Subscribe to Our
FREE NEWSLETTER
H O M E
Public Experiments
9/11 Project
Great Giza Pyramid
Atlantis
Multiple Universes
Climate Change:
2008-2013
Exploding Planet
Base on Mars
"Mysteries" Series
Selected Interviews
Video Library
Mission
Resources
HRVG
CRV Instruction
CRV History and Resources
SRV
IRVA
Eight Martinis (Magazine)
FARSIGHT
PRESENTATIONS
(Videos)
FARSIGHT PRESS
(Books)
FARSIGHT'S STORE
(Merchandise)
RSS feed
Corporate Structure
CONTACT US
Donate to The Farsight Interview
Subscribe to the Farsight Newsletter
Bookmark and Share

Multiple Universes RV Project Session Download Page

Overview: These sessions were done in June 2009, and they describe a music festival that occurred in Tallinn, Estonia during July 2009. Please click on the yellow banner below to see the full target specification. This uses remote viewing to accurately predict a future event.

"Clarity scores" follow the session comments below, beginning with a "C" followed by a number. Clarity scores evaluate the sessions with respect to the known and verifiable characteristics of the target. Clarity scores can range from 0 to 3, and they convey the following meaning:

3: The known and verifiable target aspects are described exceptionally well with few, minor, or no decoding errors.
2: The known and verifiable target aspects are described well. There may be some notable decoding errors.
1: The known and verifiable target aspects are described minimally. There may also be significant decoding errors.
0: The known and verifiable target aspects are described very poorly or not at all.

Decoding errors occur when a remote viewer perceives something that is real at the target, but the description of this perception is not entirely correct. Again, the perception is real, but the description of it is only partially accurate. For example, if someone describes a city with tall skyscrapers as a mountain range, that is a decoding error. The perception is correct in terms of the topology, but the characterization of it as a mountain range is incorrect. Also, if a person places trees or animals in a barren natural landscape, that is a decoding error. The perception of a natural landscape is correct, but the conscious mind added things that it thought would be normal for a natural landscape. Experienced remote viewers are trained to minimize decoding errors, and analysts are trained to discount decoding errors that would be more common with certain types of targets.

Some of the clarity scores are followed by a "UEP" marker, which stands for "Unique Element Portrayal." A Unique Element Portrayal indicator, or UEP marker, signifies that the session contains at least one description that unambiguously describes a unique element in the target. A unique target element is some target component that is not a normal element in other targets. For example, flat land would not be a unique target element since many targets are located on flat land. However, something much more specific with, say, a unique shape, purpose, or energy would be a possible unique target element. Unique Element Portrayals often involve highly specific sketches of some element of the target, although a highly specific verbal description could also qualify. If the session does contain at least one Unique Element Portrayal, then a UEP marker is appended to the clarity score. Sessions with clarity scores of 3 that are also appended with UEP markers are normally considered unambiguous evidence of profound remote viewing, and such sessions should normally satisfy the judging concerns of all reasonable people as being accurate descriptions of the given target.

Tasker for this experiment: Lyn Buchanan

Experimental Design Architect and Analyst: Courtney Brown

Date target was assigned: 23 July 2009

Nature of the target: An event that occurs during July 2009

Number of sessions conducted in June and posted as of 3 July 2009: 6

This Experiment's Target (Click)

Viewer Name
Sessions done in June describing a July event
 
CRV Sessions: Encrypted Decrypted Comments
Daz Smith Download Download The general idea of a structure with curved topology in a spacious area is correct, as seen on pages 6 and 7 (viewer numbering). However, later parts of the session tend to develop interpretation that differs from actual target characteristics. C1
HRVG Sessions:
Dick Download Download This is a spectacular session that correctly describes the target and its complexities. Web site visitors should closely examine this session and carefully compare it with the actual target video. The viewer correctly describes in considerable detail the event, the musical content, the audience, the primary structure, the surrounding environment, the lighting arrangements, and many of the unique aspects of this target, including security associated with the event. The viewer even perceived that the event was recorded for later transmission (see page 17, pdf numbering). This session seems to most closely follow the target as described in the top video (click on the yellow banner above). C3:UEP
Debra Download Download The primary gestalts of this session are correct. The viewer perceives a curved central structure (p. 20, pdf numbering), a public event involving a large audience with sound amplification in a stadium-type setting (p. 5, pdf numbering), ticketing (p. 6, pdf numbering), foreign language and music (p. 14 pdf numbering), the concepts of public protest (which is the symbolic meaning of this target event, pp. 15&18, pdf numbering), and throngs of people in congested area with military support (p. 17 pdf numbering). There is a low level of interpretation error in parts of this session involving a horse racing event, but the viewer correctly identifies this as incorrect and then interrupts the session to clear these impressions before continuing. The viewer's description of a target structure on page 20 (pdf numbering) is undoubtedly a fascinating interpretation of the target audience in stadium seating as it is found in between seconds 12-20 of the second video (in the bottom position...click on the above yellow banner). C2
Maria Download Download This session develops interpretations that differ from actual target characteristics. C0
Anne Download Download The beginning of the session starts out OK, with perceptions of a structure with a curved top topology (p. 1). However, later parts of the session tend to develop interpretation that differs from actual target characteristics. C1
Sita Download Download The early parts of the session contain some accurate gestalts, such as the perception of music (p. 5, pdf numbering) and a dome-shaped central structure (p. 6, pfd numbering). However, later parts of the session tend to develop interpretation that differs from actual target characteristics. C1

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

This is an interesting example of remote viewing a future event. The sessions are a mix ranging from spectacular descriptions of the target, some mid-level descriptions, and some misses, which is typical of many remote-viewing project results. Web site visitors should carefully examine the sessions by Dick and Debra, with special attention to the level of detail in Dick's session. To fully appreciate the accuracy of these data, web site visitors should take a moment to watch the target event video that helps define this target.

There was one change in this experiment as compared with previous experiments. In early July, Courtney Brown took the occasion to look at the sessions prior to posting them. The idea was to parallel what would occur if an analyst wanted to look at the sessions in order to predict a future event. As you can see, the results do not seem to have been influenced by the fact that Courtney looked at the sessions. The issue is related to the so-called Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. The question is whether or not looking at something (via RV data) in advance of it happening will change its manifestation. In this case, looking at the sessions in advance of posting them is comparable to looking into the box where Schrödinger's cat is. Courtney was the only person who was able to look at the sessions at the time that he posted them because they were obviously encrypted at that time. However, it is very good to know for our own work in predicting future events that having an analyst look at the sessions does not influence the ability to predict the future event using remote viewing. This is good news, and another step in our knowledge of this process. This is different from the LAX experiment (see the video) because in that case Courtney knew what the target was when he looked at the sessions. But in this case, Courtney saw the sessions and could look at the data, but he did not know what the target was. This suggests that an analyst can examine the remote-viewing sessions prior to the event occurring and gain some predictive knowledge with respect to what will eventually happen. There are limitations with this approach, obviously. But we are a step closer to understanding this process of prediction.