Remote Viewers Predict Catastrophic Meteor Impact Before 2013

reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular


Daz Smith is the person I communicated with for about a year. He is so self deluded it is incredible.

He is one of the people that did an RV on a stationary mark on Mars and claimed it was an active project with aliens squirting some sort of a hose.

Daz is also the person that claimed that energetic and rhythmic was a good description of a tornado. The guy is crackers. He really, really believes that dry and musical is an appropriate description for Arkansas.

I kid you not.

If anyone would like to communicate directly with several RVers, including Daz Smith, they are open for any and all questions at the following RV forum. Free to join, free to search, free to lurk.

Ten Thousand Roads

You can participate in RV sessions, see results, query the RVers, practice your capabilities, etc. This kind of open, uncloaked activity removes doubt and adds scientific weight to the science and art of RV.

Here is a very good source for RV information from the Owner of the Ten Thousand Roads forums and website.


Firedocs

Daz Smith is the person I communicated with for about a year. He is so self deluded it is incredible. He is one of the people that did an RV on a stationary mark on Mars and claimed it was an active project with aliens squirting some sort of a hose. Daz is also the person that claimed that energetic and rhythmic was a good description of a tornado. The guy is crackers. He really, really believes that dry and musical is an appropriate description for Arkansas. I kid you not.

LOL, just like on the other forum, yet again you are incorrect.
In the target you mentioned which I did as part of a BLIND remote viewing experiment. The target turned out to be a Tornado. In my 20 or so pages of data I said the target is a tornado, sketched it and described it. Yet you in you inability to accept the obvious - grasp one or two of my descriptive words from all these pages of data in hope of saying I was off target - you dont mention my sketches of movement interacting with man made structure or that I said this target is a TORNADO, in session.
dont take my word for it the RV sessions are here - see for yourselves: [SNIP]

Second - I have never said "a stationary mark on Mars and claimed it was an active project with aliens squirting some sort of a hose". Yes, I did do a BLIND RV target for someone who does think this is the case - but thats not my opinion - in fact I dont believe you ever asked me my opinion on this target - Now, did my data support this view - well its up to everyone to make up their own mind - its all available on my website for download or form the person who set the targets, here:[SNIP]

I make no claims, charge no money and do all my remoet viewing by the book and fully blind, Alot of my work is online to view and decide for yourself on my rv websites and on the websites for the public RV projects I have worked on.

Remote Viewing has been tested to death. Tested and evaluated for over 20 years by the top labs in the U.S, repeatedly given budgets to continue yera on years for over 23 years by the intel, government and congress - do you really think they did this if it dindt work. No to mention that every year the programs went through, scientific oversights committees, congressional oversight committees, human use oversight committees. There are millions or recorded double blind remote viewing trila on record showing an effect above the norm - yet you and all your qualifications and supreme knowledge of science claim that all this was wrong, all these scientists were wrong and that you are right and that there is nothing to it.

Now, ummm who has the most credibility here - science and a project/research funded for over 23 years continuously, showing results year on year - or you with your closed mind?

But above all get your fact right and dont put words into my mouth.

All the best...
Daz

reply to post by dazsmith


Daz, thanks for clearing this issue. All too often, ATS posters make scurrilous, incorrect, agenda-driven and contemptibly inaccurate posts that go without being questioned or corrected.

This will not be the case here.

Daz, thanks for clearing this issue. All too often, ATS posters make scurrilous, incorrect, agenda-driven and contemptibly inaccurate posts that go without being questioned or corrected. This will not be the case here.

No probs.
I dont mind unbiased sceptical evaluation - in fact I welcome it - but it has to be unbiased and not rabid.
All remote viewing should be looked at carefully, all experiments should be reviewed with a clear head.
The reputation and general long-term accuracy of the individual remote viewers should always be taken into account when looking at their work. There are some remote viewers that are more ethical and reliable than others (radio show guests).

