting guy to have a beer with, but I feel the same way about George W. Bush even though I know in my mind that the guy is responsible for mass murder and the destruction of entire nations in the Middle East. So it's a funny thing how the body can produce these contradictory thoughts and feelings. I can also see the interest governments would have in polluting our food and water to cloud peoples' minds and reduce their memories and attention spans, just as in Orwell's 1984 where every day the government announces something that totally contradicts what they said the day before, but nobody bats an eye.

Since he's committed himself to the explanation of it being an editing error, if I ever find one of the earlier videos of him explaining the previous methodology with his own mouth, he will have no more excuses. But I didn't have the foresight to save the videos from that period and it's doubtful if anyone else did and has them mirrored either. The single cached web page from August 6th is all we have in the way of concrete evidence of the 2nd methodology, and without that it would really be nothing at all except my memory, which I'm sure is not enough to reasonably convince anyone. It was my memory that made me look for that cached page in the first place, and it vindicated my memory, so that connection should also count for something, that it is not just a coincidence and I was not imagining things. I did not memorize the website (or ever really even read it in detail at all before this recent episode) but recalled the method as it was explained in the videos. So I'm sure there it was explained in them, before they started to disappear and be replaced. I'll continue to keep an eye and ear out.

Fred Steeves

15th September 2016, 10:31

So Courtney got back with me surprisingly quick yesterday, but being busy it took all day and then some to wrap it up. Just as bsbray says he comes across as being a very nice and interesting guy, someone you would enjoy having a beer or three with. I want to trust him and what he's telling me, but IMO the Farsight operation is operating nowhere close to basic scientific protocols, and I think I'm being baffled with bullshit to boot (Sorry Courtney...). Been there done that, and I see no real need to hassle him for any more. I thank him for his time and attention.

I'll end the commentary at that, and yes he did grant me full permission to repost his comments:

Hello Courtney,

My name is Fred Steeves, and I am contacting you in regards to the recently unannounced alteration of protocol in the Time Cross Project from target (singular) to targets (plural)

There is talk in a couple of forums now concerning this, and whether the alteration was intentionally deceptive to make the August results appear more accurate. You have detractors, and you have defenders saying it was only an error or something of the sort.

I happen to be a detractor, it appears very intentional to me, but have decided it's only fair to give you a chance to set the record straight in how this change occured. I'm quite sure either forum owner (one is Bill Ryan) would love to give you immediate access if you so desire. I'll send you the links if you like.

Thank you for your attention,

Fred

Hi Fred,
You misunderstand what happened when we were initially setting up our experiment in April and May. We originally had the project set up (during the first event month of May) to have a tasker pick a target, a single target. But then we ran into logistical problems with how that worked, so we canned the idea of using a human tasker and modified the experiment to use an automated approach with a target pool and a weighting scheme starting with June. That is why we could not use the first month's results as official in the Time Cross Project. So we started in June officially with a new setup. We posted the EgyptAir Flight 804 only because it was interesting, and that came from May. But we clearly stated that it was not officially part of the project. You are fixating on the idea that we changed the structure of the project during the first month, and you are thinking that there is something nefarious going on. We simply restructured the project starting with June, and the new approach is better. The automated approach is much better since it does not rely on a human tasker.

None of this has anything to do with the month of August. The experiment was modified to use the automated news analysis method starting in June. We are using that method from now on for this experiment. We will not be using a human tasker.

Hope this helps explain things.
Warmly,
Courtney

Thank you very much for your timely response Courtney, would you mind if I post it for all who are interested?

Thanks,

Fred

Hi Fred,
Of course you may post it. By the way, the Time-Cross Project is ongoing. We expect to keep everything the same in terms of the experimental design. So it is best to evaluate it on an ongoing basis, from month to month, and after a longer period of time as well. It is also free...and fun.
Warmly,
Courtney

Much appreciated Courtney,

Hey before I let you go, I think we may have a bit of a misunderstanding here. In question is not going from a human tasker to an automated approach early on last spring, but how the viewing task went from a (singular) "target" to (plural) "targets" apparently some time after August 6th.

