I would like nothing more than the proof of various cryptids, alien civilizations, even alien visitors to be found. But that proof will come only through rigorous science and objective analysis, and by holding evidence to the highest standards of scrutiny. Born in south eastern Pennsylvania, i have found myself at one time or another living in Chicago, Cleveland, Raleigh-Durham, on the island of Kaua'i and finally landed on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State. I have turned my hand to various professions from early work in 3d graphics to historic building restoration, carpentry and log home building to working in a bronze art foundry on the WWII Veterans Memorial. Currently I am a writer, script writer and working for a non profit organization called Empowerment Through Connection which is involved in equine assisted therapy for veterans, at risk teens and women.

I love the opening statement on this video:

Back in 2008 some predictions were made by a team of the top, military trained “remote viewers” – each with over a decade of successful service.

The video goes on to discus how the military is utilizing remote viewers in place of the more complex and expensive technology of, say, thermometers to monitor climate change around the world. Don’t feel like this is a spoiler, it isn’t. The best, and the END are yet to be revealed.


So world governments have prepared for a cataclysmic meteor strike to happen BY 2013 (so it should have happened already, right?).
They are preparing for the massive tidal waves by never once having held an evacuation drill in any coastal city or other populated area.
They are preparing for increased solar radiation caused by this meteor (?) by handing out sunscreen the same way they make sure there is enough flu vaccine.
And digging huge underground projects in places that are difficult for the population to reach.
Wouldn’t you think that underground survival bunkers would be better located in places that are above the flooding but really pretty easy to get to otherwise? So people CAN get to them.

China is building reinforced subways in its major cities. Really? I am not even going to research if this is true. Here’s why. Most of China’s major cities are on or near enough to it’s coast or major rivers that if massive tsunamis are caused by a huge meteor strike, the last place you should want to be is trapped underground in one of those cities! Especially when (political issues aside) You Own Tibet! You know, in the Himalayas, at high altitude. They call it the roof of the world for a reason. Even Roland Emmerich got that idea right.

Meanwhile in Moscow… one of the world power capitals that is farthest from any large body of water (928 miles from Riga, Latvia on the coast of the Baltic is about the closest) they are building bomb shelters to protect the population? From Flooding?

NO! Because while The Weather Channel cannot accurately tell me if it is going to rain on Wednesday, NASA has predicted unprecedented solar flare activity and yet keeps sending people to the ISS for classic rock performances. Solar flares happen in cycles, by the way, and are somewhat predictable, but not more so than is being proposed here and severity is still a crap shoot.

The video asks, “Could the remote viewing predictions be correct?”

No they are dead wrong. There has never been any evidence to support remote viewing as anything other than a few lucky guesses well within statistical probability and only wishful thinking says otherwise, while revisionist analysis in hindsight, provided by the seers themselves offers the only news of successes.

Central to this particular story is The Farsight Intitute headed by “Dr” Courtney Brown and his lovely assistant Prudence. Prudence Calabrese who after implication in hoaxes and lies while a part of Farsight, left TFI and formed her own now defunct organization Trans-dimensional Systems.

The Farsight Institute has been offering its Non-Prophet services since 1995, and only in 2008 did it begin its research into global climate change. Way to get ahead of the curve there guys! How come you didn’t say anything about this BEFORE anyone else?

However, their remote viewing of Atlantis has located pictures of the lost continent on Google Earth which have been posted by people who simply spent the time to look there.

RemoteViewer.Org has this background on Dr. Brown’s training and qualifications:

Courtney Brown took an Eight Day remote viewing course taught by Psi Tech, and subsequently created his own remote viewing institute – Farsight, teaching SRV. (Scientific Remote Viewing)

A full eight days, that must have been exhausting!
So I looked into Psi Tech:

Since 1989, when PSI TECH ushered the remote viewing technology out of the confines of military intelligence, PSI TECH has been the world leader in developing, testing, and refining Technical Remote Viewing training programs for our students. PSI TECH pioneered commercial remote viewing services and was the first company to offer remote viewing training. We also pioneered the world’s first remote viewing distance learning programs, which in the last decade spawned an entire industry.

PSI TECH currently offers the public several remote viewing training options, including our Generation II TRV Self Study Courses and the new Technical Remote Viewing University, which delivers unparalleled convenience, flexibility and real-time support to our students. (More)

And since the successful completion of that course, Dr. Brown has successfully attempted to perpetrate a fraud regarding a planet sized UFO following along in the wake of the Hale Bopp comet.

