Breakthrough in understanding reality (The Farsight Institute)

[hashman]

and with time they developed a protocol for Controlled Remote Viewing that was used by the military for training...

I like to keep an open mind but this leads me to believe it's totally bogus like most other military spending. 

[1714849403]

1714849403

[1714849403]

1714849403

[1714849403]

1714849403

[1714849403]

1714849403

[1714849403]

1714849403

[interlagos]

No, the evidence is that the converging result of the sessions matches the target in case if it's physically accessible after the fact. And of course you want to train yourself and demonstrate results on "easy" targets first.

I mostly gathered what I know from videos, so I cannot recommend any literature at the moment.
Will post later if I find something interesting.

A keen enquiring mind is a good thing to have. However, keep in mind that converging results in experiments are only as strong as the experiment itself. If variables are not controlled for, you can end up with a false positive (or negative) result. This has occurred in every experiment I know in psychic abilities the had a positive result.

My guess is there is some such variable or some misunderstanding of statistics occurring here. I could be wrong so I look forward to your next posts on the subject.

Please keep in mind that consciousness is the last frontier not fully grasped by science, partly because consciousness is what created science in the first place, funny huh?

You cannot prove to anyone that you have consciousness and likewise nobody can prove to you that they have consciousness, so relaxing some expectations about hard evidence might be a good start to tackle this question. The only thing that you can really prove is that you have an experience and you can only prove it to yourself, the rest is just a speculation. Remote viewing is a phenomenon closely related to consciousness so studying it might require new methods and new agreements on what is considered as evidence.

I would recommend this video first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d4ugppcRUE

...

life on mars ... ..... secret war weapons in irak .. oh.... they an be false sometime but letz get in there anyway cause were 'mericanns are always true.... energy on mars .... artificial structures .... pictures of the inside ot that structure....  Black military projects..... flights that i personally don't know jack about it must be some sort of secret black mars mission..... Why isn't anybody telling me anything ima a proper scientist ;::

I know how it sounds and I would gladly join you in ridiculing of what has been said to fully share your joy, but knowing what I know I can't.

The video implies some knowledge of quantum physics and some understanding of wave-functions, but the concepts explained in the presentation itself are quite easy to grasp.
Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm5L8z34sNg

Clicking on the link is cheating. I recommend remotely-viewing the video. It's excellent! But a word of warning: it is DEFINITELY not safe for work - there is a surprising amount of nudity (although it's never gratuitous and always advances the narrative).   Oh, and Jennifer Lawrence does a great job as narrator.

LOLOL

I'll be far more interested in this if:
a) He performs, under controlled conditions, an actual experiment that confirms his theory.
b) His results are independently confirmed by other researchers.

Until then, this is not science. It's just one man's imagination, aided by a partial knowledge of quantum mechanics.

OTOH if he's able to perform an experiment successfully (under controlled conditions) the results of which cannot be explained by other known phenomena and especially if other researchers can duplicate his results, then I'll change my mind.

I haven't watched this video but you should know that Controlled Remote Viewing has been confirmed in environments by Ingo Swann and others at the Stanford Research Institute during the 1970s if i recall correctly.

edit:  just read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingo_Swann

+1

and with time they developed a protocol for Controlled Remote Viewing that was used by the military for training...

I like to keep an open mind but this leads me to believe it's totally bogus like most other military spending. 

There is other evidence of non-locality of consciousness which is not explained by today's science, which very well fits into the new model that is being proposed.

For example, the research into influence of people's emotions on water conducted by Dr. Masaru Emoto from Tokyo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAvzsjcBtx8
or similar research into water memory by an institute in Stuttgart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILSyt_Hhbjg

[BR0KK]

It has a Wiki Page so it must be right ...

[interlagos]

It has a Wiki Page so it must be right ...

What is your source of the "truth"?
Watching TV? Reading glossy paper magazines?
If a glossy paper magazine says that a group of highly-respected,
well-known scientists discovered the "truth", would you just accept it?
Wouldn't it concern you that they all get paid with that very paper money we've all learned to distrust?

[organofcorti]

It has a Wiki Page so it must be right ...

What is your source of the "truth"?
Watching TV? Reading glossy paper magazines?
If a glossy paper magazine says that a group of highly-respected,
well-known scientists discovered the "truth", would you just accept it?
Wouldn't it concern you that they all get paid with that very paper money we've all learned to distrust?

Honestly, and I'm not trying to pick a fight, but that's the pot calling the kettle black. Have you performed the experiments you mentioned? As far as I can tell, you're taking the word of a less respected poorly paid scientist. Is that your definition of "truth"?

I preferred it when you were posting some interesting (although in my opinion likely highly flawed) experimental results. Please leave out the strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks. You know BR0KK was just baiting you, right?