I, personally have worked for the top people in this field, I have helped in finding missing people for the FINDME group and have now worked well over 200 missing persons cases for the U.S. police. I have worked for a U.S general and for Public RV experiments for a number of years. I have numerous testimonials from clients and people I have worked for, expressing my accuracy. I dont generally charge, dont do personal readings or this type of thing - the remote viewing work I do, is all at my expense, even the FREE remote viewing magazine 'eight martinis' which I create at my own cost. I have nothing to sell. Anyone is welcome to judge my work for itself on my site - its all in the public domain - make-up your own minds.

Remote viewing is NOT 100% accurate, the remoet viewer is NEVER ALWAYS on target, there will always be a small part of inaccurate data in most/all remoet viewing sessions. Most 'good' remoet viewers have trained themselves overs years to keep this to one side and to a minimum.

Remote Viewing should never be used as a single information source - its should ONLY be used with other sources of information - which is why I am wary of threads of this kind.I always stand by my remoet viewing - I cant always stand by any interpretations and analysis form project managers involved.

Most of all check that each remoet viewing project has been properly constructed. Remote viewers MUST be BLIND to the targets and there MUST be feedback to assess accuracy.

Anyone wanting to know more - I have extensive Biblos, examples, science reports and papers on my website.

All the best...
Daz

reply to post by dazsmith

In my 20 or so pages of data I said the target is a tornado, sketched it and described it.

You did describe it as energetic and rhythmic. Actually the target was tornadoes in Arkansas. You describe the place as dry and arid.

I do not recall that tornado was ever mentioned in your work. You say that now.

Here is what you did write: "Relaxing movement - like music - flow"

That exactly how I'd describe a tornado.

reply to post by dazsmith

Now, ummm who has the most credibility here - science and a project/research funded for over 23 years continuously, showing results year on year - or you with your closed mind?

Science? There's no science here.

The project was funded for a long time as I pointed out earlier. It was also dumped because it did not produce results. It was dropped because it was deemed to be useless.

So who are you going to trust, the self deluded? Not I.

Originally posted by dazsmith

Daz, thanks for clearing this issue. All too often, ATS posters make scurrilous, incorrect, agenda-driven and contemptibly inaccurate posts that go without being questioned or corrected. This will not be the case here.

No probs.
I dont mind unbiased sceptical evaluation - in fact I welcome it - but it has to be unbiased and not rabid.

As you can see, best to clear out of this place then. Rabid and biased rule the day.

reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular


Daz Smith pointed to a single word of many, many words and claimed a hit. I showed quite a few words that did not agree with his single point hit. I was accused of cherry picking failure while I accused Daz of cherry picking.

A third party collected all of the words written down and separated them into possibly tornado related and not related. Only 1 in 6 words had any possibility of being tornado related. The person suggested that the descriptive words more closely matched classical music than anything else. None of the geographical descriptions matched Arkansas.

The subjective nature makes RV is not useful or in my opinion credible. No matter how often DazSmith can write blind in a single post it does not make it scientific. The subjective matching and the desire to succeed allow Daz and others to claim hits when no one else can see the hit.

If the results of the RV were given to someone else that did not know the target could they determine the target from the RV reports?

If the results of the RV and a list of potential targets were given to someone could they match the RV to the correct target?

From what I have seen the answer to the last 2 questions is an obvious NO.

Still the RV crowd does their stuff and then given a target they say things like, "Wow, what a hit!"

reply to post by stereologist


other than to me, when do my words matter in the Universe?

My words dont mean JACK. not here, not anyplace.

what I have to say about events of 2012 , Maya Calenders, Jack in the Bean Stalk, Santa Clause or Bigfoot dont mean a thing to the universe.

nodda damn thing!!!

For those that would like direct and accurate information regarding either Daz Smith or RV in general...

Eight martinis is a magazine dedicated to the pursuit and the application of the Art of Remote Viewing. Each Issue we present Remote Viewing sessions & examples, projects, news and theories from some of the leading Remote Viewing practitioners and thinkers.

The magazine currently comes in two formats; a FREE download as an Adobe pdf file and as a Full color printed and delivered to your door – magazine.

