Los Angeles Airport Earthquake Prediction

Dick,
Your point on proper analysis is very well stated! Thank heaven’s the HRVG has the perspective and ability and know-how to really be able to take data from remote viewing sessions and keep it in it’s logical place, or perhaps letting the data speak for itself, I’m not sure if I stated that correctly, but I’m sure you know what I mean. This is such an overlooked point, and yet stand’s out as so very important.

As you said in your report, amazing failures in the past have proven this to be a so crucial. I could not agree more.

Anyway, I live about 15 min. from LAX and coincedentally I’ve been thinking about moving inland about 50 miles or so to a particular area. I almost feel guided to make this move from some “higher” place, and yet, the reason I wanted to move, from my everyday point of view, is that my present apartment house is not doing so well, and I wanted to find better housing.

Now with this report from CB’s website, it does make me wonder about my initial urges to move, and where and why they came to me. I’ll be thinking about this much more in the days to come, and also pondering that move inland.

J.P.

This post is under my name- Dick Allgire- but it is written by Daz Smith. Since our website problems we are not able to sign on new members. (We’re working on it.) In the meantime Daz sent this to me via email and I’m posting it for him. Data produced by Daz is the catalyst for Courtney Brown’s AIRPORT EARTHQUAKE prediction.

Dick

Here is what Daz sent me:

Dick
I’m a good consistent remote viewer but only as good as the team around me
of both viewers and RV admin. Anyone of these people can and do affect the
whole experiment, I’ve seen it happen time after time. I do also have off
days just like anyone else.

I have made many correct predictive Rv targets – but I’m not sure my data
says earthquake – although it does seem to match yours and other data for
some kind of land related movement/emergency/event. And I am at a loss to
explain why I didn’t pickup on any airport qualities?

I’m actually more interested in the climate outcomes as this for me has more
relevance – as I find the double 2013 timelines thing confusing and don’t
yet understand this part of the experiment and how it will work.

Please post these comments for me until I can get access sorted again :)

I hope we can do more projects like thgis in future – its about time we all
started working together more.

All the best…

Daz

I have a few questions with the analysis.

Firstly:
Courtney being involved as analyst with knowledge of the targets etc does
muddy the waters and probably affect the entire project. Also I understand
where Courtney is coming from and fully respect what he is trying to do and
achieve and I know it’s wrong to dwell on the past but his reputation for
predictions of catastrophes also isn’t good to date. And I am worried that
the ‘mutant effect’ didn’t get enough independent evaluation before release.

I’m primarily worried that because the tasking 25, 26, 27 were additional
and requested sessions form the viewers that just by being requested this
generates a certain level of unconscious frontloading by the nature of being
required and that this may have affected the data we supplied. I also
believe from my Rv experiences that tasker intent is a primary factor in
determining the actual viewer data and m kind of wondering if this was an
involvement in this case and to what effect.

Secondly:
I believe that all data should be treated as equal at the start of every
Target – just because A viewer (in this case myself) was on more in previous
sessions – I don’t not feel this has a bearing on new sessions because as we
all know this skill is fickle and you may be on target one day and the next
be off. So I agree the leading session by which all others are compared to
should not have taken place. Just an equal analysis of data overall to
generate a cohesive picture of the target.

Saying all this I do agree that there is a lack of overall Physical airport
data in the sessions – what this really means I do not know. There does seem
to be a theme of some kind of ‘event’ I don’t know if this is an earthquake
as my use of this word was as an AOL but my data and others did seem to
support some kind of land/movement, emergency situation. This could be many
different things from a pothole in a runway to a landslide.

On another note but supportive to a degree I did get this today form an RV
colleague:

Check this out from Joe McMoneagle’s Ultimate Time Machine bible of
predictions

Page 210

” I can tell you with near certainty that there will be significant
earthquakes over the next one hundred years in south Alaska, the san
francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego areas of California –

What do I mean by ‘signficant’ ? They will register at least 8.5 – 8.8 on
the Richter scale.
They WILL be killer quakes.

Attaching years to them, I can say that in all probability they will occur
within five years, plus or minus, of the following dates : LOS ANGELES =
YEAR 2013 – 2015 !!!”

