Dr. Courtney Brown predicts a "world-changing event" in Feb 2014

reply to post by signalfire

Dozens of posts on this thread starting from the very first day; maybe take a break from it, huh? When I see the same person posting over and over and over again, it gets tiresome. Especially when the comments are repetitive.

Just wanted to thank you for reading all my comments. I guess the few of us on this thread have been here since the first day, it has been a lot of great conversation. To bad you were distracted counting who had the most posts. Maybe you should have taken a break from all that counting.

Char-Lee
reply to post by signalfire

 

Dozens of posts on this thread starting from the very first day; maybe take a break from it, huh? When I see the same person posting over and over and over again, it gets tiresome. Especially when the comments are repetitive.

Just wanted to thank you for reading all my comments. I guess the few of us on this thread have been here since the first day, it has been a lot of great conversation. To bad you were distracted counting who had the most posts. Maybe you should have taken a break from all that counting.

Exactly. Most members "dipped out" and left us to our devices. I have thoroughly enjoyed the ride.

This is the latest from his Facebook as to stay on topic...

Lots of people are asking about using remote viewing to find the missing plane that is in the news these days. It is a good example to use to say that our projects often take a year to complete. There is an extensive time to set up the targets and design the experiment. Then there is the viewing time. Then there is the analysis. This why we only do scientific projects. We never do things that are current news stories. Finding the missing plane is important, but I suspect that all of the mystery of that story will resolve by itself in the near future. Let's hope so.

Latest posting:

This is the appropriate time to add some further explanation to the thrust of the announcement made about our newly released study of the origins of the Great Pyramid of Giza. Leading up to the announcement, I emphasized on this Facebook page (without elaboration) the words, “unambiguous,” “conclusive,” and “proof.” What did that actually mean? Now we can explain, and it is essential that everyone understand how these words relate to the announcement.

I have stated in written and verbal form, on video and in print, so many times it is hard to count, that all remote-viewing data MUST be considered “speculative” until verified by normal physical means. This is even printed at the end of the newly released documentary. If something is “speculative,” then how can it be “unambiguous,” “conclusive,” and “proof?”

To understand this, one needs to remember that there are two forms of remote-viewing data, (1) verifiable, and (2) new. The verifiable data can be confirmed beyond doubt by comparing the remote-viewing data to the actual target for a given project. In the past when working with pen and paper remote-viewing sessions, one had to be accustomed to how the data actually look given the procedures used to record the data to find the verifiable elements convincing. People who were not accustomed to the nature of the procedures might be confused, and thus less convinced. But what has changed now is the way the remote-viewing data are presented by more than one viewer, on video, and in a theatrically interesting manner that can relate to anyone, regardless of whether or not the person knows anything about the intricacies of the methodologies involved. That is a crucially important new element in this study.

What can we say about the verifiable data for this study? In my opinion, any reasonable person would have to conclude that Dick Allgire was describing a pyramid in his data contained in video. Moreover, any reasonable person would conclude that Daz Smith was describing the movement of large stone blocks during the manufacture of what he called “rising structures” as shown in video recordings of his work. Those elements are verifiable. The target indeed was a pyramid, and the target did specify to describe the movement of the largest stone blocks during the pyramid’s construction. Those elements were essential components of the target, and those elements were exactly described in the video records in a manner that anyone can clearly see. Thus, in my view, that part of the project is “unambiguous,” “conclusive,” and it constitutes “proof” that remote viewing was indeed involved in these perceptions that were recorded under totally blind conditions. Therefore, in my opinion, any reasonable person can conclude that remote viewing itself is real, and this claim has passed the test of “proof” for most people.

Of course, there will always be disagreements. 1,000 years from now there will still be people who do not believe that remote viewing is real. But again, in my view, most people can look at these video sessions and decide that the remote-viewing phenomenon itself is unambiguously a real phenomenon.

Now, what about the “new” information shown in the project. Such information involves the extraterrestrial as well as the high technology elements in the data, such as the so-called “Praying Mantis Lady,” the levitation of the stone blocks, etc. Can we similarly say that those elements are “unambiguous” and “conclusive,” and thus constituting “proof?” No. No “new” remote-viewing data can do this until they are verified in some manner using normal physical means of verification. But what we can say is that these “new” elements in the data are intriguing, and they do match the facts on the ground better than many conventional theories relating to the mining and movement of the largest stone blocks. The idea that manual laborers built those pyramids all by themselves with only crude tools is simply not believable in my view. The data for this study, including the extraterrestrial and high technology elements, are more believable. Nonetheless, these new elements remain speculative, regardless of how much they match the facts on the ground. We need further physical evidence of alien intervention and the use of advanced technology before we can move these elements of the data from the “new” to the “verifiable” category.

