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 October 2009, and they describe the Macy's Day Parade that occurred in New York City on the 26 November 2009. Please click on the yellow banner below to see the full target specification, which includes links to videos and an article regarding the parade. This uses remote viewing to predict a future event. This is a particularly interesting monthly experiment because it demonstrates some of the human limitations related to remote viewing, especially in repetitious situations. (See the summary comments below.)

"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: 9 December 2009

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

Number of sessions conducted in September and posted as of 2 October 2009: 6

This Experiment's Target (Click)

Viewer Name
Sessions done in October describing a November event
 
CRV Sessions: Encrypted Decrypted Comments
Daz Download Download While much of this session appears to develop interpretations that differ from actual target characteristics, the session nonetheless contains the idea of structures in motion. C1
HRVG Sessions:
Dick Download Download This is a solid session containing descriptions of many people in a setting with many structures, modern vehicles, vehicular pollution, people organized in lines or columns, nearby tunnels (e.g., subways), music, police directing traffic, walkways, and other perceptions that are typical of an active outside urban environment with a large parade. C3:UEP
Debra Download Download While much of this session appears to develop interpretations that differ from actual target characteristics, there is the idea of structures with nearby subjects who are observing something. C1
Maria Download Download The general idea of this session is that the target contains many structures, many of which are tall and thin topologically. (See pages 1 and 3, pdf numbering.) The tall and thin topology continues to return throughout the session, although in the later parts of the session the viewer does not clearly identify whether this topology is natural or manmade. C1
Anne Download Download The first page of the session is particularly good, with perceptions of tall thin structures together with the concept of subjects with masks. Later parts of the session develop interpretations that differ from actual target characteristics. C1
SRV Sessions:
Athena Download Download Much of this session appears to develop interpretations that differ from actual target characteristics. C0

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

While some of these sessions do contain data that correspond with the target's characteristics (see especially Dick's session), the collection of sessions as a whole do not describe the target as profoundly as with the previous eight Multiple Universes Project experiments. Part the of reason may be that the viewers are becoming fatigued with this project. Remote viewers are not machines, and when experiments become repetitious, remote-viewing performance degrades quickly. Unfortunately, it is difficult to predict when such a point will arrive in any long term experiment until is actually happens. One way to combat this is for the targets to address some intrisically interesting aspect or mystery that maintains viewer interest. Another way to combat this is to take a break from viewing for awhile. For this reason, we are taking a break from doing sessions during the month of December to let the viewers rest.