Do I believe that something may happen at LAX – probably not – I would
personally have run a whole lot more sessions on the viewers on this first.
But I am questioning why there was a lack of physical typical airport data
in the sessions and this is where I am at, at the moment, trying to think
how and why we went awry.

All the best…

Daz Smith

Aloha Dick & All,

Critique is perhaps one of the most valuable post-project activities. While I am supportive of the project I believe in the learning curve gained from “Hot-Waxing” the results. I also believe that we will get better at joint projects if we continue to work together and maintain our integrity in evaluating it. In a traditional Military Style Hot Wax you better check your feelings at the door because candor is required and there are no sacred cows. In a recent discussion with Dr. Brown I mentioned the need to be able to defend the work. This includes the collection process, the analysis, and any statements or assessments based on the work. This particular project is extraordinary in that approximately 180 sessions from remote viewers from different disciplines were able to be assembled in a common dataset that will be subjected to several analytic models. Review and analysis of the work is by no means complete. I would also expect at a later date for there to be an independent review of the project efforts in its entirety.

Continuing to Hot Wax this a bit, it is obvious that a lot of work has been done in the course of the project. The support provided by Dr. Brown and Farsight in managing the effort is commendable. I believe the publication of the raw data is far more than most project managers would ever do. While we have always published the raw data I would challenge you to find any raw data from the fabled RV projects of Yore. They ain’t gonna let you see it. This project has brought big gains in the areas of data disclosure and openness.

As with most efforts of this size there will be problems associated with specific details here and there and some will be very valid and indefensible. Dr. Brown does not expect to emerge from this unscathed but is more than willing to enter the arena and endure both critique and criticism to promote the forward movement of a field too long stagnated.

I would encourage everyone to once again check your feelings at the door and get ready to become part of our solutions and not our problems. If you see some aspect of the project that seems to be amiss then by all means follow Dick’s excellent example and get it in the discussion pool and be prepared to stick with it to a conclusion. Dr. Brown will certainly give ground to the plausible but is an earnest defender where he is sure he is correct. Participation does not require the compromise of standards or ethics. Seldom will remote viewers get the opportunity to work with an academic of Dr. Brown’s caliber and have him hang his credibility on our work. I have no doubt that he will learn as much from us as we from him as we take on the challenge figuring out what exactly we have assembled.

Glenn

Guys another post for your boards if I may ask you to post – can’t wait till
I can post myself again.

All the best…

Daz

Glenn,
I totally agree this was an amazing opportunity and one that I felt was a
long time coming, I’ve been wanting to see different groups and styles
working together for many years now.

The experiment its structure and administration must have been huge – all
those sessions taskings, organisation and analysis. I applauded all involved
and am honoured to work alongside everyone involved on this one.
I am in no way personally complaining or questioning Courtney who I feel is
brave in putting this thing together – In my comments I am merely relaying
why I have already seen written in a few comments about ‘LAX’ so far Based
on the history of RV and people like elephants don’t forget. I do think he’s
brave in coming forward with this LAX interpretation and wish him all the
best and hope it all doesn’t backfire as we know people will and do use the
past as comments to attack RV, and I fear it may happen here.

I do think that although valid in presenting the LAX part of this
experiment, It may be used against and may harm the Climate Change part of
the experiment and maybe the LAX thing could have been put to one side and
looked at on its own/later or something. At the moment I fear it may become
the focus. I guess Courtney had his reasons for presenting this data first
and we can’t and shouldn’t try to second guess them. I just feel that maybe
we should have all discussed this first. But never mind it’s all out there
so I guess lets discuss it all now.

Analysis of Rv data has always been a strange and difficult art and I have
encountered many situations over the years. I work full time in a multiple
method Rv group (TDS, CRV, freestyle and TRV) and it has taken a long time
and many discussion over analysis approaches to come up with a workable
model – I’m sure we will see the same with this project.

As I said before – I’m much more concerned with the climate change part of
the project and hope to see the data on this ASAP as it’s a long term
interest of mine and one that affects everyone on the planet. I’m curious to
see if as a group we concluded any great changes and what these might be and
when.

