Time cross project - remote vieiwng the future - today.


Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
Hi guys, so we have started to upload and publish this FARSIGHT project on the net month by month as we progress.

We are endeavouring to try to remote view a month in advance the top news event for the following month AND to record this LIVE on video and publish th emterial all in advance of the events.

The news event will be chosen by being the top story and has the most links/days as news on four major news sites.
The top news events/potential targets - http://farsight.org/demo/Time_Cross_Project/Time_Cross_June_2016_Events.html

We are several months in already, the first month was APRIL - this has not been published yet, due to some sensitivity around the subject AND because we had a small issue with the final/actual target being chosen. But we will publish this ASAP, but its flawed. But i think you'll agree that we nailed the target of the most newsworthy event in MAY 2016.

The sessions done in MAY 2016 predicting JUNE'S top news events have been published here:

The RV and videos were all done in MAY and uploaded to youtube in MAY 2016. The actual News events happened throughout JUNE, and the final target was selected in JULY after analysis of the JUNE figures.

All the project details are on the pages indicated.



New Member
This is really impressive stuff. Thanks for doing this.

Does CRV have a location tool, anything similar to Dick's directional ideograms?


Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
Some people within CRV and its schools claim to have developed such tools.
Ed Dames' TRV has some type of triangulation method which may be similar. In original CRV variation developed within the unit, main location finding method was dowsing, at least that is my understanding.


Staff member
Howdy Daz,

I think I see your graphics influence there, nice! :)

My favorite protocol is precog, since it normally forces clarity and removes all argument.

(But that is generally in a situation where nothing arbitrary is involved.)

I went to the site and read the pages about it, thanks for the link!

It's a good project and I'm glad it's being done and being shared. Thanks for being part of it.

I have thoughts about it, I'm curious to hear others' considerations on the same topic.

I take my time here to review it and to comment as my form of giving it recognition and the respect to deserve conversation about it.


This post is 'in general', not just to you (so if I ever say something educational it's not that I think you of all people don't know it, but that many readers don't). And I realize you are a viewer not the project designer.

As a note -- any project can be done in any way. This one is done THAT way. It could be done differently but so what? If there is some big drive to 'do that differently' someone (me or anyone) should do their own project and do it that way instead. It is what it is and it's someone else's project. So if I have a question, critique or suggestion, I'm not bashing it, I'm merely observing and offering comment.

I am actually trying to take it seriously and be helpful.

Usually when I do that in the past, a few others comment also, and just as "actual conversation between different people" starts happening, someone runs to other public groups wailing about how PJ is so mean and it's all TKR's fault because someone, somewhere here, had an opinion (god forbid). As if that isn't the whole point of why we are here for discussion to begin with, and even why the project exists, to allow all viewers -- even those who disagree -- to actually communicate.

Merely recognizing something, rather than ignoring it, is its own form of internet compliment. Even when the comments are critical. As you know, forums, like blogs, want participation, as long as it's not trolling/flaming. Most conversation happens between people who actually are in debate, if they can do it civilly. And usually any topic has positive stuff too (which gets ignored by those upset over critique, often).

I don't want this to go there. It is bringing down the whole field that for years some act like hypersensitive college kids who 'trigger' on absolutely everything in perma-victimization. Like if you say 'this protocol point' has some issue, they COULD just explain it calmly and hey look, more of the field got to know them a little, their project got more recognition, they had a better chance to explain their stuff. Or maybe they say they disagree. Or maybe they say you know, you might be right, but it's my project and I want to do it this way so there. It's all fine. We're all interested. It needs to be recognized that this is a tiny niche field, that people willing to take the time to either be part of RV performance or be audience for that performance are needed, and that supporting real efforts is important and helps it all continue.

Ignoring stuff is what is insulting. Sometimes there are reasons one has to and they suck because viewer effort deserves recognition.

I've been very medically taxed for particularly the last five years or so, so I've rarely had energy to engage much during that time (and felt miserable while doing so). While it'll be another year before I'm fully well, I'm already feeling better than I have in years in terms of available energy.