On January 14, 1997 a photo attributed to a “mystery astronomer” and purporting to show a “companion object” near Comet Hale-Bopp was posted on the web sites of radio personality Art Bell and author Whitley Strieber. This was the long-awaited photo given to Bell and Strieber by remote viewer Dr. Courtney Brown, first mentioned by Brown and his Farsight Institute employee Prudence Calabrese on Art Bell’s nationally syndicated radio program on November 29, 1996 [see CNI News vol 2, no. 18 of Dec 1]. On that show, Brown and Calabrese claimed that remote viewing of Hale-Bopp showed the companion object to be huge and “sentient,” possibly a “planet-sized spacecraft.” They also said they believed the “mystery astronomer” would come forward within a few weeks to confirm the existence of the companion.

However, just one day after the photo was posted, it was shown to be a hoax, casting grave suspicion on the “mystery astronomer” and on the remote viewing efforts of the Farsight Institute. The fraudulent nature of the photo was demonstrated on James Neff’s Enigma web site, www.anc.net/~neff/fake.html.

In March of 1997 the Heaven’s Gate UFO Doomsday cult committed suicide.

On March 26, 1997, police discovered the bodies of 39 members of the group who had committed mass suicide in order to reach what they believed was an alien space craft following the Comet Hale–Bopp, which was at its brightest.

Courtney Brown claims he received the image anonymously from an “astronomer” (because in astronomy when you discover an object you really don’t want it named after you) and continued to defend his predictions afterward despite no further evidence of any such object ever manifested.

In 1998 Prudence Calabrese, offered a confession regarding the practices she had observed at Farsight which is excerpted here.

“I am writing this to confess my sins: bad science and bad judgement. I will make no case to exonerate myself. As a person who is quite capable of making intelligent decisions, and as a person trained in the sciences, I am embarrassed at the way I have failed my friends, my fellow remote viewers, and my scientific upbringing.

“What I participated in over the course of a year and a half was nothing less than the manipulation of the public’s mind, not by outright lying, but by the selective representation, improper analysis, and overblown presentation style of remote viewing data.

“It does not matter that I never had the intention of misleading the public. It does not matter that I was carried away by what I, myself, had ‘seen’ during remote viewing. It does not matter that I was a student of remote viewing, involved in a learning process. It does not even matter that I, in as vocal a way as possible within the confines of my employment, spoke openly about the problems inherent in targeting the unverifiable, and drawing conclusions from the data obtained.

“I failed in my moral responsibility to let the public know exactly what was occurring with the data on esoteric targets publicly presented by The Farsight Institute (under the direction of Dr. Courtney Brown).

“The data are both flawed and incomplete.

“All of those esoteric ‘special projects’ done at Farsight, and still linked to in the ‘Sessions’ section of The Farsight Institute Web Site were done under one or more of the following less-than-optimal conditions:

1. Semi-blind sessions, where the monitor knows the target and the viewer does not. All sessions where the monitor knew what the target was are flawed, due to the potential (and likelihood) for telepathic overlay, subtle leading by the monitor, and leading by cuing from the monitor.

2. Selective presentation (in ALL projects), where only the sessions that the analyst feels are “on target” are presented. Others that have opposing viewpoints, or data not consistent with the analyst’s interpretation of the data are discarded. In some cases, the analyst was also a viewer!

3. Leading Cuing, where the tasker makes an assumption and names the unverifiable thing in the target cue. Example: “Martians under Santa Fe Baldy (current time)” or “Anomalous object near Hale-Bopp comet.” How can such sessions provide objective data? If the cue says Martians, then Martians the student viewers will find.

4. Deep analytical overlay, due to strong ideas on the part of the analyst about what should or should not be in the data.

5. Methods and procedures that changed on a sometimes daily basis, without the benefit of looking at the comparative results from a selection of controlled sessions, before something was implemented Institute-wide.

“The truth of the matter is this: we do not understand, yet, what occurs in remote viewing when the subject matter is unverifiable. I personally believe that ‘extraterrestrials’ exist in some form and have been interacting with humanity for eons. I personally believe that there may have been Martians on Mars. I personally believe in the possibility of many things that I can not prove. I want to search for the truth behind these things, and I will use remote viewing to assist me in some way. I will not, however, use remote viewing as the answer to anything. It is just one more tool that we, as conscious human beings on the planet Earth, possess.”

Prudence Calabrese has since disappeared from the public and even presumably the remote eye. She did come forward after September 11th and claim, in typical psychic fashion, to have predicted the attack back in 1997 while still part of Farsight.

Despite claims in the video that the predictions of a catastrophic collision with the Earth ( which should have happened by now, or at least the object become visible to the naked eye ) come from military trained  remote viewers, all the predictions seem to come from Courtney Brown and the Farsight Institute, which by the confession of its one time Vice President employs considerably less than rigorous methods. Brown himself was not trained by the military but by PSI TECH in a rigorous course that lasts longer than a week!