So some parts of the study are verifiable, and those parts are so uniquely described in the data that they constitute unambiguous and conclusive proof that remote viewing actually exists, in the sense that anyone can see the accuracy of the descriptions with their own eyes without having special training in remote-viewing methodologies. That alone is worth the claim that this is one of the most important announcements ever made in my view. Some will disagree, maybe many. But in my view, this is huge.

And other parts of the study are intriguing but new, and not yet verified. That is the way with all remote-viewing projects. There is always a mix of verifiable parts and new parts. This will never change. The verifiable parts take our breath away. And the new parts make us sit on the edge of our seats, wondering if they too are true beyond doubt. These new parts make us want to know more. And that is exciting.

Still bunk in my opinion. There is no way for him to prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that the remote viewers didn't know the target ahead of time. There is no way to PROVE it and he states.

I thought the construction of large structures built of heavy stones was solved with explainable technology available in those days. Namely removable access ramps of various degrees of inclination and length depending on the target height and weight. This was for elevation of the objects using any kind of power available such as manpower, elephant power or any other kind of beast of burden. Then as for handling the delicate setting of stones in place a method of building sand boxes containing desert sand with exit holes placed around the bottom of the box allowed for descent into position by removing sand from the desired area around the box until all the sand was removed and the stone was in place. This method can probably be replicated today. But some of the stone work itself cannot be replicated by even the most expert stone masons today who suggest some kind of unknown technology. Remote viewing is used by the military to plan operations where intelligence is not available but essential in cases such as the Ben Laden raid. Which was a failure since they lost a secret helicopter in the process. Nothing new and no new revelations, prophecy failure.

reply to post by tport17


I am stunned that he cannot see that a video showing that the target is such and such is NOT...“proof” !

Those elements were essential components of the target, and those elements were exactly described in the video records in a manner that anyone can clearly see. Thus, in my view, that part of the project is “unambiguous,” “conclusive,” and it constitutes “proof”

The whole thing would have to be done in a laboratory under strict conditions for that to be true. There would have to be experts with controls to be sure the viewer did not know the "target" ahead of time could not be signaled to and such, I am SURE he has to know this.

A person might even guess the right target if his target giver and himself had spoke of it before, how would that ever prove insect aliens and the rest of that story.

Does he not realize he could have filmed the guy a dozen times until he HIT on the right target as far as we are concerned?

His message seems to sound like we were told all along this would be about RVing and most of us I think had concluded that since the message was not coming solely from him it was not going to be.

I for one could never ever be convinced that the pyramid had no purpose as he stated, if it were built as an exercise in labor it would have been solid i would think, but to me the whole idea is just plain silly and I am quite open to new and unusual.

reply to post by Char-Lee


I agree with your post entirely and agreement is one of the rarest thing on this planet. Where any two agree on anything it shall be done. There are some things that cannot be proved by the scientific method but the scientific method can prove something to be patently false.

Char-Lee
I am stunned that he cannot see that a video showing that the target is such and such is NOT...“proof” !

I think he expects people to take him at his word that the seers were not given any information as to what they were supposed to be viewing. And then by showing how their descriptions of the target generally match, he considers this proof. He chooses targets where part of the information shared by the seer is verifiable. For example, the two seers described pyramid shapes, and the target was Egyptian pyramids. I find it curious how the two remote viewers both had audio feeds in their ears while they were using their psychic powers.

What research indicates is that "all data stands alone." That means that just because someone was accurate about one piece of data, doesn't guarantee they're right about another. That being said, there is a bit of a tendency for two things to be relatively self-evident, both measurably and informally:

[Always, as a given, that viewing is done double/solo-blind as a prerequisite of proper protocol.]

1 - that if a viewer does three sessions, and the 1st and 3rd have clear feedback and the sessions were mostly accurate, there is a good chance the one in the middle is pretty good as well. That doesn't speak to any given data point, it's just a generality.