Eight Martinis

“What is an “eight-martini” result?
Well, this is an intelligence community in-house term for remote viewing data so good that it cracks everyone’s realities. So they have to go out and drink eight martinis to recover”.- Ingo Swann

reply to post by AlchemicalMonocular

“What is an “eight-martini” result?
Well, this is an intelligence community in-house term for remote viewing data so good that it cracks everyone’s realities. So they have to go out and drink eight martinis to recover”.- Ingo Swann

So when will one of these events occur?

If these ever happened then the military would not have dumped RV.

Originally posted by rebellender
Just when we think all the Gloom and Doom of 2012 has been Debunked and the unnecessary prepping for a disaster can be put out of our heads somebody comes up with yet another Doom. This one is a little different. Its a real "Wait and See" here is the link and some opening text Remote Views Meteor

A meteor strike on the planet By Dan Eden This story will blow your mind. That's what usually happens to us when we learn something about the world that seems totally irrational -- but true. In this story we are dealing with time, the future to be exact, and the existence of multiple and different futures. But wait! If you think this is some pseudo-science, you're dead wrong...

I'd like to offer some clarification:

1) This is not a strict prediction of a catastrophic meteor event in OUR reality.
2) These predictions are based on multiple universe theory, that is:
a) There are infinite universes occurring simultaneously.
b) All realities exist simultaneously: Past, present, future... and infinite possibilities of EACH.
3) The predictions are for certain reality strings, but not necessarily the ones we will experience in our dimension.

Still, I HIGHLY recommend watching the first (short) video on the link above.

For accurate information on RV with emphasis on Multiple Universe (Reality)...

Contribute to The Farsight Institute A New Scientific Experiment Involving Prediction and Multiple Universes

Predicting the future has been one of the most difficult things to do with remote viewing. People often ask that if someone can remote view, what will happen at some point in the future? Many have tried to use remote viewing to answer that question, and some have occasionally met with success. But to date, only one experimental design using remote viewing has ever worked consistently to correctly predict the future. We now have an idea why that particular experimental design works, and why other experimental designs do not work as well. The reason may have to do with the existence of multiple universes, and we now have a way to test for this directly.

I'd like to offer some clarification:

1) This is not a strict prediction of a catastrophic meteor event in OUR reality.
2) These predictions are based on multiple universe theory, that is:
a) There are infinite universes occurring simultaneously.
b) All realities exist simultaneously: Past, present, future... and infinite possibilities of EACH.
3) The predictions are for certain reality strings, but not necessarily the ones we will experience in our dimension.

You got to love this clarification. It is more properly called a hedge, or the excuse.

All wacko claims need an excuse as to failure. Here are other examples:
1. Incorrectly built pyramids can accumulate negative energy which is why some experiments fail.
2. Nibiru is a inter-dimensional planet which is why it has not yet been detected.
3. The government is involved in a cover up.
4. DIsinfo agents spread lies.
5. Follow the protocol or RV does not work.
6. Your failure must mean that you did not follow the RV protocol.
7. A tornado IS "Relaxing movement - like music - flow"

So predictions work it just happens someplace else.

In other words the predictions are useless. That's what this means. It is a statement on why the government finally dumped RV after wasting money and time on it. It is a stinker.

Earlier in the thread I reported how Farsight did an RV on the space ship following Hale Bopp. Only problem is there was no such spaceship.

So I get this excuse right, the RV crew saw a spaceship in another universe. Too bad Heaven's Gate people killed themselves in our universe. They needed to be in another universe to kill themselves. All of that planning and they forgot the to put "check the universe" at the top of their list of things to do. Don't you hate an oversight like that?

Here is a link where Daz Smith was interviewed

Daz On Paracast

and here is the followup forum conversation which backs up his accuracy and the scientific validity of Remote Viewing.

Paracast Validation

Enjoy!

You did describe it as energetic and rhythmic. Actually the target was tornadoes in Arkansas. You describe the place as dry and arid. I do not recall that tornado was ever mentioned in your work. You say that now. Here is what you did write: "Relaxing movement - like music - flow" That exactly how I'd describe a tornado.

OF course you dont remember 'Tornado' was mentioned.

You see - you are taking single words and comments of of context and in your ignorance of how remoet viewing works are trying tio use this as a weapon to show its doesn't.