To any remote viewers who would like to prove me wrong, feel free to let me know what I have been up to and contact me at

[email protected]

And don’t forget to visit Lindsay, say Hi and Like us on our Facebook Page.

  • Scott_McMan

    Just another name for psychic. Or, should I say fraud?

  • vasras

    You may have misunderstood some of the later project announcements from Mr Brown. They are not prophecies, they are not predictions.

    They are public declarations of what the RV viewers saw and how those were interepreted.

    Now it’s time to wait till the timeline passes (June, 2013).

    If nothing like seen happens, then it’s back to the drawing board doing more studies.

    That’s why it’s called research. People are often wrong. They try out different things.

    Yes, the Fargsight team has almost consistently wrong on the future, just like other remote viewers.

    Is this a hard 100% limitation of remote viewing OR a limitation of the method used?

    We don’t know.

    You can pontificate, you can believe whatever you want. You can even mock people.

    But you don’t know.

    Only research has the possibility of finding it out.

  • If an object that large were on a collision course, or even just going to make a near pass it would be visible to the naked eye by now. No question.

    To call what the Farsight Institute (or any remote viewer) does as research is laughable, as is clearly illustrated by the statement of Prudence Calabrese, its previous Vice President. Their methods are leading and presume a specific result rather than investigate and allow data to speak for itself.

    Just because they put the name Scientific in the title of what they do does not in any way give them credibility as science any more than does calling Intelligent design a science. There is no independent research that supports or corroborates anything that remote viewing does. They are no more than psychics and frauds trying to gain credibility by expressing broad opinions and playing the odds that one day they guess right about something.

    At one time alchemy was considered a science. It was not, but at least out of alchemy was born the scientific method.

    To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    Farsight and other remote viewers go on with the same exact methods, perpetrate fraud in place of independent corroboration, and fit their results to the facts, after the fact in attempt to validate their findings. AT BEST.

    At worst they contribute, in any measure, to tragedies like Heaven’s Gate.

  • Dan

    While I will not attempt to defend the activities/analysis of Farsight (as Prudence smartly said, bad analysis can mess up good data), I would take issue with your one sentence: “There has never been any evidence to support remote viewing as anything other than a few lucky guesses well within statistical probability and only wishful thinking says otherwise, while revisionist analysis in hindsight, provided by the seers themselves offers the only news of successes.”

    I hear the “no evidence” claim a lot from skeptics, which is curious since there is actual considerable evidence… enough so that Russell Targ, in his book “The Reality of ESP: A Physicist’s Proof of Psychic Abilities” has unapolagetically used the term “proof”… way beyond statistical probability (in excess of 1 million to one), and blind judging of results sufficiently rejects any counterarguments of “analysis in hindsight”.

    Dean Radin has compiled quite a list of Peer-Reviewed Journal Publications on Psi Research http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

    Don’t take Targ’s, Radin’s, or my word for it… this stuff is so easy anyone can try it for themselves. And don’t pooh pooh it until you’ve actually tried it (following protocols). I’m teaching someone right now and with just 2 trials under her belt she and I are already blown away. (Once I get her permission I will publish her results.)

    You can read more on my own site:


  • What I mostly see is a few very vague similarities and some very broad assumptions, like trying to relate sending an image of binoculars and receiving and image of a cat face with strange eyes. That is revising the actual results to fit the desired outcome. And your experiments are not the same as those reported by Farsight which are nothing short of psychic predictions.

    That being said we would be happy to post or promote your results, as you wish to write them up, for our readers to make up their own minds.

  • Dan

    I appreciate it! Yes, the cat is dubious because you are not a blind judge. Blind judging is what rules out post hoc assignment of meaning to randomness. While I have not done blind judging on my sessions (though I suspect even blind judges would match the cat with the binocs), Targ has, and his results rule out random assignment of meaning. The lack of blind judging aside, do you really think the yin yang is our mind connecting visuals that are otherwise random? the result session was not one black and white overlapping circle, but four! And the waterfall? The moon? The Niagra death? the stock predictions? and those are just mine. Look at the declassified SRI results… the Soviet typhoon class submarine that Joe McMoneagle viewed in great detail (including a launch window) for the U.S. military, the rings around Jupiter that Ingo Swann viewed years before Voyager observed them, the 9 trials of forecasting silver futures, all correct, making $120K in profits. It would be unscientific to base your conclusions on 1 result, ignoring the ones that don’t support your argument.

