Subscribe to Our
Publication Dates
UFO Crashes
Base on Mars
(Latest Research)
Secret Space
UFO Fleet Over
Tumbling UFO
Cloaked Mothership
Cigar-Shaped UFO
The Next Pandemic
The Consequences
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Jeffrey Epstein
The Collaborators
The Disclosure War
President Xi Jinping
and Taiwan
Human Leadership
Has Been
Vladimir Putin
and His Inner Circle
2024 Election
Presidential Meetings with ETs
Enigma of Elon Musk
Mystery of
Nikola Tesla
Pandemic Origin
Noah's Ark
The Mystery of Puma Punku
G÷bekli Tepe
Eye of the Sahara
The Nazca Lines
Sodom and
Mystery of Lao Tzu
Pope Francis and
the Vatican
Jesus and the
The Prophet
Moses: Beyond Exodus
RA: The "Sun God"
The Insectoids
The Orions
Reality of Harvey
Reptilian Moon Base
The Reptilians: Here and Now
of Reptilians
Reptilian Origin
in the Milky Way
The Domain
Ashtar Command
and Bases on Venus
'Oumuamua and
the Bird of Prey
Public Negotiations
Galactic Federation of Worlds
Cydonia, Mars
ET News
War In Heaven
Annihilation of the Dinosaurs
Earth's Defense
Galactic Defense
Aliens on Iapetus!
Super Soldiers
of Ceres
Remote Viewing
Star Wars
Battle of Dulce
Where We
Came From
The Death Traps
The Escape
Courtney's Daughter
Lacerta Files
Area 51
Roswell UFO Crash
The Phoenix Lights
Secret Apollo
Moon Missions
Close Encounters
Human News 2023
Human News 2022
Human News 2021
Human News 2020
Appeal to Galactic Federation of Worlds
Mysteries Series
Base on Mars
(Early Research)
JFK Assassination
9/11 Project
Adolf Hitler
Atlantis (NEW!
Revised 2016)
Martin Luther King
JFK Afterlife
Great Giza Pyramid
Multiple Universes
Exploding Planet
Past Forecasts and Analyses
CICO+ Current
Scientific Remote
Viewing« (SRV«)
Farsight Meditation
The Young Masters
In-Person Instruction
CRV History and Resources
Eight Martinis
(Magazine published
by Daz Smith)
Other Resources
(Full Projects. This is what you want.)
Farsight Chronicles
(Comic by Vic Guiza)
Corporate Structure
Donate to The Farsight Interview
Subscribe to the Farsight Newsletter

A New Scientific Experiment Involving Prediction and Multiple Universes
(Updated 20 March 2010)

Predicting the future has been one of the most difficult things to do with remote viewing. People often ask that if someone can remote view, what will happen at some point in the future? Many have tried to use remote viewing to answer that question, and some have occasionally met with success. But to date, only one experimental design using remote viewing has ever worked consistently to correctly predict the future. We now have an idea why that particular experimental design works, and why other experimental designs do not work as well. The reason may have to do with the existence of multiple universes, and we now have a way to test for this directly.

Read a peer-reviewed article about this project here.

Multiple Universes

Principal Investigator: Courtney Brown

Completed Experiments Target Date
Lighting the Cauldron at the 2010 Olympic Games February 2010
The Norwegian Spiral Anomaly December 2009
The Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade November 2009
NASA Bombs the Moon! (NASA's LCROSS Mission)
(And hits an ET base? Hmmm.)
October 2009
An Oktoberfest at Holloman Airforce Base September 2009
The Edinburgh Military Tattoo in Scotland August 2009
The Estonian Laulupidu (or Song Festival) July 2009
Paragliding Landings Event at the World Air Games in Turin, Italy June 2009
The Landing of the Space Shuttle Atlantis May 2009
A Tornado in Mena Arkansas April 2009
The Launch of the Kepler Mission March 2009

Remote Viewing the Future: A Way That Works — Design A

The experimental design that consistently works well to predict the future involves having the target chosen in the future. That is, a remote viewer is told to conduct a remote-viewing session that describes a target. The target for that session has not yet been chosen. The session is conducted, stored, and made available for public download as an encrypted file. The person choosing the target is not given access to the remote-viewing session. Eventually, say, a week or more later, the person assigned to pick a target for the remote-viewing session (a "tasker" or "targeteer") does so. The target is revealed, and the session is taken from storage or decrypted, and the session data are compared with the actual target. In this type of situation in which the target is determined in the future, the remote-viewing session tends to correctly and consistently predict the chosen target. It is also possible to use a truly random process that occurs in the future to pick the target from a pool of targets. The key is that the target is determined after the remote-viewing session is completed. In the current experiment, we will be adding a new element to this design by placing the target event between the viewing and the tasking times, which is explained further below.

Remote Viewing the Future: A Way That Often Does Not Work — Design B

Let us say that a remote viewer is asked to conduct a remote-viewing session. The session is always done blind, of course, which means that the remote-viewer does not know the target. But let us say that the target is a certain place at a certain point in time in the future. That is, the tasker or targeteer has determined the target now, and this person is subsequently asking the remote-viewer to produce a session that describes that target at that future time.