I do feel that this was an excellent project, very well organised and run
and a great kick start to hopefully create new and expanded communication
between all of the rv groups and personalities as together we can accomplish
a lot more than we can on our own.

I await in baited breath the climate change goodies!

All the best…

Daz

Hi All,
I will post something after our RV class this evening. A lot of work went into this project and I sincerely feel we need to conduct analysis and allow the data to reveal the actual content of our collective work.

More later..

Respectfully,
Sita

I just want to let everyone know that our website is undergoing changes and there are some problems with bulletin board logins. Daz has been posting by emailing his posts to Glenn and to me and we put them up.

So here in this thread I raised a bunch of questions about Courtney’s methods in making the LA AIRPORT prediction. Dr. Brown is on the road living out of a suitcase, using a laptop with questionable connection, and our bulletin board may not allow him to post.

That is pretty unfair.

I wanted to immediately put my concerns on the record, and I did that. We know that Dr. Brown will have a lot to say. I’m sure Courtney will stand up and defend everything he has done, and we’ll have some spirited discussion. If you don’t hear from Dr. Brown right away it is because of OUR bulletin board problems, and because Courtney is on the road and very busy. We will hear from him, and it will be an interesting conversation that will hopefully advance remote viewing.

Aloha,

Dick

Hi Everyone,
I just got back from Montreal, so I truly have been living in a suitcase for the past few weeks, which is why I have not posted earlier. Please rest assured that I enjoy a great deal when people involved in our Climate Project offer criticisms and suggestions. It is a good way for me to learn.

About the analysis discussions, Dick’s points are very well taken. Let me offer my defense of why I handled the situation about LAX the way I handled it, and notice that I am handling the 2008 and 2013 climate-related data much differently. The issue with LAX is that an earthquake is one valid interpretation of those data. Dick is correct in saying that something else could be going on. But the key to my interpretation is that absolutely no one picked up anything resembling a functing airport. There were a lot of really good viewers doing those sessions, and I expected to see at least one jet, or runway, or tower, etc. Nothing.

Thus, I made the decision to do an “at surface value” initial analysis of those data. Nothing else made sense in that situation, at least to me. The issue was further complicated because the data “at surface value” seem to suggest that the earthquake may happen (IF it happens) significantly before 1December 2008. Thus, I made the decision that I really could not wait six months to publish an initial interpretation of those data, especially if an earthquake happens this summer.

Finally, I decided that most people would look at those data and discern an earthquake signature given the reality that LA resides in an Earthquake prone region. There are also lots of micro quakes on the LA region currently, and there have been for the past couple of months. It is a very actively seismic region. For example, look at this link:

quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/latest.htm

These micro quakes may not be “precursors” for a big one, but the entire scene looks suspicious given the RV data.

Thus, to summarize, yes, some other event could explain the RV data, such as a terrorist nuke or the aftermath of a hurricane combined with landslides. But an earthquake seems a more likely event, especially given the faulting stuff in the RV data. The big problem is that time seems important to this target, and we may not have the luxury of being able take more time to figure out what is going on with those data as we are taking with the other Climate Project data. The final point is that IF there is a big LA earthquake, and if we sat on those data while we tried to figure out what was going on with more detailed analysis, two things would happen. (1) We would be blamed for hiding data and interpretation that someone may have used to save a life (or many lives), and (2) squandering the best example of a future prediction the RV community has been offered in a very long time.

If the LAX prediction goes wrong, I will assume all the blame for interpreting those data incorrectly. But as it stands now, given that it is a near future tasking, and given that not a single viewer found anything resembling an airport, and given the fact that the 1 June 2008 sessions went to well, it seems like offering up an “at surface value” interpretation for those sessions is the only viable option. That was my choice.

One last thing. When I saw the LAX stuff, understand that I was concerned that those sessions could initially over-shadow the really great 1 June 2008 results. From a physics perspective, those 1 June 2008 results are proof positive that our current understanding of relativistic physics is seriously flawed. I cannot emphasize the importance of this enough. I will certainly be writing about this in the near future. Those results are squeeky clean. I am modifying the SAM computer program to be able to analyze the data. But when I saw the LAX data, I also realized that the LAX sessions could diminish the interest in our 2013 results if the LAX earthquake does not happen. So do understand that there was significant risk to my own research agenda in publishing the earthquake prediction. But again, for the reasons stated above (moral, practical, “at surface value” content, and time-constraint dependent), I felt a decision had to be made to interprete those sessions quickly. Yes, there have been analysis bloopers when sessions were interpreted “at surface value.” But remember that there have also been analysis successes in this regard as well. If the tasking was for 1 December 2013, we could have argued about how to analyze those data while taking the time to consider all points. But 1 December 2008 is not far, especially if an event happens sooner rather than later.

