Subscribe to Our
Secret Apollo
Moon Missions
Moses: Beyond Exodus
War In Heaven
Area 51
Roswell UFO Crash
The Phoenix Lights
Aliens on Iapetus!
Cydonia, Mars
Time-Cross Project
JFK Assassination
9/11 Project
Adolf Hitler
Atlantis (NEW!
Revised 2016)
Martin Luther King
JFK Afterlife
Great Giza Pyramid
Multiple Universes
Climate Change:
Exploding Planet
Base on Mars
Contemporary Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs)
The Young Masters
CRV Instruction
CRV History and Resources
Eight Martinis
(Magazine published
by Daz Smith)
Selected Interviews
Other Resources
(Science Channel)
Farsight VLOG
Farsight Chronicles
(Comic by Vic Guiza)
Transistence (Comic and video web series
by Courtney Brown)
Corporate Structure
Donate to The Farsight Interview
Subscribe to the Farsight Newsletter

Climate Project
A Global Climate Change Remote-Viewing Study
Multiple Realities, Timelines, and Events

The Official Climate Project Summary (Release Date: 10 June 2013)

This is a project summary or overview of our Climate Project remote viewing study that we conducted at The Farsight Institute between the dates June 1st, 2008 and June 1st, 2013. It has been an enormously interesting and fruitful study, and in my view it exceeded all expectations with respect to our hopes of using remote viewing to examine climate change. This has been one of our public experiments, in the sense that the public was invited to verify the data-collection process, and to watch the results over the five year time span. This has also been a very controversial study, in large part because the data for June 1st, 2013 seemed to contain many descriptions of what seemed like major calamities or environmental disasters, including meteor events. As is typical of public experiments in general, there has been a great deal of confusion regarding how to interpret the results, even among us. But we have been clear from the start that this experiment is closely tied to our other research into the possibility of there being other timelines, parallel realities, or, as some would say, multiple universes. If you stick with me for a few minutes, I will explain how these results for our Climate Project fit perfectly with our expectations in this regard. Hear me out, and then consider the possibilities, including the idea that there really are parallel realities or multiple universes.

The idea of there being multiple universes, or parallel realities, was initially raised by the physicist, Hugh Everett in 1957, and we explored it in a year-long study, the results of which were published in a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal, and are freely available on our web site. I won't have time to say much about that study today, but the basic idea is that an infinite number of parallel realities exist, all of which are defined in terms of collections of frequencies, and our brain acts as a highly sophisticated hologram generator that works to select out only one coherent collection of frequencies at a time in order to present our world to us, just as a television selects out only one frequency or channel so you watch only one station or picture at a time. The other frequencies carrying the pictures and sounds of other stations are still there, you just can't see or hear them. In just a bit, I will give what I consider a solid reason for accepting the reality of multiple or parallel timelines or universes.

Remote viewing past and present targets are not a problem for trained remote viewers working within the context of a well-structured experimental design. But remote viewing the future has always been a problem. For future targets, one tends to get results that sort of make sense in terms of general parameters, but the details are often wrong. We have been able to get around the problem only by using a specific experimental design in which the person choosing the target, which is the event or place that is supposed to be perceived by the remote viewer, is placed in the future, beyond the date of the target event. That is, the person choosing the target does so after the remote viewing sessions are completed, and after the event target event actually happens. This allows us to describe the future target well, but it is useless as a prediction, since we don't know what the remote-viewing sessions are describing until after the target has been chosen.

To try to get around that problem of knowing what the remote-viewing sessions are suppose to describe in the future, I constructed an experiment for our Climate Project in which the targets (which were geographical locations around the world) were described to be on specific timelines in which certain events occurred, say x, y, and z for one timeline, and a, b, and c for another timeline. Neither of these timelines would be our timeline, but our timeline might resemble one of the two chosen timelines, and we could see if our remote-viewing results were close to what the targets looked like across the time span from June 1st, 2008 and 1 June 1st, 2013.

The optimistic expectations for the study were that some things would be described in the remote-viewing sessions for June 1st, 2013 that would be sufficiently unique such that we could claim that the remote-viewing data conveyed clear and unambiguous evidence of perceiving the future. This is, in fact, what happened.