  • In the case of the water fall there is a photo of just that, a waterfall into a deep ravine being sent. What is described as received is a drawing of high mountains, with a blank space labeled as “fresh, new, clean, glassy, calm.” What part of that description fits a waterfall? Was there any art on the walls, or the near vicinity when they entered the room?

    I am not ignoring other, cases in your blog, I am not going to address them individually here. I am choosing ones that I feel are representative of the case being made.

    Nothing is said of the background of the viewer in the case of spotting Jupiter’s rings. My wife has a masters degree, and a bachelors degree, and could not tell you the order of the planets, or which ones have rings, which ones are gas or have rocky cores. What was done to eliminate the possibility that the viewer simply thought Jupiter was the one known ringed planet before he went into the experiment? It is these sort of details that are too often left out in these “experiments.”

    In your own experiment of sending the image of a clock; was the receiver in a room that had a clock in it? Did they have another appointment that day? Were they wearing a watch? Or was a watch they had an emotional attachment to removed prior to entering an empty room with blank walls? There are too many variables potentially left unchecked.

    To be fair, I should say, In my opinion there are too many variables.

  • Dan

    “I am choosing ones that I feel are representative of the case being made.”

    you are choosing the ones that are easiest to rebutt. How about rebutting the ones that are hardest to rebutt?

    “Was there any art on the walls, or the near vicinity when they entered the room?”


    “In your own experiment of sending the image of a clock; was the receiver in a room that had a clock in it?”

    that one is complicated, so skip it.

    How about getting 9 out of 9 silver futures correct? This is an uncomplicated experiment, which I am replicating on my own with stock predictions. I just started, but when I filter my results based on self confidence, I am 3 for 3. I know this is not yet statistically significant, I just started.

    ” In my opinion there are too many variables.”

    again, this counterargument is easily overcome by blind judging. Read Targ’s book. Or at the very least, concede that you haven’t done enough research to claim there is ‘no evidence’.

  • Okay, I will give you your own article. This one an assessment for all to see of the images from your blog.

    To do so I will need to import those images here, and will include a link to your site.

    You are still welcome to present your results from your client in your own words in a separate article.

  • Dan

    thanks for the offer. I will consider it! Though I already write about this extensively on my own site and add to it as time permits.

    BTW thanks for showing me Prudence’s apology. I hadn’t seen that before and it’s a good read.

  • vasras

    Henry: “If an object that large were on a collision course, or even just going
    to make a near pass it would be visible to the naked eye by now. No

    Well perhaps not naked eye, but a visible light telescope, assuming trajectory that is visible from the viewing vantage point, but yes agreed.

    “To call what the Farsight Institute (or any remote viewer) does as research is laughable”

    Of course it is research.

    1. They gather data

    2. They publish the data

    3. They postulate a theory based on which the data can be tested

    4. They set up a real-world event/traget which they can monitor and wait for their deadline to pass

    5. If they nail it (unlikely, imho), they have something to work on. If they don’t, they have to try another data gathering technique and/or another theory.

    Really, you must be seriously mistaken about research or empirical falsification. What they do is research. You can argue about the quality, that’s fair. You can say they will be wrong (I’d agree), but research it is. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean you can make arbitrary rules for reserarch.

    Let me put it this way? In which research program have you performed empirical (scientific) research yourself? What is the non-case-specific objective criteria by which you designate something to be research/not-research. It doesn’t stand to any measure I was taught and learned in the three universities wehere I studied and worked…

    “To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject”

    Which is exactly what they are doing. Don’t just watch some videos. Read their research papers, actual raw data files and such. You can argue about the quality of the method and data-fitting problems, but that is a sliding scale and a problem in all qualitative research.

    BTW, it was never natural science research to begin with, you should understand as much. It’s in a domain of psychology, paraspsychology and frontier science (i.e. no name/field yet).

    “worst they contribute, in any measure, to tragedies like Heaven’s Gate.”

    This is always possible. Let’s hope not.

    I suggest you get off your emotional high horse and look at the issue objectively and with a measure that is standard and applies to all research in general and is non-subjective.

  • How exactly are they measuring their empirical evidence?

  • The Oshmar

    These kinds of things remind me of those “pyschic animals”, you know, the ones that predict sporting event results.

  • vasras

    Read their earlier reports and papers to find out. I am not obliged to do _everything_ for you.

    In short: measurement is a qualitative comparison between what RV viewers saw (+ how they were interpreted) and physical verified facts on the ground.

    Flawed? Yes? Less than perfect? Yes.

    Research? Yes.

  • The question was rhetorical, but since any claims of success are easily discredited by inherently flawed methods,and revisionist interpretations of vague predictions then what they do is not possible to be considered research by anyone who does not already choose to believe regardless of results.