Nonetheless, Dick is not wrong in his thoughts. It is just that I believe there is more than one way to look at this difficult situation. Sometimes it is better to take a chance at being wrong than to play it safe. Scientists love to play it safe. They seem to be genetically inclinded to safeguard their reputations at nearly all costs. One needs only to read the way they tend to couch their results (regardless of field) in ambiguity and jargon. This is a generalization, but true, in my view. In my view, most scientists in my situation would have held back publishing both the LAX data and the interpretation for fear that the subject raised by the data is simply to dangerous to their careers. But this would be true of any future prediction. That is, most scientists would simply not make any future predictions using RV data even if they were convinced that RV is a real phenomenon and the interpretation is clear. Fear would drive their choice, not science. You see, the reality is that science thrives on failed experiments. It is through the failed experiments that you gain insight that leads you eventually to the successful experiments. Most scientists only want you to see their successes. But RV is particularly challenging because you have to rely so much on a data collection process that seems mysterious to most scientists. With each datum that you enter into a session, you have to take the risk that it may be incorrect, and on the conscious level, there appears to be so much uncertainty. The best sessions are when viewers follow the rules and don’t second guess their data. But scientists love to second guess as a means of protecting their careers. For this reason, RV research is not particularly easy for scientists to conduct. The idea of collecting data and immediately putting these data up on the web for the world to see is an anathema to most scientists. Again, it is fear that drives this, not science.

Where are we now? We have a valid experiment. We have only to wait to find out how it turns out. Regardless of how it turns out, we will learn a ton of stuff. My fear of failure is far weaker than my desire for knowledge. What drives me is that fact that we will learn so much from this experiment. From the perspective of learning about the RV process, this experiment can only be a success.
Warmly,
Courtney

Courtney writes:

Hi Everyone,

The issue with LAX is that an earthquake is one valid interpretation of those data. Dick is correct in saying that something else could be going on. But the key to my interpretation is that absolutely no one picked up anything resembling a functing airport.

But RV is particularly challenging because you have to rely so much on a data collection process that seems mysterious to most scientists. With each datum that you enter into a session, you have to take the risk that it may be incorrect, and on the conscious level, there appears to be so much uncertainty. The best sessions are when viewers follow the rules and don’t second guess their data.
Courtney

Courtney,

I think you are still confusing analysis with interpretation.

In our (HRVG) protocols neither the tasker nor the end user may conduct analysis. In this case you are both the tasker and the end user of the data so it is our view that you cannot possibly conduct valid analysis. The analyst must be blind to the target. The analyst can only report what is corroborated in the data, reduced to most basic terms.

I still say this. Using only the data produced by the viewers, using consensus analysis and reduction, it is not possible say the data indicate Los Angeles airport will be destroyed by an earthquake in the near future.

Let me also respond to one more point, about viewers not editing their session or second guessing their data. It is true the viewer must put everything down without editing, and that’s why analysis is crucial to the process. Viewers can be wrong. They color the data, they even make it up. But very often the base gestalt produced by the viewer has some validity. That underlines the need for analysis. The analyst cannot accept what the viewer produces at face value.

If the viewer says anything that comes to mind about a target, and a viewer is not 100% accurate, then how do you sort the good from the bad? It requires analysis, not interpretation.

There is a formal and very strict method for conducting analysis (as opposed to interpretation.) It requires- demands- a person who does not know what the target cue involves. The person who designed and executed the project can’t be the analyst. Anyone who selected the targets can’t be the analyst. No one who worked the targets is allowed to be involved in analysis. This means on the Climate Project Courtney Brown can’t be the analyst.