2 - that if there are some elements in a task which have feedback and some which don't, that verifying the feedback elements as accurate in the viewer's session at least "indicates they were on target" -- that doesn't mean the rest of their data is accurate, necessarily. But, you know, they weren't describing Mars or a Bumblebee or a nuclear power plant or inside the trunk of a car, if the target was the Eiffel Tower or something; if a viewer's clearly on target, it's at least worth considering what they have to say since it does indicate clear target contact.

In viewing there are two different kinds of accuracy. One is 'target acquisition' meaning they are clearly 'on target' to begin with. The other is 'target description' meaning while they were on target, how well they did with the detail.

If we reduce this to (alas) weapon-like terms (given the 'target' nomenclature), you could say that if you had a laser cannon and that was electronically controlled, those would be the same elements in play: first, that it acquired the proper target (e.g. if given coordinates, accurately aims at those); second, how successfully the weapon actually worked when applied. It could be a very effective weapon but if it didn't acquire target properly, it would be useless (or worse than useless).

Anyway, so most real viewers if you ask about accuracy will say something like, "I'm on-target about X% of the time, and when I'm on target, about Z% of my data which has feedback is accurate." There is always data which has no feedback even implied.

The main thing that interferes with this is proxy/subtle frontloading or task-source suspicions (or blown protocol). But like I said, if a viewer is known for years and years as taking double/solo-blind very seriously and being up front about it, and he says he had zero information about it except that it was some kind of project for Brown, then I believe him (Daz) about it.

By the way Daz is conversing about this on this thread page and later, for anyone interested --
Please don't 'troll' my forum, scoffer dudes. ;-) www.dojopsi.info...

I suspect the main issue isn't with the viewer's data but with the "interpretation" of the viewer's data (as well as that the person driving the project already knew what he wanted to find, so of course will interpret everything in that light).

I'm still waiting for the remaining "two pieces of the announcement." Is there some new ETA on this? Obviously they won't be the other-party objective-info we were hoping for I guess, but I'm wondering what could be left, if not.

nextone

Char-Lee
I am stunned that he cannot see that a video showing that the target is such and such is NOT...“proof” !

I think he expects people to take him at his word that the seers were not given any information as to what they were supposed to be viewing. And then by showing how their descriptions of the target generally match, he considers this proof. He chooses targets where part of the information shared by the seer is verifiable. For example, the two seers described pyramid shapes, and the target was Egyptian pyramids. I find it curious how the two remote viewers both had audio feeds in their ears while they were using their psychic powers.

edit on 19-3-2014 by nextone because: (no reason given)

It's not unusual at all that a viewer actually describes the target, LOL.

I don't know why the earbud but I will ask daz on the thread I linked to above so you'll have some kind of answer.

In the later Imperial period, the Ides began a "holy week" of festivals for Cybele and Attis. The Ides was the day of Canna intrat ("The Reed enters"), when Attis was born and exposed as an infant among the reeds of a Phrygian river. He was discovered—depending on the version of the myth—by either shepherds or the goddess Cybele, who was also known as the Magna Mater, "Great Mother".

His latest posting on FB,

Hi Everyone. I want to share the essence of some of the communications that I have been receiving. In one communication, the person said that the Giza Pyramid Project was interesting, but he was sure I was going to announce something that is more current. In another communication, the person asked when I am going to announce the identities of the Illuminati. Yet another said he was sure I was holding back on when Nibiru would enter crash into Earth. And yet another said that she was certain I was going to say what happened to the missing airliner. And on it goes.

Friends, the Giza Pyramid project is the biggest thing we have ever done. It is huge. There is nothing bigger than that. You may not agree, but that project really is amazing, and I fully believe that in the future people will say that this project was a turning point for our planet. With this said, let me outline what I hoped would be the second and third parts of the major announcement that occurred last Saturday.

The announcement of that project was amazing in my view. It took nearly two decades of word in order to do what we did. But the announcement of the Giza Pyramid results does not tell us what we should do in the future to make this planet a better place. That is, it is nice as a diagnostic, but not much as a prescriptive. Thus, the second part of the announcement was to focus on what happens next. Given the ability to show remote viewing on video in a theatrically interesting manner using stellar viewers, the issue of whether or not remote viewing actually exists can be settled for many, and we can start talking about how to integrate this into our daily lives. So the next part was to be a detailed outline of a campaign to start this. It involved explanations of public petitions, large number appeals to university administrators to encourage classes dealing with these forbidden topics, and even staged events that would be covered by the local news, such as motorcycle rallies and even skywriting over urban areas by participating pilots.

