RS2--daniel

I read about Dr. Dewey Larson's theory that the asteroid belt formed as an asteroid belt and not as a planet. I found this video on the website for the Farsight Institute where they did a blind study using 4 'military grade' remote viewers to see which theory remote viewing would indicate or support (gradual formation or exploding planet). All 4 of the remote viewers sessions seemed to uniformly point to an exploding planet. This doesn't prove anything, but it is certainly interesting to entertain. I'd be curious to get the thoughts of the members of this board. Here is a link to the Farsight Institute and a video summarizing the results.
http://www.farsight.org/demo/Mysteries/ ... Uj-lRwRB8E

Secret Agent Man wrote:I read about Dr. Dewey Larson's theory that the asteroid belt formed as an asteroid belt and not as a planet. I found this video on the website for the Farsight Institute where they did a blind study using 4 'military grade' remote viewers to see which theory remote viewing would indicate. All 4 of the remote viewers sessions seemed to uniformly point to an exploding planet.

Consider this: the asteroid belt is the "neutral point," as described by Larson, the point at which motion in space went "out" (outer planets) and motion in time went "in" (inner planets), which means the neutral point "asteroid belt" was where the white dwarf star was destroyed (explosion in space = out, implosion in time (unseen) = in).

And from Wikipedia on White Dwarf: "The estimated radii of observed white dwarfs, however, are typically between 0.008 and 0.02 times the radius of the Sun;[29] this is comparable to the Earth's radius of approximately 0.009 solar radius.

To the casual remote viewer, it may just LOOK like an Earth-to-Jupiter size planet exploding... it all depends on how you interpret the data with the scientific knowledge you possess.

(Good example on how subjective "truth" really is... your truths are always derived from what you know, not an absolute.)

In that case the remote viewing data may very well support Larson's theory after all. Did you watch the video Daniel? I know, the animated background was a little cheesy. Their other videos don't have this, so they must have been experimenting. Anyway, back to the point. In the video he shows some of the remote viewing data highlights and a few things come to mind. One viewer described a light so bright that it was 'sun like'. Now this could be interpreted two ways. It could be the sudden release of explosive energy, or it actually could have been a white dwarf star. There is also reference to a black hole? Not sure what that is about. I'd be curious to hear your take on the video.

On a side note, I recently read 'Remote Viewing: A Complete User's Guide to Coordinate Remote Viewing' by Dr. David Morehouse and have tried my first solo session. Its definitely harder than it looks, but I got some really interesting results that has incredibly interesting and accurate correlations to the actual target site. I had an AOL drive (analytical overloay) that drove the session in the wrong direction and I realized it was happening but for some reason couldn't clear it out using the protocols. Its going to take some work, but the initial results were very promising. The hardest part is to stay in the mindset of pure viewing, where you don't judge, or let your ego take over and try to 'call the target'. Its the observer vs. evaluator mode as Dr. Morehouse describes it.

Cheers for the links, the RV Sessions are very interesting and it's worth posting them here for discussion. I've kept the Asteroid and Iapetus ones apart as they seem to indicate different events:

Comments: This is a superb session that clearly describes the expectations of the exploding planet hypothesis. The entire session is good, but particularly note the sketch of the explosion on page 6 and the sketch of the asteroid being ejected from the explosion on page 7, plus the numerous perceptions of great heat.

Comments: Excellent sessions supporting the exploding planet hypothesis. Good descriptions of the explosion and the ejected asteroid, intense heat and kinetic energy, plus a shock wave. In particular, see sketches on pages 6 and 7 (session 2B_1) and pages 7 and 9 (session 2B_2).

Comments: This is an exceptionally clear session depicting an event in space that is characterized as a huge explosion from a central source. The entire session is good, but special attention should be given to the sketches on pages 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12. Also note the concluding remarks on page 13: "There is expanding energy at the target from a tiny particle growing to a huge mass. The movement is a massive vortex with a rippling wave effect and vibrational energy. There is indescribably bright light that is sun-like at the target. There is a Milky Way like star system and a black hole that sucks energy at the target."

I wonder if the black hole could possibly reference the spacial implosion/temporal explosion of the Type II supernova?

Comments: This is an excellent session that describes a large debris cloud that contains both particulate matter and large asteroid bodies. The clear perception of asteroids crucially connects the debris cloud to the creation of the asteroids since the debris cloud contains asteroids within it. The viewer's description of asteroids within the debris cloud could not be more clear. In particular, see pages 3, 5, 6, and 11. The viewer also notes that the debris cloud and embedded asteroids are approaching a planetary body or light source, noting the increase in reflective light during the approach.