The quote and link below from internet archives dated August 6th at top clearly shows a singular target, as it had been all along.

"Here is the sequence of happenings:
1.Remote-viewing sessions are done during month #1 and uploaded to YouTube with the standard YouTube published date.
2.Some major event happens in the world during month #2.
3.In month #3, a major newsworthy event that happens during month #2 is determined to be the target using an automated process of news analysis that is publicly verifiable and which cannot be influenced by anyone. An analysis of the results is published".

https://web.archive.org/web/20160806143506/http://farsight.org/demo/Time_Cross_Project/Time_Cross_Farsight_main_page.html

Now at some point after August 6th this has been updated, being that the task as of current is multiple targets because of a well known phenomena in RV that does not allow for a single news target being viewed. Quote and link below:

"Here is the sequence of happenings:

1.Remote-viewing sessions are done during month #1 and uploaded to YouTube with the standard YouTube published date.
2.Major events happen in the world during month #2.
3.In month #3, one or more major newsworthy events that happen during month #2 are determined to be the targets using an automated process of news analysis which involves a weighted pool of potential targets. This can be complicated, so be sure to watch the "Overview" and "The Theory Behind the Experiment" videos for this project. The news analysis is publicly verifiable and cannot be influenced by anyone. Finally, an analysis of the results is published".

http://farsight.org/demo/Time_Cross_Project/Time_Cross_Farsight_main_page.html

So perhaps we're missing something here, and it would be great if you could clear this matter up once and for all. What many want to know is how and why this change suddenly occurred, and why it apparently wasn't announced. It's not about human tasker vs. automated, it's about "target" vs. "targets".

Thank you again for your time and attention,

Fred

Hi Fred,
Yep. I do all the web work, and I missed the needed web page corrections you found when we initially switched over to an automated system in June. I saw it in August, and fixed it. But the process of using the target pool was explained earlier in June. I just did not catch everything. The reason for viewers having a potential for perceiving more than one target with the automated approach is that we are now dealing with a target pool. With a target pool, there is a lack of independence in the pool when using any method of tasking, and it is a well-known phenomenon with remote viewing. I explain why this is so in my book,
http://farsight.org/FarsightPress/FarsightPress.html
which is the main focus of the book. I was the first person to figure out why it happens. We are trying to use this to our advantage by using a weighting system, that (hopefully) will cause the viewers to focus on the top weighted news events in the pool, which turns out to be the main news items for the month. We are normally expecting only one or two main news items in a normal month. Sometimes the viewers may both perceive the same thing, whereas on other months they may split up. But they should still be getting only the major news items, and not the lessor weighted stuff.

There is a shorter article that explains the basics of the lack of independence issue when using target pools that you can read here:
http://farsight.org/Peer-Reviewed-Research/Courtney_Brown_JSE_Temporal_Outbounder_Spring_2012 _published_article.pdf
Hope this helps. You can post this also if you want.
Warmly,

Courtney

Dreamtimer

15th September 2016, 12:44

Good work, guys. He slips by the single to multiple change more than once. Then he finally talks about target pools. All the changes will probably just be called editing. Including the videos that aren't around now. Is the explanation given in June on one of the videos?

What is the value of a project that is being changed in such ways while it's underway? It's already gone away from being scientific.

Dreamtimer

15th September 2016, 13:22

Courtney is gathering data. If he's not being upfront and consistent and transparent then it's a sign his motives are a different target than the apparent one. Is he gathering data on the reaction to all this as well as the actual "experiment"?

bsbray, I recall you talking about Farsight in the past and you had interest and knowledge. And you were supportive. And as someone who has working knowledge of methodology you would notice such a significant discrepancy.

Your observations are an important part of understanding what's really going on with Courtney and his Institute.

Did Jim have a falling out with him?

Fred Steeves

15th September 2016, 13:36

Did Jim have a falling out with him?

That's a good question. I just asked him, let's see what he has to say.

Great observations by the way.

pointessa

15th September 2016, 13:39

.

Since he's committed himself to the explanation of it being an editing error, if I ever find one of the earlier videos of him explaining the previous methodology with his own mouth, he will have no more excuses. But I didn't have the foresight to save the videos from that period and it's doubtful if anyone else did and has them mirrored either. The single cached web page from August 6th is all we have in the way of concrete evidence of the 2nd methodology, and without that it would really be nothing at all except my memory, which I'm sure is not enough to reasonably convince anyone. It was my memory that made me look for that cached page in the first place, and it vindicated my memory, so that connection should also count for something, that it is not just a coincidence and I was not imagining things. I did not memorize the website (or ever really even read it in detail at all before this recent episode) but recalled the method as it was explained in the videos. So I'm sure there it was explained in them, before they started to disappear and be replaced. I'll continue to keep an eye and ear out.

Maybe the most important outcome here is that he is now aware that his work is being scrutinized and that he will be held accountable.

lcam88

15th September 2016, 18:05

It seems to me, CB caters to people with genuine interest and who hold the methodology of obtaining such information as plausible.

My favorite part of the alteration: "This can be complicated,"...

It seems to me a change in ideology behind the RV project has happened perhaps motivated by the need to adopt a finer granularity of measuring predictions.

I do agree with Bob in that an open declaration that these changes are PROOF of Disinfo is indeed an opinion weighted with a fair bit of inflection clearly made by someone outside of CB's target group (ref 1st sentence).

Predicting the future is a perilous business for anyone who's business is their reputation. That is just stating the obvious. I think that alone is good reason for individuals with ill-intent to wish to remain in the shadows; I'm thinking of bankers now.

2¢

bsbray

15th September 2016, 18:14

Hi Fred,
Yep. I do all the web work, and I missed the needed web page corrections you found when we initially switched over to an automated system in June.

Interesting. So what we are reading for August 6th was all typed out by Courtney directly. He never admitted to me that he edited the website himself but mentioned that there are only "volunteers" working for Farsight. I guess Courtney meant that he is the volunteer who made the supposed mistake.

Maybe the most important outcome here is that he is now aware that his work is being scrutinized and that he will be held accountable.

Yes, I suspect he will be more careful in how he presents things in the future.

I understand that what they say they're attempting is a difficult and ambitious project. I think everyone understands that. So it makes it that much more ridiculous that he can't just give an honest representation of the results when they aren't good.

bsbray

15th September 2016, 21:03

Hey look, another "editing error" in the text introducing this video for Daz Smith's June session for a July event:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDxl13SVc6g

It says (and I've saved a copy of the video btw):

The following remote-viewing session was recorded by Daz Smith in June 2016, describing an event that will occur in July 2016. The choice of which event is chosen is determined by an automated process involving news analysis during July 2016 which can be found in the Time-Cross section of The Farsight Institute's web site, www.farsight.org. An analysis of these results will be published in August 2016 by The Farsight Institute.

The other two viewers' videos are introduced with the same statement.

The analysis/discussion video for the July event is no longer on the Farsight YouTube channel. The analysis for the June event, which Jim Marrs was involved with, is still there, and so is the (revised) August analysis, but not July's. It's been removed. Only the sessions of the three viewers is still available for the July event and the text intro to those videos all imply that the method involves the selection of a single event.

Innocent Warrior

16th September 2016, 02:18

Thanks for taking the time to ask Courtney directly.

In summary, Courtney has explained that for the first month they had a tasker pick one single target, hence the original version in the cache Bsbray presented in the OP. They decided, for the reasons provided, that an automated system would be better and then used that system every time after that first month. The automated system employs a weighted pool, which means the target could then involve more than one event. They informed the public of the change over to the weighted pool at the appropriate time, however, Courtney only discovered that he’d missed updating that page on the website in August and didn’t amend that page until then.

I didn’t have a perfectly clear understanding of what the target entailed so the recent amendment caused me concern but Courtney’s explanation makes perfect sense to me, so that’s me sorted.

On the other hand, Bsbray states that he recalls that the target was always a single event and the reason the page was altered when it was is because they performed so poorly in the August sessions (viewed in July) and Courtney’s intent was to fudge the results, and the reason there’s no evidence of that is because it’s been removed. Correct me if I have that wrong.

