H O M E
Public Experiments
Great Giza Pyramid
Atlantis
Multiple Universes
Climate Change:
2008-2013
Exploding Planet
Base on Mars
"Mysteries" Series
Selected Interviews
Video Library
Mission
Resources
HRVG
CRV Instruction
CRV History and Resources
SRV
IRVA
Eight Martinis (Magazine)
Farsight Press
RSS feed
Corporate Structure
FARSIGHT'S STORE
CONTACT US
Donate to The Farsight Interview
Subscribe to the Farsight Newsletter
Bookmark and Share

Multiple Universes RV Project Session Download Page

Instructions: These sessions were done in April 2009, and they describe a space shuttle landing event that occurred in May 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: Lyn Buchanan

Experimental Design Architect and Analyst: Courtney Brown

Date target was assigned: 6 June 2009

Nature of the target: An event that occurs during May 2009

Number of sessions conducted in April and posted as of 1 May 2009: 8

This Experiment's Target (Click)

Viewer Name
Sessions done in April describing a May event
 
CRV Sessions: Encrypted Decrypted Comments
Daz Smith Download Download This is an excellent session. The viewer accurately perceives energetic movement over a linear surface, which is the space shuttle over the landing strip. This begins to come through clearly on sketch on page 6 of session (viewer's page numbers). On page 8, the viewer sketches a winged structure flying over other structures, which is accurate for this target. Subsequent sketches focus on the linear movement in the target. C3:UEP
Rising Sun Touch Download Download This is a very short session. But the viewer does perceive the downward flow of movement energy, which is appropriate for the target. The viewer also perceives that the target area is open, and in a somewhat natural setting which is appropriate for Edwards Air Force Base. Also, the viewer correctly perceives that the target is silver/gray and contained/boxed in. C1
Romferd Download Download This viewer was ill when conducting the session. Nonetheless, the viewer does perceive that there are spectators watching the event. C1
Apollo 1969 Download Download This viewer correctly perceives that the target event is "at or above structures" with clear skies (p. 14, pdf numbering). The viewer also correctly perceives rolling hills and mountains in the background. The viewer describes the primary target structure and runway as a metallic platform located above other structures and a roadway below the platform. C2
HRVG Sessions:
Viewer 212 Download Download This viewer correctly perceives subjects watching an event on a screen that involves downward motion (page 6, pdf numbering). This is repeated on pages 8&10. Page 13 contains an excellent sketch of the runway. Page 19 sketches people taking pictures of the event with their cell phone cameras, which is appropriate for this target. C2
Debra Download Download This session develops interpretations that differ from actual target characteristics. C0
Maria Download Download This is an exceptionally good session. The viewer correctly describes an aircraft descending in an area with surrounding structures and distant mountains. C3:UEP
Anne Download Download A solid session. The viewer initially focuses on the subjects inside the moving shuttle, and correctly perceives an "Air Force" quality to the target (page 8, pdf numbering). There is a good sketch of the runway with nearby structures on page 11, plus fast downward motion on pages 13&15 (pdf numbering). Page 14 (pdf numbering) contains an excellent sketch of the shuttle from behind. C2

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

This is another solid demonstration of how remote viewing can be used to predict future events under experimental conditions in which the tasking occurs after the target event. There is only one "off" session. Web site visitors should be sure to examine Maria's session, since that session clearly captures the idea of a landing aircraft in a manner that should be obvious even to people unfamiliar with remote-viewing data. It is always good to remember that remote viewers often perceive different aspects of a target, and not all viewers will perceive the same things. Thus, some viewers may focus on the aircraft itself, while others will notice the surrounding area, movement at the target site, the landing strip, the spectators watching the event from various locations, or perhaps the subjects inside the aircraft. This is why multiple viewers are asked to view a target. From the total collection of data, a good description of the overall target event is more likely.