Subscribe to Our
FREE NEWSLETTER
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

The Mysteries Project #2: The Exploding Planet Hypothesis | The Remote-Viewing Sessions

Below are the remote-viewing sessions for Mysteries Project #2 testing Tom Van Flandern's "exploding planet hypothesis" explaining the creation of the asteroid belt. "Clarity scores" evaluate the sessions with respect to the necessary characteristics of each target under either of two competing scenarios that are proposed to explain the origin of the asteroid belt. The two scenarios are (1) the solar nebula hypothesis, and (2) the exploding planet hypothesis. Clarity scores can range from 0 to 3, and they convey the following meaning:

3: Necessary characteristics of a given scenario are described exceptionally well with few, minor, or no decoding errors.
2: Necessary characteristics of a given scenario are described well. There may be some notable decoding errors.
1: Necessary characteristics of a given scenario are described minimally. There may also be significant decoding errors.
0: Necessary characteristics of a given scenario are not described, or are described very poorly.

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.

Clarity scores are especially important with respect to targets about which much is unknown. We look for sessions in which the clarity scores for the necessary characteristics of the targets are high in order to give further weight to the potential accuracy of additional information in those sessions which is entirely new, and thus highly speculative. This allows us to use remote viewing to explore, searching for new information that helps us to understand true "mysteries."

Formal Statement of the Two Competing Hypotheses:

Solar Nebula Hypothesis: The main asteroid belt in our solar system was formed out of the primordial solar nebula. The belt's planetesimals never condensed into a planet, probably due to gravitational perturbations from Jupiter. This explanation of the origin of the asteroid belt is currently accepted by most mainstream astronomers.

Exploding Planet Hypothesis: A planet did form from the primordial solar nebula in the region now occupied by the main asteroid belt. This planet exploded for reasons currently unknown. Much of the planetary material was ejected from the solar system following the explosion in a huge debris wave, and the asteroids that remain in the asteroid belt are what is left of that planet. This explanation of the origin of the asteroid belt was supported by the late astronomer, Thomas Van Flandern.

Interpretation Rule of Thumb Regarding Remote-Viewing Data for This Project:

We are expecting one of two types of descriptive data for this project. If the asteroid belt formed directly out of the primeval solar nebula of gas and dust as is argued by most mainstream astronomers, then we should see evidence of that in these data, especially for Targets 2a and 2b. On the other hand, if the asteroid belt formed as a result of an exploding planet as hypothesized by Tom Van Flandern, then we should see clear evidence of a huge explosion in these data. We have no expectations as to the cause of the explosion in the latter case. The data should also give evidence of an event that does not take place on a surface, but rather is suspended or flying, hopefully with an astronomical flavor. The clarity scores for these data will match how well the remote-viewing data correlate with one of these two scenarios. Here we are assuming that the asteroid belt definitely formed through one of these two scenarios.

OVERALL CLARITY SCORES: These are the average of all non-zero clarity scores that give support for either of the two competing hypotheses. Since a zero clarity score offers no support for a given hypothesis, zero clarity scores are not included in the overall clarity score averages.

Special Note on Iapetus Target:

With regard to the origin of the dark patch on the surface of Iapetus, the solar nebula hypothesis is not appropriate since no one is saying that the dark patch resulted from the primordial solar nebula. In this case, the test is between whether the dark patch is the result of a sudden encounter with a debris wave produced by an exploding planet, and an alternate hypothesis in which the process that creates the dark patch is much more gradual. The best way to contrast the two competing hypotheses would be as castrophism vs. gradualism.

Expected Characteristics Common for All Targets and Both Tested Scenarios:

  1. Astronomical or space perceptions (C1)
  2. Activity flying or floating, primarily not on a surface (C2)

Unique Expected Characteristics for Each Target and for Each Tested Scenario:

TARGET Solar Nebula / Gradualism Hypothesis Exploding Planet / Catastrophism Hypothesis
2A: Origin of 433 Eros
  1. Swirling gas and/or dust (N1)
  2. Sense of matter condensing or flowing to a center (N2)
  1. Rapidly moving, gas, dust, particulate matter appropriate for an expanding large debris cloud (E1)
  2. A large explosion, rapid outward motion from a central source (E2)
  3. Possible perception of asteroid size bodies moving rapidly outward from a central source (E3)
  4. Extreme heat from a central source (E4)
2B: Origin of 253 Mathilde
  1. Swirling gas and/or dust (N3)
  2. Sense of matter condensing or flowing to a center (N4)
  1. Rapidly moving, gas, dust, particulate matter appropriate for an expanding large debris cloud (E5)
  2. A large explosion, rapid outward motion from a central source (E6)
  3. Possible perception of asteroid or meteor size bodies moving rapidly within a central source (E7)
  4. Extreme heat from a central source (E8)
2C: Origin of Dark Patch on Iapetus
  1. Floating gas and/or dust (N5)
  2. Sense of dust or other particulate matter slowly being deposited on a spherical surface (N6)
  3. Possible sense of matter sublimating or emerging from within a spherical surface onto the outer surface (N7)
  1. Rapidly moving, gas, dust, particulate matter appropriate for an expanding large debris cloud (E9)
  2. A large explosion, rapid outward motion from a central source, possible extreme heat (E10)
  3. Possible perception of asteroid or meteor size bodies moving rapidly within a debris cloud or wave, possibly hitting a planetary body (E11)
  4. Significant kinetic energy (E12)

 

 

The Viewers The Sessions

Overall Clarity Scores:
Solar Nebula / Gradualism Hypothesis

Overall Clarity Scores: Exploding Planet / Catastrophism Hypothesis

Individual Session Summaries and Clarity Scores for Expected Characteristics:

Note that all references to page numbers are pdf numbering.

CRV Viewers
Daz Smith Download: Target 2A
0
3

C1: Ambiguous
C2: 3
N1: 0
N2: 0
E1: 3
E2: 3
E3: 3
E4: 3

Comments: This is a superb session that clearly describes the expectations of the exploding planet hypothesis. The entire session is good, but particularly note the sketch of the explosion on page 6 and the sketch of the asteroid being ejected from the explosion on page 7, plus the numerous perceptions of great heat.

Scenario supported: Exploding planet hypothesis

The two sessions for this target should be considered as one longer session.

Download: Target 2B_1

also

Download Target 2B-2

0
3

C1: Ambiguous
C2: 3
N3: 0
N4: 0
E5: 3
E6: 3
E7: 3
E8: 3

Comments: Excellent sessions supporting the exploding planet hypothesis. Good descriptions of the explosion and the ejected asteroid, intense heat and kinetic energy, plus a shock wave. In particular, see sketches on pages 6 and 7 (session 2B_1) and pages 7 and 9 (session 2B_2).

Scenario supported: Exploding planet hypothesis

The two sessions for this target should be considered as one longer session.

Download: Target 2C_1

also

Download: Target 2C_2

2
3

C1: Ambiguous
C2: 3
N5: 3
N6: 1
N7: 0
E9: 3
E10: 0
E11: 3
E12: 3

Comments: In some respects, this session could be interpreted as supporting either hypothesis. Clearly the viewer perceives that the dark patch on Iapetus was created by falling debris. However, it is not clear if this is a sudden or gradual process. The viewer clearly describes both large and small objects traveling within a rapidly moving cloud or wave hitting a planetary body, and the existence of larger objects would support the exploding planet hypothesis. The fast movement of the debris also tends to support the exploding planet hypothesis. The thickness of the cloud tends to support the exploding planet hypothesis.

Scenario supported: Somewhat greater support for the exploding planet hypothesis

HRVG Viewers
Debra Duggan-Takagi Download: Target 2A
0
3

C1: 3
C2: 3
N1: 0
N2: 0
E1: 3
E2: 3
E3: 3
E4: 3

Comments: This is an exceptionally clear session depicting an event in space that is characterized as a huge explosion from a central source. The entire session is good, but special attention should be given to the sketches on pages 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12. Also note the concluding remarks on page 13: "There is expanding energy at the target from a tiny particle growing to a huge mass. The movement is a massive vortex with a rippling wave effect and vibrational energy. There is indescribably bright light that is sun-like at the target. There is a Milky Way like star system and a black hole that sucks energy at the target."

