First, I would like to say that what I am going to relate is based on the idea that SRV is a valid process for collecting data. I am basing that statement on the fact that I am a trained Scientific Remote Viewer, and the fact that as webmaster, I have seen nearly every session completed by the Professionals of this Institution.
Having said that, let's move on to the history of the Hale-Bopp SRV sessions:
I received a call from a friend of Chuck Shramek, the amateur astronomer from Houston whose photographs are now (in)famous. I personally called Chuck to discuss his photos, and to find out about Hale-Bopp. Chuck related the same story that he has told others about how he took the photos, what equipment he used, and he explained where I could find those photos on the web. He thought that they may make a good RV target. I made a few calls to some people I know in the astronomy field, and discovered that Hale-Bopp is an unusual comet, and that some anomalies have been observed with it (I am not talking about a companion object at this time). Dr. Courtney Brown (hereafter referred to as CB) conferred with the Institute's teacher trainer, and sent out a target to several of the professional viewers.
Now, I have to digress a little and explain what happens when a viewer receives a target. First of all, all sessions are conducted blind, so the viewer does NOT know the target until the session is completed. In the case of the Hale-Bopp sessions, the sessions were done under what is called "Type 4" conditions. This means that the monitor knows what the target is, and the viewer does not. I must also explain here what happens when a target is given that is not real. In this case, and a personal example I can give is a session that I monitored where the target was the LochNess monster. The viewer collected data that one would expect if the target was real, i.e. something cold and slimy, body of water, rocks, animal etc... BUT interpersed within that data were many clues that indicates that the target is not real, such as "fairy tale", "artificial", "not real", "this thing doesn't really exist." So, when a viewer gets a target that is not real, he/she collects data that one would expect from such a target, but also strong data showing that the target is simply not a real thing. One common training target which is used in the classes is "Jack and the Beanstalk." The students gets short people and a very tall person, a tall plant, a cow, but they also get fairy tale, just a story, not real, this didn't really happen.
So, when the Hale-Bopp anomalous companion object target was given out, it was understood that if there was a real object there, then real data with no "fairy tale" type of data would be collected. The sessions were completed, and the data was in. It indicated that there was a companion object to Hale-Bopp that seemed to be quite large, luminescent, perhaps sentient itself, and under the control of some type of extraterrestrial intelligence. There was no "fairy tale" type data in any of the sessions.
What next? Chuck Shramek's photos were labeled false because of an error made with a computer star chart program. There have been other photos shown of a possible object near Hale-Bopp, but we wanted to find out more. We were contacted by a scientist who claimed that the object was real and he had proof. He sent us some photos showing what may be an anomalous object, and we promised not to release any information about him until he was ready to come forward with whatever information he had. Could his photos be a hoax, or could he be mistaken? Sure. We decided to make a statement about the situation, hoping that anyone else who may have information would come forward.
What do I believe about the companion and the future?
Remote Viewing is a valid science. You can use it to view the past and the present with accuracy. If you are a skeptic of this, then please consider reading some of the history of remote viewing, which you can find in our Scanning the Web section, and in the Media Collector section. Remote Viewing the future is a more troublesome thing. It appears as though the futute is not fixed, and what you view today may not be what happens, for the future may change. Have we had any luck viewing the future? Sure - a regular training target has been the next presidential election/winner, and everyone got Clinton before the last election. I know, you are are thinking "well THAT'S no surprise" but you have to keep in mind that the viewer does not know what the target is at all, and for all the viewer knows, the target is a hot dog stand in Ventura.
My personal conclusion on all this is: There has been a companion object to the Hale-Bopp comet. Whether the companion is fixed or whether it comes and goes, I do not know, and really can not even speculate. Whether the object will stay with the comet and visit the earth is something else I do not know. The SRV sessions indicate that the object has a mission involving the Earth, but that is a future prediction, and I personally can not say whether that future is what will happen. Perhaps some of you will consider that an out for Farsight, but it is my personal opinion only, and it is based on the body of evidence for remote viewing. Another thing to consider is that this object apparently has subspace qualities. Perhaps any mission it has involves the earth in a strictly mental/telepathic sense. There are many, many more questions than answers, and my hope is that future sessions and future evidence will allow us to present a larger, more substantial statement on what is happening.
I hope that this helps in some way. It may not be what you are looking for, but it is the only statement that I can offer and feel I am being completely honest and open about my own experiences and the data I have seen. I have a feeling, but it is only that, that many of these future studies that we are doing will happen, perhaps in a different time frame than we anticipate, or perhaps with elements that we have not yet seen in our viewing. Analyzing a session done with a target from the past is simple - you understand each piece of data, and how it fits in. The future targets are much more difficult to analyze, and it may be that our viewing is 100% correct, but that our analysis is completely off. Time will tell. As for myself, I am considering this a huge experiment in the validity of using remote viewing to target unusual events and future events. It is only in testing and presenting data that one can go forward with new lessons learned in any science.
Original file name: CNI - HB.Prudence latest
This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.