Basically, the results of our study were thoroughly randomized across the two times, June 1st, 2008 and June 1st, 2013. The results for the earlier period were normal, in the sense that the remote-viewing data described the locations as they were on June 1st, 2008. But the results for the later time in mid-2013 have many descriptions of extreme climatic stress, plus what appears to be the aftermath of meteor impacts that cause tsunamis or displacement waves to devastate certain coastal areas. So our expectations from the beginning for this study were that if the remote-viewing results actually describe the future, general characteristics of the data would be correct in at least some unambiguous ways, but the details between the data and the realities on the ground would differ substantially. So what we were looking for is evidence of serious planetary climatic calamities that are authentically unusual, and evidence of meteor events affecting the planet. Both of these expectations could not have been predicted by any other method known to mainstream science at this time, so both would be considered unique and unambiguous evidence of using remote viewing to describe the future in a manner that would be helpful to all of us.

Let's start with the weather before moving on to the issue of meteors. Without any ambiguity, the weather on our planet has been calamitously crazy for the past few years leading up to June 1st, 2013, with the craziest stuff happening the closer we got to that date. One of the remote viewers in our network of participating remote viewers for this study is Daz Smith, and he created a web site to help track the weather anomalies over this time period. The web site is, and I strongly urge people to go to the "NEWS" area of this web site and page through the incredible number of "off-the-chart" climatic anomalies that have plagued this planet of late. Planet wide heat records in tens of thousands of locations all at once, cold records, gigantic floods, huge tornados, enormous hurricanes, you name it, it is there. You don't have to be a statistician to see that these anomalies are far beyond any statistical norm in recent memory, perhaps going back hundreds of years. I could list many examples, from Hurricane Sandy in the East Coast of the United States and the recent devastating tornado in Oklahoma, to recent extreme flooding in Europe, to nearly unimaginable record heat waves in Australia, mass evacuations, and on and on, but the careful observer would do better to read the news stories themselves to get a better grasp of how unusually calamitous our planetary weather has been of late. These recent conditions were not expected or predicted in 2008 by any mainstream meteorological outlet, but they match the essence of our remote-viewing results for this period. Some people may reject this claim as anecdotal, and as with all public experiments, we encourage debate regarding our results. But my thought is that the results of our large collection of remote-viewing data for the period leading up to mid-2013 really do convey the essence of extreme climatic conditions as actually experienced on our world.

Now let's move on to the meteor events that are described in our remote-viewing data. This is an area that was the most controversial in our data, and it had the greatest potential for confusion. The remote-viewing data seem to suggest one or more meteors would impact the Earth, particularly in water, causing large tsunamis or displacement waves. With the multiple universes hypothesis, if there was going to be meteor activity, the details would differ in our timeline, but the meteor activity should still be highly significant in the unusual sense of the word. In mid-February, two such unusual events occurred within the same 24 hour period. A large asteroid, DA14, passed within a hair's width of Earth, within the orbits of some of our own satellites, approaching from the southern hemisphere and barely missing the planet. Also, a very large meteor impacted Russia. CNN reported that the probability of two such events happening within the same 24 hour period was 100 million to one. There had not been as significant a meteor event on Earth since the so-called Tunguska event that flattened a large swath of Siberia in 1908. Moreover, none of these things were seen as even remotely possible in 2008 when our Climate Project data were collected. On 16 February 2013, immediately after these two meteor events, I issued an update to our Climate Project stating that these events met our expectations for the Climate Project, and thus no other meteor events should be expected prior to June 1st, 2013 given the rarity of the events. Thus, we have two significant meteor events, and remote-viewing data describing significant meteor events. Some people may have been upset that the meteor events did not parallel the remote-viewing data more exactly in all of the details, with tsunamis devastating some coastal areas. But the results that we obtained are exactly what we expected when using remote viewing to describe the future under the hypothesis of multiple realities or timelines, something that appears to be fundamental to the remote-viewing phenomenon. There will always be unambiguous parallels with the data and the events, but also notable differences.

According to the multiple universes theory, at every moment of the "now" there is a branching off of various future timelines. How many is not known, but the set is potentially infinite. Thus, there is no one future for any current moment. That is why it is impossible to predict a single future. A single future does not exist. Remote viewing the past is not affected by this not because there is only one past. Indeed, the theory states that there must be multiple pasts as well. But when a target from the past is selected, there is no mental ambiguity about it. We know exactly what we want since the target event is in our historical memory. But this is not the case with the future. We don't know which future we will get when remote viewing since there are many for each "now" moment.