[interlagos]

It has a Wiki Page so it must be right ...

What is your source of the "truth"?
Watching TV? Reading glossy paper magazines?
If a glossy paper magazine says that a group of highly-respected,
well-known scientists discovered the "truth", would you just accept it?
Wouldn't it concern you that they all get paid with that very paper money we've all learned to distrust?

Honestly, and I'm not trying to pick a fight, but that's the pot calling the kettle black. Have you performed the experiments you mentioned? As far as I can tell, you're taking the word of a less respected poorly paid scientist. Is that your definition of "truth"?

I preferred it when you were posting some interesting (although in my opinion likely highly flawed) experimental results. Please leave out the strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks. You know BR0KK was just baiting you, right?

I'm sorry I have disappointed you.
I was just politely asking what people would consider a reliable source of the "truth".
What makes you think I wasn't baiting BR0KK? Oh, I know I forgot the smiley , my bad.

I can explain the method that works for me and I'm not expecting it would work for everyone due to the difference in conditions. My method is to connect to as many sources of information as possible and to listen to as much of what people say and see what pieces of information start to form into a meaningful patterns and see what sources those pieces are coming from thus giving them more weight. The information that doesn't fit into any pattern just stays in the memory until it does or eventually gets discarded as irrelevant.

This method requires a lot of time and motivation to process information and a lot of memory to work with it to search for patterns. I have a privilege to have both: a lot of time and a very good memory, so I can't possibly expect others to follow my method and I don't blame them. But I'm not being a coward and keep everything that I have figured to myself, instead I came to this forum to share what I know.

[saddambitcoin]

anyone else here tried hemisync?

[interlagos]

As far as I can tell, you're taking the word of a less respected poorly paid scientist. Is that your definition of "truth"?

The Farsight Institute is a non-profit organization, so there is no reason to reduce the weight of this source of information as any less independent than any other.
I took the word "truth" in quotes every time I mentioned it, because what we call truth is not the final destination. It's a process, a running state so to speak. Something stays true until it is replaced with more advanced version of what is true, and the secret is that there is no final destination.

As all versions of reality already exist simultaneously, that what you define true for you would alter your frequency pattern in a such a way that you would gravitate towards a version of reality where what you believe is true is actually true. Don't be fooled though, changing your core belief systems is much harder than changing your thought patterns or immediate desires, but that would be a good start. Think of yourself as very complex and very powerful gyroscope which is very hard to knock off the axis, but it's not impossible if you're willing to relax some of what you believe is true.

I preferred it when you were posting some interesting (although in my opinion likely highly flawed) experimental results.

While still highly controversial and not accepted by many ordinary people as anything even remotely close to being true, I would recommend you read the story of John Titor, where he confirms that Everett-Wheeler-Graham or "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct and that time travel is possible even though it's not quite what we think it is.
http://yesalover.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/the-original-post-of-john-titor/

While not knowing anything about the validity of the source above you should be able to see how the information presented there forms a meaningful pattern with those pieces of information that have already been presented in this thread. Regardless of what you will be willing to make out of this, I can add from myself that reading that story was at least entertaining.

anyone else here tried hemisync?

Provided that brain is a receiver of consciousness as opposed to a common belief of it being a generator of some sort, it comes as no surprise that subjecting your brain to different vibratory sources might alter and enhance its ability to receive those frequency bands of reality that would otherwise be insensible to it.

Going as deep as gamma state might even allow one to tap into a so called akashic fabric that contains total information of the holographic structure of existence (video below at 0:20).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmHH5-9cn5E
I don't expect anything of this to make any sense to many of you, but it's always a matter of making a first step for those who are willing to learn, so by not sharing this information I would have achieved nothing.

[interlagos]

Here is another shred of evidence on the topic, let's see if somebody manages to find any overlap with the video in OP and the video in my previous post:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlvjKaGEnas
Oh, and it has the word NASA written there somewhere, so it must be true 

[BR0KK]

Awwww water that can talk to each other .... so cute:P

So if i musicanize my water with some dark heavy metal  i could probably kill someone with negative impact ?
 

[organofcorti]

Awwww water that can talk to each other .... so cute:P

So if i musicanize my water with some dark heavy metal  i could probably kill someone with negative impact ?
 

No, you'll kill them with heavy metal toxicity.

[BR0KK]

Awwww water that can talk to each other .... so cute:P

So if i musicanize my water with some dark heavy metal  i could probably kill someone with negative impact ?
 

No, you'll kill them with heavy metal toxicity.

oh jes thats what i meant!

[organofcorti]

Awwww water that can talk to each other .... so cute:P

So if i musicanize my water with some dark heavy metal  i could probably kill someone with negative impact ?
  