OK, given the data presented, I’m giving Courtney and Farsight the benefit of the doubt, which is really too strong of a term because Courtney explained that there’s a lot going on with this project and that’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for me.

I see Bsbray has posted a video as evidence of his view. That statement is referring a single viewer viewing a single event, hence the singular use of the word “event” and, IMO, to see it as supporting evidence would be taking that quote out of context.

That is some very down-to-earth wisdom Elen, and it's very true. I know from personal experience that remote viewing is a real possibility so I guess I got so wrapped up in this project that I lost sight of how much of it really is doom-and-gloom forecasts, and not something I should have been putting a lot of commitment into in the first place. What you say about fear really is true. It is only beneficial to tyrants.

The above paragraph is an excellent demonstration of what I consider to be a very important point. As a person who has received many premonitions throughout my adult life I totally agree that they can be received as predictions of doom and gloom. I know they can also be received as a forewarning, which can be highly constructive. Whether it is received as doom and gloom or as an appreciated forewarning is subject to the state of the individual, so I’ve found it best for me to stick to a rule of thumb, which I’ve learned the hard way; if you can’t look into the darkness without fear then don’t look, get it out of your head and don’t focus on it at all. A premonition received with fear will never prove constructive, in fact it will most likely be a destructive experience and only make things worse.

bsbray

16th September 2016, 03:24

I see Bsbray has posted a video as evidence of his view. That statement is referring a single viewer viewing a single event, hence the singular use of the word “event” and, IMO, to see it as supporting evidence would be taking that quote out of context.

Actually I absolutely did not take it out of context. The part I have in bold is not about what the viewer viewed. It's about the method. We can deconstruct the sentence word by word to make this very clear.

The subject of the sentence is "the choice," not Daz Smith. What about "the choice"? The choice is determined. Does that mean anything equivalent to "Daz Smith saw..."? It is "The choice of which event is chosen..." How is that not about the method? Furthermore the sentence goes on to say that if you want to read more about the method you can go to their website. What Daz Smith saw is in this very same video, so why would the video refer viewers to the Farsight website to see what is already contained in this very same video? As if to emphasize that point even more, the exact same message precedes all three of the sessions for the July event, in identical wording.

You could say, that's because all three viewers only viewed a single target for the month of July, despite Brown's (retroactive) claim of having been targeting a pool the entire time. So why would the three viewers all see a single event, the same event, if the method was to view multiple targets from a "pool"? Because, Brown now says, they can all view a single news event if it is such a major event that it simply becomes the sole focus of attention, dominating any other possible news events that could have been viewed. Well I'm sorry but there was also the attack in Nice which killed 80 people, attacks in Germany and Japan and an attempted coup in Turkey. I think it's safe to say that a relatively uneventful political rally (no one died as they were suggesting, neither were there molotov cocktails) does not fit the criteria Courtney gives for a single event dominating the results of a given month. Is that not fair to say?

Also I want to again draw attention to the implications of the content of what they viewed. They viewed a very violent Republican National Convention, where people were trampled by horses, there were molotov cocktails and people died. It's funny because people like George Soros were actually funding things like that this summer. But it didn't happen at the RNC, so the viewing was actually wrong. Isn't it interesting what they were actually projecting onto the uneventful RNC, at the exclusion of a coup attempt in Turkey, people getting run down by a truck in France and all the rest? Where is the pool of targets in this?

Edit: I'm looking at the Farsight website again and it looks like the analysis for the July event tried to lump all of the major news items into the sessions as well. So in the analysis, they claim that July was not about one event but multiple events that the viewers were seeing, that are said to be indistinguishable from one another, but in the actual video sessions (which were uploaded in July, before the August change) still have event in the singular even though later Brown claims it to be of multiple events too.

I'm still looking through their web pages and videos to see what else I can find. But that the July analysis video has been taken down from their YouTube channel -- that is way too freaking convenient.

bsbray

16th September 2016, 04:15

Oh you're going to love this one IW.

Listen just to the first 15 seconds of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg-C5Cgk6Gc

"...the most newsworthy event of a given month..."