Comments: In some respects, this session could be interpreted as supporting either hypothesis. Clearly the viewer perceives that the dark patch on Iapetus was created by falling debris. However, it is not clear if this is a sudden or gradual process. The viewer clearly describes both large and small objects traveling within a rapidly moving cloud or wave hitting a planetary body, and the existence of larger objects would support the exploding planet hypothesis. The fast movement of the debris also tends to support the exploding planet hypothesis. The thickness of the cloud tends to support the exploding planet hypothesis.

Comments: This session is best described by the summary on the final page. The viewer clearly perceives a huge explosion of an "astro-planet" that is associated with great heat.

Comments: In this session, the viewer describes a large rock "like a meteor" and a brilliant "big star" in the sky. Tremendous energy is involved. (See pages 5 and 6.)

These viewings seem to back up the Reciprocal system and more so Bruce's expanded Supernova cycle in 'At The Earth's Core' which leads from the Binary system to the Planetary system.

Focus on Iapetus:

Comments: There are some interesting sketches in this session. The concluding remarks suggest that a singular event involving a large impact with cratering is involved. The cratering could also refer to impacts on Iapetus from the debris cloud. Both interpretations favor the exploding planet hypothesis. Some of the sketches appear to suggest a large amorphous cloud from space descending on a planet's surface. High levels of energy are involved. The energy also seems to favor the exploding planet hypothesis. Some "dripping" perceptions on page 5 may favor the solar nebula hypothesis.

Comments: As with the session for Target 2A, this session describes a huge explosion that appears to be triggered by an artificial event. The viewer notes that the explosion has similarities to a coronal ejection (page 12). See also page 13. The viewer then notes that the explosion results in the creation of an asteroid type object (see page 16). This session supports the idea that the planetary explosion may have been a result of warfare.

Comments: This is a clear session supporting the exploding planet hypothesis. However, the viewer describes what appears to be the cause of the explosion. This viewer unambiguously describes the explosion as an artificially triggered event, possibly using a beam weapon located on a nearby moon or planet. It should be noted that Tom Van Flandern hypothesizes that Mars was originally a moon of the planet that exploded, noting that Martian cratering evidence strongly supports the idea that Mars was very close to the exploding planet when the explosion occurred. Flandern also suggests that the explosion could conceivably been a result of a war.

I read the Mars Mystery years ago but don't recall Van Flandern saying it could have been war? Oh well it was ages ago!

Comments: This very clear session describes a military event that triggers an explosion of nearly unbelievable scale. The sketches in this session can be followed easily. Especially see the sketches on pages 14 and 16 to understand the enormity of the explosive force. On the final page of the session, the viewer notes that the explosion is of such a scale that he may not be able to fully understand it.

Fascinating and from what I have taken in so far the viewings above are a mix of viewing the supernova creating the solar system and asteroid belt and possibly the Annunaki or other ET's at war with each other had something to do with Iapetus and Mars being the way they are. Daniel youh ad mentioned a war between the Annunaki and the Nephilim, their children, in one post or was it the SM's and LM's?

Richard Hoagland has a great article on Iapetus, our Solar System's very own Death Star, and it's anomalies here - http://www.enterprisemission.com/moon1.htm

Thanks Djchrismac! Good idea posting the summary comments.

Didn't the Law of One material have a planetary body being destroyed through warfare? Maldek or Tiamat? I've heard it reffered to as both...

Yes in the Babylonian Mythology Tiamat is the Planet that gets destroyed and that resulted in Mars/Earth getting badly scarred because of this if I remember correctly. It certainly seems like the Remote Viewers, who often experience time slips while viewing as they mentioned a few times in the Atlantis readings, are seeing a much older event like the Sun expanding or the Supernova explosion forming the Galaxy and a more recent (but still historical) event involving the destruction of Tiamat, possibly even all three!!

Secret Agent Man wrote:In that case the remote viewing data may very well support Larson's theory after all. Did you watch the video Daniel? I know, the animated background was a little cheesy. Their other videos don't have this, so they must have been experimenting. Anyway, back to the point. In the video he shows some of the remote viewing data highlights and a few things come to mind. One viewer described a light so bright that it was 'sun like'. Now this could be interpreted two ways. It could be the sudden release of explosive energy, or it actually could have been a white dwarf star. There is also reference to a black hole? Not sure what that is about. I'd be curious to hear your take on the video.