No, you'll kill them with heavy metal toxicity.

oh jes thats what i meant!

Or you could kill them with heavy metal poisoning, which might be much worse.

[BR0KK]

this thing that OP described (posted) runs pretty deep .... What will we discover next ?

[interlagos]

this thing that OP described (posted) runs pretty deep .... What will we discover next ?

It does indeed run very deep, to the core of it...

A few more remarks on the water theme. Below is a 50 minute video documentary about unusual properties of water from 2005, where you will find that despite numerous evidence and research done on this topic all around the world there is one glossy paper magazine that established itself as a centralized body for official scientific opinion on the matter. Even though the editor-in-chief mentioned in the end that he welcomed further research of water to continue to look like a good guy, none of what has been discovered has been actually published. It hints at a deeper agenda for mainstream science to keep certain things under wraps so that general public remains uncompetitive in this area, relying on older technologies and therefore being easier to control. You might want to extrapolate this example on other areas as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJhogR7YLps

But there is good news! If you haven't noticed yet, last Saturday on December 08 russian prime minister followed the case of australian prime minister and officially confirmed presence of extra-terrestrial intelligence on Earth. What makes this story relevant to the discussion at hand is that he mentioned very popular movie Men In Black as being chronicle documentary, and if you've watched the third movie in the series you will find a lot of overlap with the John Titor story I posted a few days back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE_iUW0Jv3k
Pay attention to his facial emotional expressions to determine if he believes what he is saying is true.
These events are just the beginning of a much larger and long anticipated Disclosure initiative, so keep an eye on further developments of this story.

PS: "Men In Black 3" movie below
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1409024/

[organofcorti]

last Saturday on December 08 russian prime minister followed the case of australian prime minister and officially confirmed presence of extra-terrestrial intelligence on Earth.

What do you mean? The Australian Prime Minister has never discussed openly in public or anywhere in the public record Australia's capture of extra terrestrials and use of them in experimental labs.

[interlagos]

last Saturday on December 08 russian prime minister followed the case of australian prime minister and officially confirmed presence of extra-terrestrial intelligence on Earth.

What do you mean? The Australian Prime Minister has never discussed openly in public or anywhere in the public record Australia's capture of extra terrestrials and use of them in experimental labs.

I think the article where I picked it up was talking about this:
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/411942/20121206/pm-julia-gillard-confirms-2012-mayan-calendar.htm#.UMiOkR2HOPK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ebtj3gDaE64
Yes, not exactly about extra-terrestrials, but rather about extra-dimensionals, which are all forms of consciousness anyway

Please note that you don't have to accept what she is saying as true, as she might be inviting you to a version of reality that those who are behind her speech prefer. The reason for this is that certain entities which are normally invisible to a human eye have developed capability to tap into energy within frequency domain representative of the emotion of fear. More about it you can learn from the popular cartoon Monsters Inc.

[organofcorti]

last Saturday on December 08 russian prime minister followed the case of australian prime minister and officially confirmed presence of extra-terrestrial intelligence on Earth.

What do you mean? The Australian Prime Minister has never discussed openly in public or anywhere in the public record Australia's capture of extra terrestrials and use of them in experimental labs.

I think the article where I picked it up was talking about this:
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/411942/20121206/pm-julia-gillard-confirms-2012-mayan-calendar.htm#.UMiOkR2HOPK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ebtj3gDaE64
Yes, not exactly about extra-terrestrials, but rather about extra-dimensionals, which are all forms of consciousness anyway

Interlagos, you know that's a piss take, right? It was meant to be funny, not taken at face value.

[myrkul]

last Saturday on December 08 russian prime minister followed the case of australian prime minister and officially confirmed presence of extra-terrestrial intelligence on Earth.

What do you mean? The Australian Prime Minister has never discussed openly in public or anywhere in the public record Australia's capture of extra terrestrials and use of them in experimental labs.

I think the article where I picked it up was talking about this:
http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/411942/20121206/pm-julia-gillard-confirms-2012-mayan-calendar.htm#.UMiOkR2HOPK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ebtj3gDaE64
Yes, not exactly about extra-terrestrials, but rather about extra-dimensionals, which are all forms of consciousness anyway

Interlagos, you know that's a piss take, right? It was meant to be funny, not taken at face value.

His bullshit filters are OFF. He has opened his mind so far that everything just wanders right on in. Everything will be taken at face value.

[organofcorti]

His bullshit filters are OFF. He has opened his mind so far that everything just wanders right on in. Everything will be taken at face value.

I'm glad. I thought he actually knew something, and I was worried that if people took Gillard at her word about the [REDACTED] there'd be a public uproar and I might lose my job at the [REDACTED] section of [REDACTED].