Another mistake. Damn, he'll have to go back and edit that too.

Video uploaded to YouTube August 7th. I have a screenshot and the file saved.

And you know what else, if I had bothered to read the whole archived page more fully I would have seen this too:

Welcome to the Time-Cross Project conducted at The Farsight Institute. Here we have remote viewers do sessions in one month that describe a major news event that happens the following month. The event that is the "target" for the project is the most newsworthy event of a given month, and it is determined by the rules of the project and an automated process involving news analysis that is linked below. Thus, remote viewers working at The Farsight Institute are describing and predicting a major newsworthy event one month before it actually happens, an event that is totally verifiable. The remote-viewing sessions are recorded live on video, and uploaded to YouTube. YouTube lists an upload date, so people can be certain that the sessions were done the month before the event occurs.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160806143506/http://farsight.org/demo/Time_Cross_Project/Time_Cross_Farsight_main_page.html

This is the 2nd method that Courtney claims never existed. Read what he said to me and Fred. He says they went straight from Jim Marrs to the pool of targets.

This is really the most conclusive proof of the 2nd method, and it's from the current web page, and is absolutely and obviously distinct from the Jim Marrs method because Brown is describing the process of automation:

Data used to determine the target for each month are linked further below. The criteria for the chosen major news event are as follows:

1. The event should involve significant physical activity by objects and subjects.
2. The event should involve something unexpected or unscheduled.
3. The event must be a leading headline news story that is featured on prominent web sites for four major news outlets: CNN (U.S. and International), The New York Times, and the BBC. That means that the story appears somewhere on the main news page of the news outlet, usually in the top section of the web page where headline stories are posted. (Stories for most major events change daily. Some links to more dated events remain unchanged in content and format on the web site for longer periods, and such links are often located further down the web page. These are called "residual links" and are not considered headline news stories unless the linked articles/stories are updated.)
4. The event should involve more than one daily news cycle for the month, preferably with numerous and related stories.
5. The target must be of significant public interest.
6. The target must be of international interest, as evidenced by being covered as a headline event on both the U.S. and International editions of CNN.
7. If there is more than one major news event that satisfies the above criteria for a given month, then the event (or category of events) that involves that largest number of daily news cycles with the largest number of cumulative links will be the target. The total number of cummulative links will be the dominating and deciding factor when there are multiple events that cover a number of daily news cycles.
8. If a significant event occurs near the end of the month, then the counting of news cycles and cumulative links can extend into the next month until the event fades from the headline pages so as to fully evaluate the importance of the event. Rarely does a news story remain on the main page of a news outlet for more than a week.
9. If two or more events of a similar nature and/or cause occur on different dates of the month, then the target would be the combination of the two events. For example (obviously fictional in this case), if the Moon disappears into another dimension on two different dates during the same month, then the target would be the general or combined disappearance of the Moon during that month. Examples of types of events that would be combined within the same month are (a) scattered fires that are part of a larger area that is aflame, such as scattered statewide California wildfires, (b) terror events caused or inspired by the same group in a larger campaign, (c) wartime events from a larger military engagement, such as various elements of the Normandy Invasion of World War II, (d) multiple large political gatherings (including demonstrations) with similar characteristics, (e) weather related events that are the result of the same general weather condition.
10. The news analysis that determines the target event uses a weighted pool of potential targets. The viewers are expected to perceive one or more of the targets that are highly weighted in the target pool for each month. Whether or not there is a single target or multiple targets for a given month is related to the weighting that occurs within the target pool. This can be complicated, and the audience is encouraged to watch the "Theory" and "Overview" videos relating to this project.

All work is done blind at The Farsight Institute. The target event has not even happened when the remote-viewing sessions have been done! Thus, the remote viewers have no idea what target will eventually be chosen. Plus, the determination of the target is automated using a process that is publicly verifiable and impossible to cheat.