This analyst must be totally blind to the target. This analyst takes the body of work produced by the viewers and looks at each gestalt, each description. The analyst produces what we call a “data extraction matrix.” In the data extraction matrix only data corroborated by multiple viewers is allowed to be entered. If one viewer says “EARTHQUAKE” and draws a fault line and a second viewer draws a jagged line, here is what you are allowed to enter in the data extraction matrix: “IRREGULAR LINE OR FEATURE” It is very strict. No interpretation allowed.

If one viewer says “earthquake” and a second viewer draws what looks like a landslide and a third viewer describes falling rocks… well, then what is it? It could be an earthquake, it could be a landslide, or it could be kids rolling rocks down a hill. You don’t know. All the analyst can enter in the data extraction matrix is perhaps “movement of earth, ” or “something in motion, possibly land.” It would describe all three.

After the data extraction matrix is created the analyst then creates “working notes.” These are the most simple statements about the target that are corroborated by multiple viewers. From “working notes” the analyst may write out “scenarios” but every word, every innuendo in a scenario must be validated back to data produced and corroborated by multiple viewers.

WHAT IF IT REALLY IS A MAJOR EARTHQUAKE? If the target actually involves an earthquake, then the good data will emerge from the reduction. The simple statements produced in data extraction, working notes, and scenarios will in fact describe an earthquake.

Keep in mind the analyst does not know that the target cue involves Los Angeles. The analyst is not allowed to look up the history of fault lines in the Los Angeles area. The analysis may only report what the consensus of the viewers says, in the most basic and simple terms.

Time and time again we have seen remote viewers interpret and take data to the highest possible meaning. They may have looked bad but if given proper analysis the data may have been very good.

I enjoy the discussion and hope everyone else does too. We are having a great time working together and pushing the bounds.

Aloha,

Dick

I want to state this for the record.

Because the sessions have been posted, the “conclusion” has been posted, and there has been discussion up one side of the internet BB’s and down the other, it is not possible for blind analysis to be conducted on this target. Whether or not a blind analyst COULD be found is moot. Because of the rush to post a prediction the chain of blind custody is in tatters.

However, I would still like to task a trained analyst to go through the analytic protocol and show (according to strict structure) what could be said about this target. A demonstration of analysis vs. interpretation.

I may send this out through the discussion list.

Aloha,

Dick

I want to talk a bit about my impressions of working Courtney’s Climate Project. Later I will post questions to Courtney about the protocol of his project, and those questions will be far more clinical. These are just my personal, subjective observations about how it felt as a viewer to work those targets.

I have done a lot of remote viewing, probably over a thousand sessions in the past 11 years. Glenn has put us through the grinder in all those years. He has had us work every possible kind of target. I know what it feels like when you work a target that has been cued by a person who really understands the targeteering process, a target tasked by a human being focused on making a connection between the target ID and the target. I’ve worked hundreds of simple validation targets- photos of people, places, or events given out to test, train, and calibrate your remote viewing ability. I’ve worked future targets, past targets, targets that haven’t been cued yet. I’ve worked targets with instant feedback, and no feedback. I’ve worked mask overlays, entrainments, and null targets. I’ve worked targets cued by people trying to pull one over me. Several times I’ve worked a target ID that was intentionally cued to two different targets. I’ve worked targets that were ridiculous, meaningless, and nonexistent. I’ve worked quite a few operational targets for clients.

Have you ever seen a wine tasting expert blindly take a sip of wine and tell you the type of wine, the region of origin, and even the year of its vintage? A good remote viewer develops the ability to feel whether a target cue is solid or ephemeral.

I don’t want to criticize Courtney here. And I don’t want to, as we say at HRVG “blame the targeteer.” (It is common for remote viewers when they produce a lousy session the find some fault with the tasker for any number of reasons.)

But as a fairly experienced viewer I want to report that working the Climate Project felt like trying to carry water in a sieve. I took the project quite seriously and put quite a bit of effort into it. I think I worked 21 targets, and I would expect that out of a run of 21 sessions I would have some pretty decent results. From what I have seen so far my work was fairly lousy. I know on a couple of targets I presented perfect data on one of the pool targets, but it was the not the target tasked. I remote viewed a couple of serious future events, but again not the target.