I just got a chance to watch it. I agree--very cheesy background!

From what they presented, I find a 99.9% correlation to the Bruce's "generational" model of the solar system. Consider the sequence of events:

1. Binary star system -- no planets.
2. Giant explodes in supernova.
3. Energy from supernova accelerates the planet-sized white dwarf into the ultra-high speed range. Ultra-high speeds mean 1 dimension in space and 2 in time, so 1d "energy" is electrical in nature, the process would generate "space lightning" (as Velikovsky documents), and was seen by remote viewers.
4. Then the white dwarf would also go "supernova", exploding in space (brilliant flash and lots of debris) and exploding in time--which is IMPLODING in space, your "black hole."
5. The black hole bit (matter moving in time, not a "hole") breaks into fragments and becomes the planetary cores.

When talking about Iapetus, they refer to the craters on Mars -- on just one side, so the assumption was that a nearby planet exploded. Let's use a little common sense here... when something like a star or planet explodes, the debris field is not a shell, it is a FIELD of asteroids, moving at different speeds. Mars rotates, so if asteroids were clobbering the planet, you would expect craters to be distributed around the planet as the field impacted over time--not on one side.

Now, go back to what I related in Geochronology, based on RS2. The early planets, formed FROM the explosion, DID NOT ROTATE on their axis. To me, this "craters on one side" is evidence that Mars was not rotating during its formative period, post-supernova, so with all the asteroids moving towards the center of gravity--the original location of the sun, one side would get clobbered, and the other would not.

Secret Agent Man wrote:The hardest part is to stay in the mindset of pure viewing, where you don't judge, or let your ego take over and try to 'call the target'. Its the observer vs. evaluator mode as Dr. Morehouse describes it.

I worked with Farsight a long time ago and also did that remote viewing test. I was actually pretty good at it. I agree with you. My first "viewing" was just a latitude and longitude in an envelope. I scribbled out something that looked like a couple of mountains with all these vertical lines on them. I was thinking, Nazca plains? Turned out it was the Golden Gate bridge. I was almost dumbfounded. It is difficult not to "stay focused," because your mind want to make sense of the data.

Djchrismac wrote:Fascinating and from what I have taken in so far the viewings above are a mix of viewing the supernova creating the solar system and asteroid belt and possibly the Annunaki or other ET's at war with each other had something to do with Iapetus and Mars being the way they are. Daniel you had mentioned a war between the Annunaki and the Nephilim, their children, in one post or was it the SM's and LM's?

Actually, it's "all of the above." The SMs are a hostile bunch and are always looking for a fight. The Titans (An's parents and siblings) got into a fight with An's kids (the An-nunaki), and the Annunaki decided to claim Earth for themselves and boot the parents out. (The Annunaki are the AEsir of the Norse or Asura of the Vedas.) But Earth already had developed intelligent life--the LMs, from the Titan's first survey party. It was much like the European invasion of America, the local population welcomed the Annunaki visitors from another world, and those visitors went and took over everything and made a mess out of the place. That set the Annunaki at war with the LMs. And of course, the sons of the sons of An, the Nefilim giants, did the same rebel thing as their parents and tried to kick out the Annunaki, which led to the Deluge, when Enlil tried to wipe them off the face of Earth. It just never stops with the SMs.

From what I've learned from the LMs, the Annunaki retreated back to Mars, and both sides started hurling asteroids at each other, like stellar catapults. If you read the Varo annotations in Case for the UFO, that is the "great bombardment" that they refer to. Then something happened on Mars, and I'm not sure exactly what, but a major catastrophe that pretty much destroyed the atmosphere and laid the planet to waste, which forced the SMs to surrender to the LMs.

Djchrismac wrote:Yes in the Babylonian Mythology Tiamat is the Planet that gets destroyed and that resulted in Mars/Earth getting badly scarred because of this if I remember correctly. It certainly seems like the Remote Viewers, who often experience time slips while viewing as they mentioned a few times in the Atlantis readings, are seeing a much older event like the Sun expanding or the Supernova explosion forming the Galaxy and a more recent (but still historical) event involving the destruction of Tiamat, possibly even all three!!

Curiously enough, the LMs do not call this planet Earth, but Tiamat (our Latin Terra), because they never accepted the domination of the SMs and would not refer to this world as Ea's Eridu (from which phonetic corruption resulted in Earth). Eridu translates to "home away from home." And the LMs certainly consider Tiamat to have been destroyed by the descendents of the SMs, just more metaphorically than physically.