This type of experimental design has been shown to have a very high rate of failure. That is, the remote-viewing session will likely describe a future that does not turn out to be true. We have long wondered why this type of experimental design does not work well. We now think we know why this happens. It is possible that when we remote view the future using this type of experimental design, we open ourselves up to remote-viewing the future as it exists in alternate realities, and which reality is perceived by the remote viewer is probabilistically determined and influenced by subtle mental biases and cues. To test this, we need to set up an experiment that eliminates this possibility, and then see if such a new experimental design works. That is, we need to set up an experimental design that would allow for one and only one future to be selected from a multitude of alternative futures.

Remote Viewing the Future in the Context of Multiple Universes

For many years the physics community has contemplated the existence of alternate realities, or universes other than our own. The idea of multiple universes commonly occurs in discussions of quantum mechanics, and was originally proposed by Hugh Everett in 1956 (the so-called "many worlds" theory) as a possible explanation for experimental results involving the "two-slit experiment." But until now, no one devised an experimental approach to test for the existence of these multiple universes.

Beginning in January of 2009, a group of remote viewers utilizing three separate methodologies (CRV, HRVG, and SRV, later expanded to four with TDS) began an experiment designed by Dr. Courtney Brown that directly tested for the existence of multiple universes while using remote viewing to predict future events. This project remains an exciting and landmark opportunity to see remote viewing in action within the context of an important scientific study that has profound implications to our understanding of physical reality. As with many of our studies, this project involved public participation. We encouraged web site visitors to watch the study unfold as the weeks and months proceeded. There has never been a need to "believe" anything with any of our experiments. We simply want people to look at the results, and learn.

The Experiment's Design — Predicting a Future Event

If there are multiple universes, then it should be possible to select one and only one universe from all of the alternate universes if we can ensure that a particular timestream that defines the universe that we want actually exists. (A "timestream" is a sequence of events that occurs in a given universe.) To do this, we need to target events, and we need to guarantee that the events actually happen in the selected universe. Thus, we need the cooperation of a person in the future who either directly or indirectly witnesses the actual event and then defines the target that the remote viewers are supposed to perceive based on this information.

In the design of this study, remote-viewing sessions are being conducted in one month (call this "month #1"), and the target that the remote-viewing sessions are to describe occur during the next month (call this "month #2"). At the end of month #2, the tasker selects a target from whatever events may have happened during month #2. For example, let us say that the remote viewers do their sessions during the month of February. Then the tasker waits until the end of March to pick a target, and the target event must be one that occurs in March.

By using this experimental design, we are ensuring that the target event actually occurs in a given timestream. Thus, we are "bookending" the time between when the remote-viewing sessions are done and when the target is selected, and we are guaranteeing that the target event actually occurs between those two times (otherwise the tasker would not have known about the event). By this method, we are selecting one and only one timestream or universe from all alternate timestreams or universes, and this selected timestream is the one that contains the given event that constitutes the target.

The Hypothesis: If there are multiple universes, then the accuracy of predictions based on remote-viewing data associated with an experimental design that organizes the sequence of events from first to last as (1) viewing time, (2) target event, and (3) tasking time will be significantly greater than the accuracy of predictions made when the sequence of events from first to last is (1) tasking time, (2) viewing time, (3) target event. Then the existence of multiple universes is the cause of the relative failure of the latter design since that design does not guarantee the selection of one and only one timestream within which the future event resides.

Public Participation:

For this project, the public was encouraged to participate in this study by downloading the remote-viewing sessions when they became available and then waiting until the targets were assigned to those sessions. The public could then examine the accuracy of the remote-viewing data in describing the assigned targets. The remote-viewing results were made available for public download as soon as they were collected on an on-going basis. These results were all encrypted (using Winzip) so that no one could see them until a password was applied to decrypt the sessions. The passwords to decrypt the sessions were made available after the targets were assigned.

Encryption Note:

Many of the files used in this study were encrypted. This was done to ensure the validity of the scientific experiment. The passwords to decrypt the encrypted files were posted on this web site after targets were selected for the sessions. The encryption software used was Winzip, and the files were encrypted using strong 256 bit AES encryption. Because of this strong encryption process, these files could not be decrypted using most other Zip file or compression utilities that used weaker encryption methods. Participants were encouraged to use Winzip to decrypt these files. Since Winzip is a Windows based program, Mac OS users with Intel chip machines needed to run Windows (via Bootcamp or Parallels) to decrypt these files (or visit a friend who had a Windows machine).

What We Are Doing Now (as of 20 March 2010):

The final results for the sessions done in December 2009 and January 2010 describing an event in February 2010 are now posted. This completes the year-long Multiple Universes Project.

Important Links:

Session Download Page Here is where you get the remote-viewing sessions. Summaries of the results of the experiments can also be found here.
Passwords Here is where you can obtain the passwords to decrypt the encrypted files. Passwords are posted here after the targets are seleted.
Verona Report This is an historical document that is included here for reference. It is a D.I.A. report that was written for Dr. Jack Vorona summarizing a U.S. military project in which remote viewers were tasked with perceiving a future target. The methodology used in that project was distinctly different from that used in the current Multiple Universes Project discussed above.
Prometheus Protocols This link describes the experimental design used in the current project in greater detail. Please be sure to read this.
Tasking Criteria This is a summary of the criteria for acceptable targets chosen for this project.
Personnel These people are working on this project.
RV ViewerResourses This link contains resources that are useful to the remote viewers participating in this study.