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: