Courtney Browns New Book On Remote Viewing

PJ

Administrator
Staff member
Don't miss ARV-man Greg K. tomorrow night in the TKR chat, 9pm central. Joe_S and Gene and I talked with him briefly last week for awhile, when he visited the site to check it out, and it was really very interesting... in many ways.

PJ
 

Don_Williams

New Member
Eve,
That year of the presidential election, I actually RV'ed it several different ways, none of them using ARV. I tried to perceive the mood and activities at Bush's campaign headquarters late on the night of the election too. It was my wife who came up with these ideas because I didn't want to use ARV.

And I didn't want to use ARV for the very reasons you give - it seems less reliable to me. I had a LOT of trouble when I first tried ARV. I bet I did 30-40 targets before I started getting a decent hit rate - and, like you said, that rate is only about 60% at best. I know at first we screwed up the protocol a lot, with me seeing the wrong target, me not getting the feedback at exactly the right pre-planned time, etc. But that doesn't explain all our failures and it doesn't explain why the hit rate is consistently so low.

The rational mind says that when doing a binary problem, you're starting off with a 50% chance anyway, so the results should far exceed that of ordinary remote viewing. But the results fail to turn out like our rational minds expect. But, as I mentioned before, I think there are a lot of possible reasons for that.

Even though from the remote viewer's point of view, it's still a free-response situation with the RVer free to describe anything; the basic problem still boils down to a forced-choice scenario - especially for the judge or analyst. I wonder if THAT is the source of much of the problem. The judge/analyst is prevented from using his or her psi to its full potential because s/he is put into a forced-choice position with only the two (or more) limted set of possibilities to choose from. In a standard RVing, the judge/analyst has more free-response, especially in a application.

Who ever can solve this problem should be able to get filthy rich in short order.
Don
 

Abstract_1dea

New Member
I got my copy in yesterday.

SOME of us mere mortals are required to pay for that sort of thing. ;)

So far, the tone is pretty dry compared the other RV books I have read.  However, it was not written to titillate the masses.  It was written for academia to ponder.  Myself, I wouldn't trust them any more than the media but we'll see what happens.  If it really gets attention for the target audience, it may well be a good reference.  

In the introduction and preface Dr. Brown tackles the comet/Art Bell issue from his point of view.  Pretty much what I have read as well along with cautions about dealing with the media.  Yes, there are regrets about trust given not deserved.  One interesting note is about Farsight's silence since the whole episode died down (no pun intended.)  C Brown says they have had more time to concentrate on more research.  I'll leave that one there.

Chapter one is about RV in general.  He also mentions that xRV is good no matter what form it takes.  Whatever works for you as long as it follows the protocols is still RV.  Nothing new so far.

-Starting chapter two tonight.

I would like to see Dr. Brown in this forum at some time discussing his side of things.  I suppose after all these years of receiving this sort of response and having to start out defending his past actions, I don't blame him for declining.

If this book is a break out book, he'll have to be more public.  That means more nasty confrontations.  
 
W

wizopeva

Guest
Don, your wife is obviously savvy in the ways of rv! ;D I have heard of the 'feelings of one of the sides' tasking, but had not thought of the 'place of abode' tasking. The way I tried was 'my feelings about the winner,' since I was fairly sure I could guess those either way. That wouldn't work for situations in which I didn't care though, but I liked it because I felt that at least should know myself and feelings well enough to be able to decipher them. We had a thread about tasking a while ago but I think you weren't around then. It would be nice to have a thread about it again if you had some input this time. I can usually think of one or two ways to approach a tasking problem, but I often suspect I am not thinking of the best or only ways to do it many times. Good tasking can take a lot of ingenuity.