No one and definitely not me, ever said Remote viewing is 100% accurate. In my sessions anything form 5-50% cha be inaccurate - luckily is average is about 20%. which means out of 100 pieces of information - noise has made 20 or so inaccurate. So you have to look at the 'whole picture' a remote viewing session paints and not just disect single parts.

So with this in mind - did I weekes before the event existed describe it with this summary - remember the key here DESCRIBE IT?

my summary on this target was:


The target consists of;
Structures, people, motion, object.

The Structures are;
Manmade, of mixed sizes and shapes.
At least one of the structures has a rough/texture surface feel.
One of the structures is tall with multiple levels to it, feels lipped in part.
Very linear accents seem to be part of the design.
This structure feels important to the location/region.
The structures feel like they are exposed to an aggressive, natural flowing motion.
The structures feel stepped and from above appear closely located.
Location feels close to a curved area of land/coastal.

The location is;
Hot, sandy and bright. The land itself felts generally flat and flowing in shape/form.
This feels edged by water/sea.

There is an object which is;
Shiny and smooth, this feels very curved and flowing in its designed form.
This is also manmade, metal.
This feels highly designed.

There are people at the target who are;
Hot & tiered with dry throats.

There is a motion at the target which is;
Aggressive and fluid, free in its movement.
This builds to a crescendo and then dissipates downwards.
The movement feels penetrating as it interacts with the location and structures.
The flow/movement is against the structures in a wild, uncontrolled manner.
The motion builds to a release then it trails away.
As it builds its motion is spikey with aggressive movements then it recedes with a
release of energy ‐ much like an orgasm.

Now did I predictively weeks in advance describes what could be a tornado - let alone sketch it (which is in the actual session - showing a wave of movement hitting and going through a structure)

And by the way - i named the target as a TORNADO on page 4.
weeks before the event happens and weeks before this target was randomly chosen as the target.

So remember - dont take individual words - look at the information as a whole.

There is a motion at the target which is;
Aggressive and fluid, free in its movement.
This builds to a crescendo and then dissipates downwards.
The movement feels penetrating as it interacts with the location and structures.
The flow/movement is against the structures in a wild, uncontrolled manner.
The motion builds to a release then it trails away.
As it builds its motion is spikey with aggressive movements then it recedes with a release of energy ‐ much like an orgasm.

Because, this single paragraph is a great DESCRIPTION of a TORNADO!!!!
if you say otherwise then you are clearly beyond all help.

Daz

Originally posted by AlchemicalMonocular
Here is a link where Daz Smith was interviewed

Daz On Paracast

and here is the followup forum conversation which backs up his accuracy and the scientific validity of Remote Viewing.

Paracast Validation

Enjoy!

Paracast,accuracy,scientific validity

Are you a standup comedian because that was FUNNY.

RV is like firing a shotgun at a barn door from a few feet, make it as vauge as posssible then you have a good chance of a hit

The only way to 'truly' test remote viewing is in a science lab under controlled conditions with multiple viewers and many other elements. That has been done, ad nauseum, for the last 30 years. Anybody genuinely interested in the legitimacy of remote viewing ought to start there. Everything else is "jes' people talkin'" as they say. 'Testing RV' with laymen speaks only to that individual person, for that individual target, on that individual session.

The reason I am interested in remote viewing -- apart from having been a medical-model skeptic at one point, so probably I would not have been able to accept it enough to truly learn and practice it, were it not for the science and historical-intell element -- is because the science-based protocol prevents fraud, delusion, and an endless list of potential error (in process).

It does not make it accurate; RV's science-based protocol is not about psi, it is about "preventing everything that is NOT psi from polluting the process."

Greg Kolodziejzyk

(ref: www.remote-viewing.com... )

did some very serious personal layman's research with Associative Remote Viewing and posted all his stats for public review. This is a big deal because ARV, being binary in his usage (standard protocol except he did his own judging), is a very clear "right or wrong" determination, as opposed to the unavoidably subjective nature of judging remote viewing normally (less so for fuzzy set analysis but nobody does that outside of the lab) -- so it's fabulous for "real world, where rubber meets the road" kind of statistics, even outside the lab.