When I worked most of these sessions, it didn’t feel like there was much of a connection to anything.

Immediately after the project was finished Sita put out a target ID. I had taken a break from RV after the project, so this was my first session after the Climate Project. Now I must disclose that Sita and I have worked together for more than 10 years and we know each other well. I have often had good results working her targets. After struggling so much with Courtney’s targets it just felt wonderful to sit down, probe, look on Blackboard and have data simply pour out of me! I nearly bilocated before Playfair. (This is prior to S-2 in HRVG method.)

I got feedback and it turned out to be a pretty good session. Other people may be working it (TARGET ID OBLW-QHNP) so I’ll not discuss the target and we’ll post my session later.

But it just strengthens my belief that the best results are obtained when you have a real human consciousness cue the target with single-minded focus and intent, with a desire or need for data about that target, a single target that is not part of a pool. Providing feedback to a viewer helps them during the training process but has nothing to do with whether or not they produce good data.

I understand that Courtney’s project was not really about climate change and maybe I’ll be amazed when we find out what it really was about and re-examine the results. I am amazed he was able to get all the viewers to work in concert, to devise a system to task, collect, and publish targets. But my preference is to work a target under completely blind conditions; a single target with no other targets involved, cued by a person who knows and fully understands what the target is and needs information about it.

Aloha Dick & All,

One of the very important elements missing in many Remote Viewing activities is and has been dialog. The free exchange of information from concept to conclusion has always been withheld beyond the gates at Hrvg. We have always trained to understand. Understand what we are doing and most importantly; what we have done. The dialog regarding Dr. Brown and the recent project will set a precedent of sorts to increase the intellect quotient of those participating in projects. At Hrvg I have always endeavored to instill an understanding of rhyme and reason in all that we do. I have always wanted the viewers at Hrvg to be the most informed, the best trained, and possess education relative to Remote Viewing that included management, viewing, and analysis. This dialog between Dick and Dr. Brown is a stellar example of information exchanges that exemplify cooperation and support at all levels. Dr. Brown did not enter into this dialog to indemnify himself but to resolve issues on various levels of concern. My compliments to him for taking the heat and giving his best explanations on the issues. My compliments go likewise to Dick for hammering out viewer concerns and like the newsman he is; working tirelessly to explain his concerns about the project. There is much that has also been exchanged in emails and I hope to collect those and make them available.

Now there is more to this project then everyone actually may know. I expect Dr. Brown to devise an SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) for RV Projects launched and managed via the Internet. Standardized methods to Encrypt, Task, Process, and Analyze Remote Viewing session work is in dire need throughout the community. There are many solo, or non-affiliated viewers, who simply don’t have a group or system to function with or be part of in the community. Adoption of a standard participation template would bring many of these viewers into a more active roll as they could join in on any competent project. This will be an important step in the further professional development of the viewers spread far and wide around the world. It is also a chance for some new stars to rise.

If you have read the lengthy discussions you can see the progress in clarifying issues and how contentious issues are brought up for resolution. Theses discussions are candid and informative. I think many may not know that both Dr. Brown and Dick Allgire are forging expectation and resolution into the new mold for project management and participation. Keep in mind that nothing is perfect and these post project blues will fade as soon as we finish dismantling this project and redesigning it so that it can be rebuilt. You may have heard of or participated in a Remote Viewing project before but you have never seen this level of critique and support being available for review. Over the weekend I got the chance to speak with Dr. Brown to recap the current issues and discuss analysis methodologies. In the area of analysis I believe the NSA/Military approach is best suited for considering the content potential of Remote Viewing sessions. Variations on Traffic Analysis such as those used at Hrvg are ideal for RV analysis and Dick has written extensively in email on what the analytic conclusion to target 25 would look like if pushed through our low level analysis. Since multiple disciplines were involved enough data was collected to conduct an Analytic Assessment. Multiple target packs on a common target provides enough data to explore session theme work as well as basic construction and understanding of viewer symbology and psychological language metaphor isolation. Analysis is a process and not really what you see is what you get in Remote Viewing work. Analytic models from Hrvg as well as from Dr. Brown and Lyn will be explored as we continue to understand what we know and what we can say about this project and its’ results.

Glenn