Multiple Universes RV Project Session Download Page
Overview: These sessions were done in March 2009, and they describe a tornado event that occurred in April 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: Glenn Wheaton
Experimental Design Architect and Analyst: Courtney Brown
Date target was assigned: 4 May 2009
Nature of the target: An event that occurs during April 2009
Number of sessions conducted in March and posted as of 1 April 2009: 11
(Click)
| Viewer Name | Sessions done in March describing an April event | ||||
| CRV Sessions: | Encrypted | Decrypted | Comments | ||
| Daz Smith | Download | Download | An excellent session. The viewer even correctly identifies the event as a tornado. Lots of great data of strong and whirling winds hitting structures. C3:UEP | ||
| Pat Sage | Download | Download | This session was accidentally "closed" on the target for the previous month's experiment due to a misunderstanding with an email communication. The session should be examined with respect to that target. The closing process is a procedure that the viewer does to link the session with a particular target, and the viewer's focus of perception when remote viewing is thereby determined. This session's closing process was completed in March, before the target for the current experiment was chosen. This session is an excellent description of many aspects of the previous month's target, including spectators watching an event that takes place on a coast. | ||
| Romferd | Download | Download | The first half of the session is particularly interesting, with good descriptions of upset people, appropriate terrain, and flowing movement energy. C1 | ||
| Apollo 1969 | Download | Download | Good descriptions of the relevant terrain, lots of cloud-related weather activity arranged in a weatherfront line, and energy movement. C2 | ||
| HRVG Sessions: | |||||
| Viewer 212 | Download | Download | An excellent session with lots of data of damaged structures and emergency personnel and post-disaster recovery activity. There is also a good sketch of a circular cloud formation on land. C3:UEP | ||
| Allergic Kid | Download | Download | An exeptionally good session with lots of data of the weather event, including a perfect sketch of the dynamics of the target tornado. C3:UEP | ||
| Debra | Download | Download | Good descriptions of disaster activity. The viewer interprets the tornado as an explosion, but she sketches the tornado's shape and describes its explosive dynamics perfectly (see especially pages 7&9). C3 | ||
| Maria | Download | Download | Exceptionally good sketches and descriptions of the tornado and its dynamics, although the viewer interprets the event differently. C3 | ||
| Anne | Download | Download | Good description of the terrain, and an excellent description of rapid movement over the terrain (see especially pages 13&14). C2 | ||
| Sita | Download | Download | Great sketches of the tornado as twisting and funnel-shaped. Lots of good data of emergency vehicle and personnel activity. C3:UEP | ||
| Michele | Download | Download | A new viewer. Good perceptions of windy energy. C1 | ||
SUMMARY OF RESULTS |
This is an excellent demonstration of remote viewing a target that occurs in the future. Web site visitors should examine all these sessions carefully, page by page. There are no "off" sessions, although read below with respect to Pat Sage's session.
A special note should be made with regard to Pat Sage's session, which describes a different target than the other sessions. Her session is an excellent example of how the "closing" process works. The closing process is something that the viewer does to mentally link the viewer's focus of perception with a particular place and time. In the case of Pat's session, a misunderstanding with respect to an email communication caused her to close her session on the wrong target. This resulted in her session being a good description of this other target, which was the target for the previous month's experiment. Of interest, she completed this session before target for that month was chosen.
"Closing" a remote-viewing session is described on pages 44 & 45 of Remote Viewing: The Science and Theory of Nonphysical Perception, by Courtney Brown.