As always, I support all legit RV and its people and I want to do whatever my schedule and lifestyle and choices of the moment allow me to do. Right now I have some time to sit at my computer (back hurts. Open heart surgery sucks! Though I guess actually getting to live is pretty cool, so maybe I shouldn't complain. Nothing like getting out of hospice to cheer one up).

So I'm doing this because I can, well and because you know the closer Dr. Brown comes to doing something in what I consider a clean protocol the happier I get.


So this changes the scope of tasking dramatically that there are 30 days involved, and that multiple different parts of an overall event may be included as one. For example various events within a series of fires in a range of location. Now we are actually tasking something more akin to the 'genre, nature and archetype' of "What seems most important to the US/UK about September?"

Less like describe something specific (though it CAN be, depending on the target selection outcome) than describe in general what we are going to think mattered most.

We being the population indoctrinated by the people who run the news. :)

There is a danger in precog protocol that if one knows the data, and the target selection has not already been defined, then the target chosen may be influenced by the data. Obviously the retro-target-selection-criteria provided are designed to avoid this danger by making the choice based on elements that are distinct and measurable and made in advance -- not viewer data.

So most the question in the protocol would focus on that, because it is the element with the most "arbitrary" potential.

Do the filters on retro-target-selection create limits on "probable genres?" For example:

* terrorist stuff: whether its just a guy or a group, specific (assassination) or general (bombs/mass shootings)
* major demonstrations, riots, public group-chaos (e.g. holiday events that have major issues like the women complaints after a major NYE gathering outdoors in Europe recently), basically some form of mass-people-in-the-streets or whatever
* political persons/events/agreements (those tend to 'group' though news may focus on one or another)
* major weather events to include manmade (e.g. fires can be man-started but I consider them weather since they don't go nuts without that supporting environment)

I'm sure there are more, that's just off the top of my head, but when you have filters that require something be of international interest and front page news in four of the biggest UK/USA papers, the likely targets aren't a real big range. (We'll give another category for If-Aliens-Land :) heh.)

It seems like it would be easy to paint oneself into a corner with this, where despite the future element, it's not that the viewer blinding is lost but that an expectation-set may shift some of the 'nature' of viewing into something closer to 'subtle' forced choice -- not required FC but an underlying AOL. In short becoming a lot like the viewer having bias about the tasker.

(A hilarious result sometimes, that can still have ok data but result in some different interpretations for sure. I once described a world cup game as a terrorist event because Tunde tasked it and at the time he was kind of on a role with future terrorism tasks, so I had an expectation bias. I even obsessed on how the focus was this sphere with this buckeyball shape in it, and people with chalk on their face screaming, LOL. I think. Gods that was eons ago and I don't remember it clearly or have it anymore I don't think, to reference.)

I mean yes, super NOVEL big events will be wonderful targets for this project. (I would wish for some just to make better targets but those are usually bad things so I won't wish!) Alas the 'novelty' of a terrorist bomb here versus over there; or that it was one guy instead of a political group doing the terrorizing; that's not much novelty. For six months it might be. As time goes on maybe it won't seem like it though.

In the retro-target criteria, it says:

2. The event should involve something unexpected or unscheduled.

Shooting events and bomb events are unscheduled (by the public anyway), that's true. But the only thing unexpected about them is their 'precise detail and timing.'

Weather events are unexpected, but not particularly unscheduled; how many years in the last five have not had major events in their matching season?

It's fair to say that for the likely target of our next couple of years of future, by month, we can expect a continuation of the same "genres of events" our world has had in the news the last few years.

{Possibly with a bit more emphasis on USA gun-related events coming up, since TPTB are pushing attention to that as part of the wave to knock out the 2nd Amendment here locally, so I expect big media increase -- have already seen that begin.}

I want to be clear: I am not dismissing or invalidating the viewing AT ALL. This isn't about that! For the viewers, there's a target, you view it. Period. That's the easy part! Er, so to speak. :)

What I'm saying is that the target selection inherently creates limits in the likely targets which, short of some knock your socks off novelty in the world, may eventually later (if not sooner) lead to a rather obvious expectation-set in both viewers and those onlookers following the project, and then the combination of highly similar events creates a target-nature-archetype rather than a single target in some cases.