This public experiment offers clear proof of the nonlinearity of time, and indeed, that time as a real thing that separates events does not exist. Clearly, Farsight remote viewers are transferring perceptual information across time and space in complete violation of the currently accepted relativistic and classical "laws" of physics, laws that are obviously in need of serious revision.

http://farsight.org/demo/Time_Cross_Project/Time_Cross_Farsight_main_page.html

This entire passage, with the exception of point #10, which we know from the cached page was added after August 6th, consistently suggests that the target is a single event. There are two specific exceptions that are listed to this, where multiple events would become relevant. One of these exceptions is even to reduce multiple targets back to a single target! This also suggests that they didn't want multiple targets, which is exactly how I remember it being. What Courtney Brown is effectively trying to do now is cram the entire method into these exceptions and claim that it was always about viewing multiple targets, again, only after the August results which were so terrible.

And all this complicated stuff about weighted pools did not exist in relation to Time-Cross until August.

Innocent Warrior

16th September 2016, 05:27

The following remote-viewing session was recorded by Daz Smith in June 2016, describing an event that will occur in July 2016. The choice of which event is chosen is determined by an automated process involving news analysis during July 2016 which can be found in the Time-Cross section of The Farsight Institute's web site, www.farsight.org. An analysis of these results will be published in August 2016 by The Farsight Institute.

I took that to mean that the actual event Daz viewed, meaning which news event they will say Daz was describing, will be determined by which target fits best out of the automated pool, which makes sense of why we’re also directed to the news analysis.

I follow what you’re saying (pretty sure) and I see why you posted it as supporting evidence, but for me to see it as such the quoted statement would need to also contradict what Courtney has explained, hence why I included “IMO” in my statement.

bsbray

16th September 2016, 05:55

While you read over my other post above I'm also going to post this tidbit I found, doing some digging a little further back:

Hi John,

Farsight is a spin off from the remote viewing program developed at Stanford Research Institute (SRI: the distribution outlet for Tavistock propaganda in America) which was funded by, and closely associated with, CIA mind control operations. SRI worked closely with Dr Jolly West and other main figures in CIA mind control programs. SRI developed remote viewing "science" with Ingo Swann and the military in the 1970s and 80s.

Ed Dames, Lyn Buchanann, David Moorehouse, etc., etc., are ALL connected to the military and SRI. Courtney was trained under Ed Dames as a civilian.

Courtney Brown and his team of "professional" remote views predicted in 1996 and into 1997 that there was going to be a big ET (Greys) invasion following the 1996 election and we were all going to experience earth shaking events and witness a "new order" etc.

Of course, NONE of his scary predictions came true and he removed all references to these "professional" remote viewing sessions from his web site in 1997 or 1998. Fortunately, I found them with the Wayback Machine and will post them to my web site in the near future.

The giant asteroid hitting the earth and causing great cataclysms, tsunamis, etc., is a FAVORED doom and gloom epic scenario concocted by the CIA (via doomsday movies like 2012, etc), as is the Nibiru fairy tale manufactured by Zeta Talk, another CIA/NASA disinformation outlet.

Courtney Brown had a big falling out with Art Bell in the 1997 period over the "companion" to the Hale Bobb comet. Whitley Streiber and Art Bell jumped down Courtney's throat on the air for his use of a "faked" photo. However, in this case, I believe that there WAS an alien-controlled Hale Bobb companion and Courtney was made to look foolish to cover up the discovery of the 'companion' by amateur astronomer Chuck Schramek, who died unexpected a year or so later (and may have been targeted for elimination).

When June of 2013 arrives and there is no asteroid hit or coastal flooding kill off, Courtney won't apologize for anything. He'll simply take those dire predictions off his web site and carry on as if nothing had happened; just like he did in 1997 with his ET invasion BS. Zeta Talk did the same thing in 2003 when THEIR predicted End-of-the-world scenario failed to materialize. Zeta Talk merely changed the "hit" date to Dec 2012 from their ORIGINAL hit date of May/June 2003, and carry on as if they never revealed themselves--for the whole world to see-- to be laughable CIA disinformation psy-op peddlers.

Stop worrying. Sit back and enjoy the show. There will be no asteroid hit, no "killer" coronal mass ejection "shot", nor return of killer planet Nibiru, nor nukes going off in major cities in America, killing tens of millions. These are all FEAR psy-op productions designed to suck you dry of life force and soul energy. The negative aliens are driving the doom and gloom agendas.