Scenario supported: Exploding planet hypothesis

Download: Target 2B
0

C1: 3
C2: 3
N3: 0
N4: 0
E5: 3
E6: 3
E7: 3
E8: 3

Comments: This is an excellent session describing an explosion of high energy (see page 1) that resulted in the emergence of asteroids and/or meteors with great kinetic force. There were many collisions and much cratering associated with this explosion.

Scenario supported: Exploding planet hypothesis

Download: Target 2C
0
2.75

C1: 3
C2: 3
N5: 0
N6: 0
N7: 0
E9: 3
E10: 2 (see page 1)
E11: 3
E12: 3

Comments: This is an excellent session that describes a large debris cloud that contains both particulate matter and large asteroid bodies. The clear perception of asteroids crucially connects the debris cloud to the creation of the asteroids since the debris cloud contains asteroids within it. The viewer's description of asteroids within the debris cloud could not be more clear. In particular, see pages 3, 5, 6, and 11. The viewer also notes that the debris cloud and embedded asteroids are approaching a planetary body or light source, noting the increase in reflective light during the approach.

Scenario supported: Exploding planet hypothesis

Dick Allgire Download: Target 2A
0
3

C1: 3
C2: 3
N1: 0
N2: 0
E1: 3
E2: 3
E3: 3
E4: 3

Comments: This is a clear session supporting the exploding planet hypothesis. However, the viewer describes what appears to be the cause of the explosion. This viewer unambiguously describes the explosion as an artificially triggered event, possibly using a beam weapon located on a nearby moon or planet. It should be noted that Tom Van Flandern hypothesizes that Mars was originally a moon of the planet that exploded, noting that Martian cratering evidence strongly supports the idea that Mars was very close to the exploding planet when the explosion occurred. Flandern also suggests that the explosion could conceivably been a result of a war.

Scenario supported: Exploding planet hypothesis

Download: Target 2B
0
3

C1: Ambiguous
C2: Ambiguous
N3: 0
N4: 0
E5: 3
E6: 3
E7: 3
E8: 3

Comments: As with the session for Target 2A, this session describes a huge explosion that appears to be triggered by an artificial event. The viewer notes that the explosion has similarities to a coronal ejection (page 12). See also page 13. The viewer then notes that the explosion results in the creation of an asteroid type object (see page 16). This session supports the idea that the planetary explosion may have been a result of warfare.

Scenario supported: Exploding planet hypothesis

Download: Target 2C
0
3

C1: 3
C2: 3
N5: 0
N6: 0
N7: 0
E9: 3
E10: 3
E11: 3
E12: 3

Comments: This very clear session describes a military event that triggers an explosion of nearly unbelievable scale. The sketches in this session can be followed easily. Especially see the sketches on pages 14 and 16 to understand the enormity of the explosive force. On the final page of the session, the viewer notes that the explosion is of such a scale that he may not be able to fully understand it.

Scenario supported: Exploding planet hypothesis

Maria Download: Target 2A
0

C1: 3
C2: 3
N1: 0
N2: 0
E1: Ambiguous
E2: 3
E3: Ambiguous
E4: 3

Comments: This session is best described by the summary on the final page. The viewer clearly perceives a huge explosion of an "astro-planet" that is associated with great heat.

Scenario supported: Exploding planet hypothesis

Download: Target 2B
0
3

C1: 3
C2: 3
N3: 0
N4: 0
E5: Ambiguous
E6: Ambiguous
E7: 3
E8: 3

Comments: In this session, the viewer describes a large rock "like a meteor" and a brilliant "big star" in the sky. Tremendous energy is involved. (See pages 5 and 6.)

Scenario supported: Exploding planet hypothesis

Download: Target 2C
1
3

C1: 3
C2: 3
N5: 0
N6: 1
N7: 0
E9: Ambiguous
E10: Ambiguous
E11: 3
E12: 3

Comments: There are some interesting sketches in this session. The concluding remarks suggest that a singular event involving a large impact with cratering is involved. The cratering could also refer to impacts on Iapetus from the debris cloud. Both interpretations favor the exploding planet hypothesis. Some of the sketches appear to suggest a large amorphous cloud from space descending on a planet's surface. High levels of energy are involved. The energy also seems to favor the exploding planet hypothesis. Some "dripping" perceptions on page 5 may favor the solar nebula hypothesis.

Scenario supported: Exploding planet hypothesis