It may end up seeming like one is just choosing from a dozen or less categories and then pretty much any data that is about the genre will be accurate. (And, if not to the eventual target selected, then clearly to 'a major event in the month that was one of the target contenders.') Ideally we would avoid this because we know the viewers are good enough to be specific about specific targets, so any element of protocol that gradually seems to undermine the blinding or 'perceived by onlookers' blinding of the viewers is not a good thing, because it's just not fair to the viewers.


There are some areas I see "arbitrary" elements that affect either the target selected or the detail/nature of it.

Any element of arbitrary where target selection is involved is a problem for protocol. Partly due to the potential influence since the data sessions are already in/known.

I'm trying to think about what might improve how tight the protocol is. Since poking at its soft spots ought to at least come with suggestions.

From the protocol spec on TFI:

8. If a significant event occurs near the end of the month, then the counting of news cycles and cumulative links can extend into the next month until the event fades from the headline pages so as to fully evaluate the importance of the event. Rarely does a news story remain on the main page of a news outlet for more than a week.

Making it a hard spec would give a pre-set limiter, such as 15 days after the event for the count, rather than calendar month. Calendar actually does create an imbalance in choice since major event last half of month would have fewer days for counting than early in the month -- but in this case it would be important of course that the very 'first' major headline about the event-as-manifested (not just that it's likely/leaked) would have to set ground zero for 'where' that target belongs date-wise.

It would sure be ideal if the person deciding that hadn't seen the data sessions but what can be done I guess.

Note that the spec on TFI lacks hard-set elements: what is "near" the end of the month? Who decides and can it ever change? And "until the event fades from the headline pages?" That's also arbitrary -- and could extend the target selection process quite a bit into the future after the timeframe originally given.

The best way to evaluate specs sometimes are: "how does this work in a spreadsheet? Can we automate this?" Things like "soon" and "eventually" and "sometimes" don't fit in spreadsheets at all. :)

Human count is one thing -- Jane goes to CNN Thursday and makes a list, for example. But everywhere "human judgment" happens -- "we do or don't include this because" -- is a point of arbitrary. If this happens utterly blind to the data it might be ok, but it's not in this case, so ideally it would not be arbitrary.

From the protocol spec on TFI:

9. If two or more events of a similar nature and/or cause occur on different dates of the month, then the target would be the combination of the two events. {see TFI's site for the list of examples.}

This kind of tasking if chosen is vastly better done within an ordinary protocol, because then it is a single intent for a reason, e.g., a place or person in a given larger timeframe, or the nature of an overall event or effort.

That is not the same as 'sometimes' there is no specific target but rather the wider-scope tasking of multiple targets merged into one because they share a source/nature/time/location/etc. (these can end up very different, especially if we use TFI's examples, some of which aren't even different elements of the same larger event, but completely separate things which merely share a nature with another event).

This is about the actual definition of the 'specific target' for viewers. Multi-points greatly expands the possible data inherent in the target plus renders the focus of the actual target more "archetypal" than specific -- I've seen a lot of this over the years and viewers often get more of "what is the same about these targets" when they are blended as one as if it simply becomes more important data because there's more of it when combined. And there is 'arbitrary' here because after the fact, and after knowing data, someone is then making a decision about what is going to be joined or not.

Making it a hard spec might not be possible but hard-ER might be: A vastly shorter timeframe for the 'event in focus', like 3 days, ideally randomly selected (like pseudo random with a computer is fine) the last day of the month before the month (since by then, data is already posted). This would hugely increase the "specificity" of the tasking for the viewers, would it not? No target that itself is a combination of multiple aspects of a larger thing, or at least far fewer and/or more rarely, just due to the smaller limit.

Note: if that timeframe does not include anything that fits all the criteria (like the physical element), it could be noted as such and run again until the selected timeframe does. (That is ok because for the viewer all that matters is the eventual target defined and for the protocol all that matters is that the spec is defined in advance and not subject to later decision.)