Like the Fukushima radiation scare campaign, it's all designed to get you to WILLINGLY follow THEIR scripted plans. Only fools buy into the absurd and varied doomsday scenarios.

Regards, Ken

http://educate-yourself.org/lte/courtneybrown02jul12.shtml

If Ed Dames was the one that trained Courtney Brown, that's really about all I need to hear.

Here's an excerpt of Courtney responding to accusations that he sent doctored photos to Art Bell back in the 1990's:

Soon after receiving the photographs mentioned above, Art Bell contacted me asking if anything could be done to help Chuck Shramek, who was under considerable attack from lots of people since he released his photograph of the comet and its companion. At first I did not know what to say to Art; we had already presented our remote viewing results, and that is all we do...remote viewing. But I remembered the photographs, and I called Art again suggesting that we could do another radio show where we talked about the pictures, as long as we agreed not to post or distribute the pictures, nor to talk about the identity of the astronomer. We sent a copy of one of the pictures (via email) to Art Bell and Whitley Strieber.

In the radio interview pertaining to the pictures, I and our Webmaster clearly stated that the evidence that we had gathered was to be considered only anecdotally by others until the astronomer had a chance to come forward with a formal presentation of his evidence. This photo was not used by The Farsight Institute in any way with regard to remote viewing targeting. We showed it to Mr. Bell and Mr. Strieber primarily to assist our radio presentation, which in turn was primarily motivated to help Mr. Shramek. The photo was never intended to offer "solid physical proof" of the existence of the object. It was, minimally, another picture of the comet and its companion, and it reflected our efforts to try to obtain physical confirmation of our remote viewing results.

Following this radio broadcast, a huge public interest in the "mystery astronomer" developed, in large part stoked by comments that continued to be made on the radio about the picture. Finally, Art Bell announced that he would post the picture that was sent to him by us on his Web site. He did this, despite my strong objections, in mid January. Approximately 24 hours later, Mr. Bell called me and informed me that the photo that we had sent him was a fraud. He said that the picture was found (without the Hale-Bopp companion) on a Web site run by the University of Hawaii. An astronomer at that university apparently sent Mr. Bell a letter stating that he took the photo, and that it was later digitally modified to add the companion. The overall implication was that we had taken the Web image from the Hawaiian Web site and created a fraudulent image of the companion.

http://tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/shechinah/cb.html

ERK

16th September 2016, 06:41

While you read over my other post above I'm also going to post this tidbit I found, doing some digging a little further back:

http://educate-yourself.org/lte/courtneybrown02jul12.shtml

If Ed Dames was the one that trained Courtney Brown, that's really about all I need to hear.

Here's an excerpt of Courtney responding to accusations that he sent doctored photos to Art Bell back in the 1990's:

http://tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/shechinah/cb.html

To be fair though, doesn't matter if Ed Dames trained CB as some of his RVer's are very adept IMO. Daz and Dick as two examples, the Japanese woman is another one (Hitomi Akamatsu).....

bsbray

16th September 2016, 07:27

Yeah, I can't find fault with the viewers and I am all for remote viewing research in general. But by this point Courtney Brown has lost all credibility with me and I have to ask myself what in the hell is he assigning these people to view. Meteors and meter impacts have apparently been a big fascination with him throughout his 20 year public career, and in August's sessions we had Dick Allgire again getting what sounded to me exactly like a meteor impact into a city. When you start taking into account the SRI and CIA connections, do you get how weird these kinds of targets seem?

Over on PA the discussion came up that instead of setting targets in the future, they could be assigning people doom and gloom scenarios as targets. I know for Ed Dames in particular, the guy seems like a mass production plant of the most outrageous kinds of dreary predictions, like a literal ET-virus zombie apocalypse, or being wiped out by solar flares, none of them ever coming true. From the sources above Courtney has pushed similar predictions himself. It's like what Elen was talking about on the previous page about who benefits from pushing scary sounding stuff on the public imagination. It's not whether we here individually think it sounds scary but what the effect on the public is, because we know for a fact there is such a thing as social engineering.