As for the ARV problem, yeah I do think there is probably more than one issue with it. But seems like even really really good viewers can't get high accuracy, just as you experienced. I was surprised myself. I expected it to work better, but instead found myself very frustrated, just like most others it seems. It was interesting that Greg K seemed to think that 'bundling' multiple session outcomes to get a more composite picture, as if each session was sort of a 'vote' one way or another and multiple votes would be tabulated, was able to yield a 70% accuracy on actual stock selections vs a mere 55% accuracy on individual ARV sessions. I guess that in itself is not surprising, but what was surprising is when he said that he felt such bundling ONLY worked when using the same person's sessions for all of the bundle. I can' t think of any obvious (or even less obvious) reason that might be so without getting way out on a limb and hypothesizing multiple Seth realities or some such! Even Greg said he had no idea what that seemed to happen.

Abstract, please note that Courtney's group is called FarSIGHT inst. FarVIEW is a totally unrelated rv mailing list that on the brilliance of hindsight was probably named too closely sounding to that of Courtney's company, considering how many people seem to regularly confuse the two...
-E
 
W

wizopeva

Guest
LOL yeah Joe, the only Farscape I know of was that long running scifi channel tv show.
-E
 

Abstract_1dea

New Member
The first season was pretty good. And the wind-up show was really good. It had quite a few really good sound clips.

Every time I hear about Farsight or Farview, I can't help but think of Farpoint station (Star Trek II) or Farscape. Both are pretty much out there.
 

Joe_Black

Member
I found after the first session using ARV the outcome no matter how clear the session seemed to be random. But I suppose its ok if you just want that one of answer on a subject every few months.
 

Rocheleh

New Member
Scooter said he does task Joe with scientific questions (posed by their clients) so it'd definitely be taskable. As for the particulars... well right now I have to get down to VIEWING because the mission will close in an hour.

;D
 
X

xerophyte

Guest
Actually, I don't think Pru did much frontloading after she split from COurtney. Pru some time ago switched to having her viewers do the majority of sessions before the tasking was even decided so that virtually eliminates any chance of frontloading anyway, especially when it's months in advance. The great advantage of that is you are always ready with sessions whenever you need them. You never have to wait for viewers to get something done. So as much as it eliminates frontloading, it's also just super convenient.

I was reading this thread last w/e and noticed that when comparing the retro causality with published remote viewing sessions it seems they don't appear to become diluted or less accurate over time and Don indicates the percipient is more or less the controller of his own intent, rather than someone else.

Here are some thoughts related to the thread if anyone is interested..

When RV'ing a future time it seems likely you are "touching" in some way that future perception and this provides the basis to live your life towards that perception or away from it depending on your own choice and whether you want the RV session to be successful or not. The ability to make the choice is accommodated by the theoretical existence of free will.

If each of us has a past and a present, the present indicates the sum total of what has happened to us in the past, however we do not have an existing future only potential futures depending on the choices made.

One of the strange things about the lack of time and space within RV is that you cannot look back and say this or that happened in history because from the perspective of the historical point of time and space that you are referring to - the future has not yet occurred. Meaning that for me or you, for example, at precisely 12o/c on the 15th October 2004 - the future has not occurred yet.

Let's say that you want to change something that occurs at 5 minutes past 12o/c on that date, and you are able to do so by a form of retro-causality then you can do this but it won't effect your own history it will only effect the immediate future of you at that earlier date and time.

It's because of this simple-in-essence concept that it is only possible to prove retro causality by carefully databasing statistics. You need a start and an end. When you start publishing RV sessions that could feasibly by used for retro tasking and when this no longer happened.

The background to this comes from three main sources. A concept postulated in Mind Race, Radins talk at the Vegas RV conference and Lyn's mention of the changing the past experiment as outlined in his book Seventh Sense.

For anyone RV'ing the future, it impacts on each current session you are doing, even though it is your own intent and tasking. It appears that you can RV only your own future, but then having done so - are able to change it, at which point it no longer is a part of your future.

The main problem I have with retro-tasking, is that I've seen no mention of what the "glue-factor" may be in making one particular tasking have preference over another, surely retro-tasking become progressively more difficult the farther out is attempted and lastly, surely the ability to do retro-tasking in the first place would be confined to a very few individuals who have the ability to do it, such as Pru.