The third part of the major announcement was to explain the matter of symbolism. People need symbols to project a unified message, and we have been developing such a symbol, and we wanted to explain it. The second and third parts of the major announcement will come in their own time. But for now, too many people seem to be thinking that we are planning to announce some current day revelation that they find in the news. We need to let that settle before going on to the second and third parts of our plan. Things are too important for our message to be lost. We will find a way soon to move to the next phase of this plan.

Spiro

Somehow I dislike him even more now.

It's just like him, to ignore decades of live double-blind viewing that was successful but decide that because he tasked a couple people and they did the session on camera (so what?) that it's the most important in the world, like, ever. He's so messianic borderline. Having a PhD apparently helps him get away with it. I wish he'd develop a fascination for someone else's hobby and infest that field instead.

Spiro
and even staged events that would be covered by the local news, such as motorcycle rallies and even skywriting over urban areas by participating pilots.

What planet is this guy on? Motorcycle rallies and skywriting?

Basically, his goal with this was to make himself famous (and rich) and get on legitimate talk shows. Too bad he failed so miserably.

Answer

Spiro
and even staged events that would be covered by the local news, such as motorcycle rallies and even skywriting over urban areas by participating pilots.

What planet is this guy on? Motorcycle rallies and skywriting?

Basically, his goal with this was to make himself famous (and rich) and get on legitimate talk shows. Too bad he failed so miserably.

Well judging by his cult-like followers on Facebook he should fare well.

Some of their comments seriously wig me out...

On the topic of the viewing, and the question of the earphone Daz was wearing when viewing, I asked him about it and he said this:

i have mentioned this online before. Always whenever I rv I listen to classical music throughout both the 30 minute pre-session meditation/cool down and then the rv session itself. music has never hindered me in getting data - although i do stick to music without lyrics if possible. I only had one earphone is because courtney wanted me to try and also talk to the camera as i wrote - so i needed one out to hear my voice. Also be aware this is the first time i had attempted to rv this way and had never done anything other than rv on paper in proper crv format before this attempt.

there was no cameraman - my session was filmed by me using my canon 5d digital slr on a tripod in my dining room. me alone - no one else around, no computers, phones or devices connected to the internet - nothing.

I have always been honest and never compromise nor cheat when it comes to rv - there was no secret communications between viewers and tasker. My family who were in the house at the time can confirm how it was all done - they though it was quite funny seeing me self film whilst scribbling on a white board in our dining room.

So alone in the room (family in the house), listening to some kind of music. That's pretty common, many viewers actually listen to binaural audio stuff as a prep or during session. Anyway, fwiw.

RedCairo
Somehow I dislike him even more now.

It's just like him, to ignore decades of live double-blind viewing that was successful but decide that because he tasked a couple people and they did the session on camera (so what?) that it's the most important in the world, like, ever. He's so messianic borderline. Having a PhD apparently helps him get away with it. I wish he'd develop a fascination for someone else's hobby and infest that field instead.

You know someone should do one of our own. Have a photo of a place like your living room posted on a site so it is dated, have all the participants see if they can visualize the target. I think it would be interesting to see if anyone was correct in any part of it.

There's a variety of places online that will task you, and even let you enter data if you like, and then give you feedback. So that would be viewing solo-blind. The kind of targets you choose should vary with one's goals though. The average room has enough stuff in it that nearly any data could be perceived as potentially accurate. (And knowing it was a room would be nearly overwhelming frontloading.) For learning theory reasons, choosing a target set with one very specific focus is more ideal, as it will make more clear what data is related to the target vs. is not. Just google for rv or psi targets online. Happy viewing. :-)

reply to post by Menedes567

So, why hasn't Courtney Brown presented us with any credible physical evidence of his claims?

Do you really require any?

Earlier in the thread or in another you mentioned Courtney brown and you seemed to think there was going to be some announcement, Whats changed your mind and why are you asking for evidence now?

allthings2allmen
Can stupidity be weaponized?

the weapon is called 'human'


Some are WMDs

Out of curiosity just checked in to see if anything changed.

Why does the line "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" come to mind for this thread?