Nonetheless, with big events, such as meteor events potentially affecting the entire planet, there should be some evidence of the events across a large swath of timelines. Thus, we predicted that there would be some highly unusual meteor activity prior to June 1st, 2013, and that is exactly what happened.

But there is another wrinkle that we simply must consider. For the meteor that impacted Russia, there were a great many videos made of this meteor as it streaked overhead. One of the videos that is now widely circulated on YouTube of the event appears to show some object overtaking the meteor and impacting it from behind. We always have to consider that any video or photographic image can be manipulated digitally, so there is no way to know for certain if this or any video is authentic. But let's hold off judgement for a moment, and consider the possibility of it being authentic. If this happened, the meteor fragmented, sending bits of itself far in front of its line of flight. Had this not happened, the meteor would have impacted Russia intact, resulting in the equivalent of a nuclear bomb potentially 50 times larger than the explosion that destroyed Hiroshima at the end of World War II, and that would have produced results on the ground that very much resembled our remote-viewing data. The question is, what was that thing that hit the meteor from behind?

There are only three possibilities of which I am aware. The first is that the object that hit the Russian meteor from behind was another meteor. But that possibility is so remote that it is essentially zero. Remember that even having the Russian meteor and asteroid DA14 in our close proximity within the same 24 hour period had odds of 100 million to one. So it is safe to discard the idea that whatever hit the Russian meteor was yet another meteor, in my view. The second possibility is that the object was part of an anti-ballistic missile system operated by either Russia or the United States. This is possible. But if this is the case, then the authorities would have been on the alert when this happened. In colloquial terms, they must have had their guns drawn and their triggers ready in order to have a chance of hitting a meteor that arrives out of the blue like that. The third possibility is that the object that impacted and thus fragmented the Russian meteor was a result of extraterrestrial intervention. Regardless of whether you think this last possibility is likely or not, let us consider the possibility. Some say that it is probably one of the worst kept secrets on this planet that the U.S. and possibly the Russian governments have relationships with some extraterrestrial groups, possibly involving the granting of favors in exchange for the sharing of some technology. If this is the case, again, if this is the case, then it would make sense that the governments would request assistance from one or more of the extraterrestrial groups to intervene with the meteor events if the governments were given prior warning that such events were possible.

This is where it gets tricky. Our Climate Project was such a warning. Thus, it is possible that our Climate Project was used to investigate the possibility of meteor events, and this resulted in either anti-ballistic missiles systems to be on high alert during this period, or for extraterrestrials to intervene upon request by our human governments to prevent any devastating meteor events. Extraterrestrials could even have nudged asteroid DA14 so that its trajectory just missed Earth rather than hitting the planet. Can I prove any of this? Of course not. The only thing that appears certain is that something may have hit the Russian meteor, causing it to fragment, thereby preventing large-scale damage. Obviously some people will dismiss even this, but that sort of thing happens all the time with nearly all controversial things, especially among scientists and government officials, and so it is not really relevant to the essential issues. If we consider the possibility that the video evidence is authentic, and if something did hit the meteor, some of you may want to consider the causative possibilities that I have outlined here.

If our Climate Project did cause one or more governments to act to prevent more devastating meteor events, then this is a good example of how remote viewing can be used to change timelines. You bring information back to the present from the future, and then you change the timeline by acting on that information. This is exactly why the militaries have an interest in remote viewing. If they perceive a terrorist attack, for example, they want to act on that information to prevent the attack. Thus, the attack actually occurs on one timeline, and then they create another timeline in which it is prevented.

Thus, we have a truly interesting public experiment with our Climate Project. The climate related events of 2012 and 2013 are very different from the relative calm of 2008, so that part of the data seems to relate well to the facts on the ground. And the meteor activity that occurred in 2013 also was highly unusual and potentially calamitous, and this too corresponds with our Climate Project data. The details between the remote-viewing data and the facts on the ground differ substantially for the later period, but the essence of the elements are a match.