From the protocol spec on TFI:

3. The event must be a leading headline news story that is featured on prominent web sites for four major news outlets...
5. The target must be of significant public interest.

Seems fair to assume it's not a headline news if it's not of public interest, and that it's significant if it's headline news for the largest news sources in the US/UK, doesn't it? In other words, is there any 'human decision' (arbitrary) involved here where someone says yes or no to this being a potential target because they don't think it is of "significant public interest?"

I can't tell if this listed point of protocol is another element that can be arbitrary, OR if it's hard set by mere inclusion, and is merely being mentioned to point it out to onlookers.

6. The target must be of international interest, as evidenced by being covered as a headline event on both the U.S. and International editions of CNN.

So the target can ONLY become a target because those two papers have it. The four sources are merely for 'counting' popularity. Only two sources (merged as one here) define the target possibilities, it seems. Just to be clear. Not a bad thing, just something worth noting. Also, the spec in #3 says that the story will be on those four major news outlets -- must it be on all four, or only on those two? I can see 'disqualifying' something because it is NOT on CNN, but do we disqualify a CNN story if it is not on both the other sources?

(Yes I do realize that the sources chosen are basically all the same TPTB and this is all just going to be creative arrangement of the same set of stories someone wants us to focus on anyway. So it's unlikely there will be any headline story that isn't in all four of those papers. Still, I'm ignoring my cynicism about the news here and just looking at the clarity of the target selection process.)

Well I'm out of time so I must end abruptly here. But that's what I see protocol-wise.

In terms of the project at large, that's fun, very cool, hope you guys have a blast with it. Please do post announcement links here when each new project goes up!



New Member
I have an issue with the "public interest" points, since what comes out of mainstream (and most) media is decided according to political and/or commercial interests. Public interest has absolutely nothing to do with what comes out in the news, specially coming from a heavyweight as CNN. I think this makes the tasking a bit messy.

In any case I'm very interested at least someone is making these kinds of large scale RV projects. Keep it up.


New Member
Yikes... Just saw the August predictions... Scary stuff... :'(

This is a very good project -- there might be some ways to make it better, but all in all very impressive.

Specific points to mention...
  • Better location/timing information would be appreciated -- please spend more time trying to coax out that information
  • Watching the video was surprisingly informative, seeing how real Remote Viewing is performed -- much different than just reading about it
  • The whole "are you seeing the future, or dreaming it into being" question
  • Wouldn't trust myself to know that much about a target up front -- would want to include it in a pool of 50 blind targets -- maybe you guys are better (though I do see "CRV Blind" in the margins)
  • Were the PDF's done prior to the whiteboard?
  • What are the crosshairs that Dick Allgire draws -- do they just aid in acquiring the target?
As usual, PJ, you cover many many angles of the project and shed good light on it...thank you...

I looked at the three sessions...I watched most of the video but not every minute...

Courtney Brown says in the video that the sessions are "remarkably similar". If so, since he is project director, I wonder why he doesn't publish an analysis of what the sessions are actually predicting? That way he (and the project) would be on record as predicting an actual event, more specific than what he is putting out there to the public.

E.g. is it something from the sky, a meteor, an air strike of some sort, something nuclear (Dick Allgire's sessions indicate that it is something from the sky coming down) OR perhaps a massive earthquake (Daz's AOL's)? These are obviously quite different events. If the sessions - all three of them, CB says - are so "remarkably similar", why not tell us more specifically what kind of event his expert analysis indicates it is?

Further, with something so dire, wouldn't it have been good to do follow up sessions to try to locate the event?

Doing so is not unprecedented for Courtney Brown: I first heard of Courtney Brown's work in 1996. He and his team were predicting a nuclear explosion was coming and were posting about this. Where would it take place? New York City. My son happened to be attending college in NYC at the time. Naturally I considered whether I should ask my son to get the heck out of there. I didn't know much about RV, but what I knew from looking at the web site led me to not raise the issue with my son. I didn't feel they had established their bona fides. Fortunately, Courtney Brown's team (which included my future teacher Pru) was wrong.