Divine Feminine

16th September 2016, 16:19

There you go bsbray, post #64! Too long to repeat, but yes this is exactly what you look for. After you've been researching for a while you begin to familiarize yourself with all the nefarious organizations such as Tavistock and SRI . Which is what pulled up for me with Lyn Buchanannan. And you will see them pop up over and over again connecting individuals in ways you can't even imagine. Often people won't believe you which is why I say...don't believe me, research it yourself. Most won't and of course most don't have the time which I truly understand. Really take Bob's words seriously, because can't you see this is what's going on?

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?63367-Gen.-Bert-Stubblebine--Gnostic-Media-Interview--Sept-13-2013&p=730223&viewfull=1#post730223

“It is about control, and a controller does not change their stripes as is said once in the Company (C.I.A.) for instance one does not retire but gets involved as a consultant to some high paying government job (the pretty boy contracts). Every one of them have the pretty boy contracts with the pretty boy contractors. It is just the way the "club" works. It maintains order, a smooth flow of information, and no rabble rousers are allowed too much leighway to say too much that rocks the boat.”-BobD

And this:

"You admit you were once in the CIA. There are no alumni in the CIA. Once a CIA agent, always a CIA agent. If you attempt to get out or expose them, you either go to jail or you die."

"Do the righteous people of the world a service and, like other slimy creatures, slither back into the hole from which you came."

-- Ex FBI Agent Ted Gunderson to Barbara Hartwell"
Source:
http://barbarahartwellvscia.blogspot.com/2008/09/once-cia-agent-always-cia-agent.html

There's no public announcement to verify your suspicions you have to learn to think for yourself. Occasionally you will come across comments such as the above to confirm your intuition. The other challenge one might face is memory...Remembering information from past research can assist in connecting the dots. These are leads that can help you find additional connections in the future. It's also the very reason why people miss the deviations, but it's the very reason why bsbray happened to catch it because as he stated 'he remembered' the original protocol.

I also find it intriguing that you have two individuals closely tied to former CIA director Woosley who seem very interested in supporting Farsight Institute, the other being MAJOR Todd Hathaway on PA. Why is that? Is this a reflection of the good ol' boys network? While it proves nothing and the individuals on the surface 'appear' to be doing nothing wrong , in a researchers mind...clearly it's not a fact to overlook. Adding to the mystique is Hathaway's constant Avatar name change and the deleting of all his past posts.....all behavior that gives the impression one is hiding or being elusive. These are facts and not personal attacks. Both individuals were vetted long ago so I've been aware for several years as to the connections.

I have no hidden agenda, I'm on nobody's payroll, I share what I uncover so others can learn, be inspired and see all the oMg moments provided by the likes of individuals who have questionable intentions. To sit here and say nothing to me, is the equivalent of looking the other way and that's just not who I am.

Also, before you join any organization especially within the alternative community, seriously investigate who's involved, who's funding them, and look into their history, you have to vet as i.n.t.e.g.r.i.t.y is not currently prolific in this reality. Google, despite being a spy engine, is a tremendous tool at your fingertips. Because some of these organizations are set up to 'attract' individuals for the purpose of you being their 'subjects' to experiment on, please don't ever forget that. If you are unsure, ask one of us, because maybe we've researched it before and can offer insight. Sometimes you just can't tell, but other times it seems pretty obvious to me. Bottom line it's a personal decision and up to each individual who they choose to follow and if you find yourself in a precarious situation because you made a poor choice of aligning yourself with an individual who has devious intentions, than I can only assume it was a lesson your soul needed to learn. Realize this, forgive yourself and move on and maybe help others identify the pitfalls of your ways. It's nothing to be embarrassed by, we've all been there before.

EDIT TO ADD:
Women- because you are so 'nice' about everything you will be targets, they search for the one's that give the appearance of being vulnerable.
Men- Your egos are your weakness and that is what's preyed upon. They will draw you in, make your feel important and 'included', oldest trick in the book.

It is a psychological game no matter what sex they go after, learn it and you will see it happening right before your eyes.