Now, why should any reasonable person accept the reality of multiple timelines or universes? Since, in my view given past research into the remote-viewing phenomenon, it should be clear to any unbiased observer that it is possible to remote view targets in the past, then it is obvious that remote viewing can be used to perceive things that you cannot see. You cannot see the past with your physical eyes. It appears to have disappeared, to be gone forever. But well-trained remote viewers have no trouble accurately perceiving past events. There is no accuracy problem with respect to the details described when remote viewing historical or contemporary-time targets. Given the frequency nature of quantum reality, from which our macro reality is based, it simply must be that the same frequency-based property that hides the past from normal physical perception is the same property that hides multiple realities from us. There is absolutely nothing stopping this from happening. If you change the frequency basis of anything, it disappears from one reality and appears in another where it can exist in a state of superposition with whatever else is there in that reality. If you accept that remote viewing something in the past is possible, then it must be true that multiple realities are possible. It is just a matter of "dialing in" to frequencies that are unique to any thing and any time. Anything else would not make logical sense. This is not to say that mainstream science is going to jump up and rapidly accept this. But it must be true nonetheless, no matter what mainstream science currently believes.

From this perspective, the remote-viewing results for our current Climate Project were totally accurate, for some version of our world. This is not a copout to avoid saying that the experiment was a failure. Indeed, the experiment was a great success. If we had seen no evidence of any type of potentially disastrous meteor activity at all, then people would be legitimately able to conclude that perhaps the experiment was a failure. But our world escaped a calamity by the skin its teeth, so to speak. If things evolved just a tiny bit differently, we would have experienced exactly what the remote-viewing sessions described to the letter.

But there is something else that is perhaps even more important to note. Let us say that one or more governments may have acted on the results of our Climate Project to intervene and thus change the outcome as I suggested earlier? If that did occur, then that is exactly what we want to do in the future with remote viewing. We want to describe potential future events, and then to act on that information so that we use our free will to direct our forward path in time, to choose the events that we want to experience. The only thing we really would want to do differently is to do this all in the open, without governments hiding the facts of what they do. We want people to know what we perceive with our studies, and we then want people to know what governments and others do with that information. It is simply not healthy or mature for any society to rule itself on the basis of the type of secrecy that is so pathologically common on our world.

Our Climate Project has been a public experiment. Most scientists do not like to do public experiments. The public often misunderstands the complexities of science, and many members of the public get angry when the results don't match their expectations. Most scientists prefer to do their experiments in private, and then to announce the results after the fact. But with remote viewing, we need to conduct public experiments as part of our larger educational role at The Farsight Institute. It is a different approach, but it is a necessary approach. We want the public to learn along with us. Whenever scientists do research, they do it because they need to know something that they don't already know. Otherwise, there is no need to do the research. Remember what Albert Einstein once said, "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?"

We learned another important thing from our Climate Project. From this and other future-time experiments that we have conducted, we have seen that remote viewers sometimes perceive the most dramatic versions of timeline events. Thus, if there is an earthquake in the future, some remote viewers will be drawn to a devastating version of this earthquake. If there are meteor events in the future, some remote viewers will be drawn to the most dramatic timelines involving those events. It may also be that remote-viewing perceptions for future targets may more likely focus on futures in which the remote-viewing data are not used to change the future. Thus, since a future can only be changed if the remote viewers actually perceive one of the more calamitous futures, it may be that some futures, such as the ones in which the disasters are averted, are not available to the remote viewers. That is, time may be an illusion, but things still have to happen one after another in sequential order, something known as "simultaneous sequentiality." So the disaster must be perceived if it is to be averted, and perhaps this means that one cannot remote view a calm future if that will make it impossible for the disastrous future to be averted. We don't know if this is a "law" of reality, or simply a tendency among remote-viewing perceptions. Again, perceiving one future rather than another does not mean that the remote-viewing data are incorrect, since those different futures really can emerge from the current "now" when the remote-viewing sessions are conducted. Thus, we have research that contains some answers but which also leads to more questions, and this is the best kind of research. This obviously means that we will be doing more research, and more public experiments using remote viewing.

I hope you continue to follow our work, and to learn along with us as we conduct our experiments. I am Courtney Brown, Director of The Farsight Institute.

Courtney Brown, Ph.D., Director
The Farsight Institute

Note: The above text has been slightly revised from the video recorded version.