I had a skim through the Greg K transcript last night and noticed there didn't seem to be mention of the reason for doing multiple RV sessions for the same ARV prediction which is to accumulate sessions that are scored with a 4 that have a historical success rate of around 75%.

Regards, Steve.
 
W

wizopeva

Guest
It should be doable, but especially if there is more than one problem or issue with it, it could be a big project. You might have to choose a specific incidence of displacement and tackle that one starting with the biggest problem. You could also come at it from a different angle and task best solution to biggest problem. Also, there is a potential that one or some of the problems are not easy to understand given our current knowledge base. It could be like trying to view how an alien spacecraft engine functioned when you don't even understand Earth's knowledge of physics!
-E



Scooter said he does task Joe with scientific questions (posed by their clients) so it'd definitely be taskable. As for the particulars... well right now I have to get down to VIEWING because the mission will close in an hour.

;D
 

andy2001

New Member
According to Aaron Doanahue the Hal Bob fiasco happened because someone sent Courtney Brown a doctored photo which superimposed a photo of a real UFO onto a photo of Hal Bob. Browns team then remote viewed the comet and the UFO, concluded they where both real.
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
According to Aaron Doanahue the Hal Bob fiasco happened because someone sent Courtney Brown a doctored photo which superimposed a photo of a real UFO onto a photo of Hal Bob. Browns team then remote viewed the comet and the UFO, concluded they where both real.

Hi Andy,

I think this was pru's take on it too as she
still felt there was a real object behind the comet
after revisiting hale bob and doing further sessions
months after the tragedy. So Aarons view dosent
really surprise me that much.

Makes you wonder though WHY would anyone want to
deliberately go through all that manipulation
using state of the art photo editing equipment
just to discredit viewers if indeed that was the
purpose of it all.

Thanks for the tip on Aarons last show lol Quite alot
of old/new RV info especially aarons
take on TWA800 and the work courtneys team did
on that target. I dont remember courtney going on
Art Bell and revealing data they got from Flight TWA 800
but if anyone has the transcripts please email them to
me or post a link.

Also, Aaron seems to be backing Pru's theory that
sessions can be manipulated and compromised
either deliberately or through a viewers own inexpereince.

Although i disagree with his views that a team of viewers
cannot produce corroborative data from a pool of sessions
on the same target. Trust me, It can be done ;-)

Peace,
Tunde
 
W

wizopeva

Guest
Oh interesting! It had not occured to me that all parts of the photo could easily have been real, just cut and pasted. I remember I did an HRVG target that was a shark appearing to bite at a helicopter. Later it was discovered the photo was an amalgum of two separate photos that had been cut and pasted together, something that is much easier to do these days. On retrospect, I did get some indications in the session of there being 'huge distance' between one aspect of the photo and another. But it would never have been clear enough for me until after I already found out the truth. Seems to me it would be relatively easy to fool a viewing team in many instances with that cut and paste method. Thanx for mentioning that. It seems like such an obvious possibility now that you have already brought it up!
-E
 

Tunde

"Keep Moving Forward"
Oh interesting!  It had not occured to me that all parts of the photo could easily have been real, just cut and pasted.  
-E  

Yeah,
But what worries me is whoever doctored and sent that photo
KNEW exactly what they were doing and obviously had
a good grasp of RV and some of the stuff we are only just
begining to explore such as entrainment/hijacking/masking etc.

It was interesting to hear that Aaron (a student of Dames)
admited to using some form of entrainment/masking AGAINST
joni (psitech) during their ill fated hunt for elizabeth smart.

He says he planted the idea of Elizabeth being in a
sacred indian burial ground-He didnt specify any particular
site just that she would be found in such a location.
He then warned Dames not to go public with Joni's smart
data which Ed eventualy agreed to rather reluctantly.

What followed was one of the biggest disasters in RVing history with psitech demanding access to sacred indian
burial sites to locate the body of Smart.

Smart was later found well and alive.

Now if this is all true and assuming aaron learnt how
to do all this from Ed Dames, why is this not being
taught in other RV methods especially CRV ?

Peace,
Tunde
 
Top