Originally posted by
bsbray
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.