Well, it's 20 years later, two top-notch viewers are involved; perhaps their sessions are on target; locating the event would be useful in narrowing down the prediction and if it came true, would provide a strong argument that this work could be useful in the future in saving lives, etc. As it is now, with so many terrorist events happening in recent months, one could argue, and people do, that the correspondence between sessions and a specific terrorist event is not proven. The most convincing one, to me, although i have not studied the entire project closely, was Dick Allgire's session and esp. the drawing on Nice (although there is a time glitch there I gather regarding the month).



Staff member
Well if someone publishes the detail protocol and the actual secured data, I am pretty happy with it.

I will leave it to anybody and their brother to evaluate the session data. Anybody can, if it's provided.

I think there is always enough possible danger in the project manager and viewer relationships influencing the sessions to agree with {each other | the PM | some element in the target | whatever} already {which means if you don't trust that PM to want 'truth' more than anything else, it's over}, and adding in the tasker also being an evaluator likely adds to this. Plus the session publicly stated as "meaning XYZ" might affect the viewer psychologically, so that just adds another layer of complexity.

I also think it's educational to look at how data can be interpreted in so many ways -- and how reality has a surprisingly limited set of major forms and dynamics, which tends to mean that the same even fairly specific data can often be interpreted as five very different things, some on very different 'scales', and have that data be surprisingly accurate for all of them. This isn't news to anybody who's done RV judging of course but for new folks it is -- and it's a good reminder of the caution it's fair to take before deciding a session (or ten) mean any given thing before announcing it to the public, especially if it's something negative or frightening.



New Member
If the August event is to be celestial in nature, it could have something to do with the Perseids meteor shower -- Earth plowing through comet dust. Expected to be a denser cloud of debris this year -- maybe there's a bigger than normal chunk. If that is true, August 11 - 13 would be the most likely dates.

Curious as to the password for the April sessions zip file -- wonder how long it'd take to brute force... ;)


New Member
dunlar said:
What are the crosshairs that Dick Allgire draws -- do they just aid in acquiring the target?
It's called NIMO. Based on neuro linguistic programming, stands for Neuro Interrogation Mask Overlay. Based on the idea that during visual recall you look up-left, audio recall your eyes dart left, emotions recall is down-left, and so on. So you probe each direction for the corresponding recall associated with that direction. It's S2 in HRVG, so it's similar to S2 in other methodologies where you are perceiving sensory data. Dick has a couple of IRVA talks where he goes into details of HRVG.

There's also some info on the HRVG site:



New Member
Daz I need to ask you (or anyone else who might be able to answer). I've seen your latest session regarding EgyptAir Flight 804 and there's something that absolutely amazes me. How do you manage to keep objective and not be swept away by AOL when you get such precise and explicit data?

How do you "keep your cool" when the data is so obvious from the get go?


Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
its a case of practice, practice, practice and really getting to a point of not needing nor caring if you hit the target. Its a little like doing it but detached from the outcome good or bad - once you detach from caring so much about getting a hit, the data flows easier.

It becoem either a hit or a complete miss- its all live on camera so you might as well just get on and record it - theres no way to fudge or hide what you get. Secondly, and I guess this comes over a long time, is to trust in yourself and what you get/feel. Just write or draw it, dont question, just let in flow, expell or create.


New Member
Daz, you seem to not do strict CRV, like S1 IAB. Does some of that go away after a lot of practice (like losing your training wheels)? Or did you find some things just didn't work for you?


Remote viewer, author, artist and photographer.
Staff member
If you are referring tot he farsight projects then you have to look at all the information proper. The paper (warm-up) rv sessions are done first, these are always proper CRV. at a point courtney says, now goto whiteboard. At this stage I change the rv to summarise it and of late to limit myself to under 15 mins on screen time. This means I bastardise or adapt crv for the time limit adn whiteboard. A full six stage accurate CRV process every time would be very boring and long - not good for video.