FORWARD TARGETING
In my attempts to collect sufficient data about the future and develop accurate predictions, I've actually compiled the material from many different sources.
The primary source, of course, is remote viewing. Most of the data about the near future, the present through the year 2100, comes from the files of remote viewings I've done over the past ten years; comments I've made based on these remote viewings at various seminars, talks, and presentations; as well as post hoc analysis of my own results. That is, where I've noticed obvious connective tissue that seems to string information from one remote viewing to another. Some of the viewing has also been recent and specifically tasked to answer some of the questions most often asked about the future.
Sometimes the circumstances surrounding the production of the information are not ideal, in that I am doing my own analysis or creating my own targets, but when addressing the future in a predictive way one is left with few alternatives.
In such cases where I've had to devise a method for targeting to preclude front-loading (previous knowledge about the specific target), I've written the dates with a targeting phrase on three-by-five cards and sealed them within opaque envelopes that I've then chosen from randomly. A few examples of these kinds of targets follow:
Describe the status of Social Security years 2050-2060.
Describe primary transportation between years 20252050.
Describe a significant change in civil law for years 20002075.
Once these phrases or questions have been written out and placed within envelopes, they are dropped unmarked into a container. The envelopes are all alike (same brand), and can be shuffled by shaking prior to a selection.
When I actually want to do a remote viewing, I randomly select an envelope and put it on top of my computer. I then repeat the following affirmation:
"I will be completely open to whatever information is required to appropriately answer the question contained within the current selected envelope."
An assumption is that the information will be pertinent to the United States, unless the input indicates otherwise. After a few minutes of meditation, I begin to receive the information, which I fill in on the screen of my computer. I write until I am no longer able to do so, or there is no information left to describe. Then I open the envelope and read the actual question or phrase. If the material I have written seems to agree in some way with the question, I save it to the general subject file for which it is a part, then destroy the three-by-five card.
If the information seems to be incomplete, or cannot be understood, but still seems to apply to the question, I save it with a notation that it is not complete and must be readdressed. I then put the three-by-five card into a fresh envelope and it goes back into the pile.
If nothing agrees or there seems to be any kind of a problem with the information, I delete the information from my screen, and reseal the card in a new envelope, returning it to the container. I always try to maintain a sufficient number of targets within the container to preclude prior knowledge of the subject.
Unfortunately, remote viewing isn't like watching television. Much of the information arrives fractured, that is, somewhat chaotic or in disarray. One then has to try and put it into some kind of an understandable context. How difficult is this? Very. In some cases it almost seems to be impossible. It is this stage in the development of information where everything can go wrong. Sometimes one might be inclined to drift off in a direction that is pure fantasy. Regardless of what anyone tells you, it is nearly impossible to tell when that is happening. The only real way to try and prevent it is to collect enough data to preclude having to jump to too many conclusions—in other words, reduce the leaps of logic required to have the data make sense.
As an example, a targeted envelope may contain the date "mid-2058 C.E.," and the targeting phrase "Describe the primary source of energy in 2075." The preliminary remote viewer input might read as follows:
"Large cylinder. Flatter on top than bottom. Focused array of some kind. Charged liquid. High-pitched whine. Sequential bursts of light. Swirling heat. Powerful sense of electromagnetic pulsing." Included with the statements may be a drawing or group of drawings relating to one or more of these statements.
Because I know that I am targeting the future, I can't automatically assume that my current concepts of reality will apply in trying to understand what all these statements mean. In other words, what drives the energy system may be some completely new form of science, which is not yet known or understood. Hence, all normal logic breaks down.
Do you abandon the information because you don't understand it? No. You do what you can with it, by retargeting once, twice, or however many times it takes for a concept to evolve, or until a pattern emerges that seems to support the informational fragments.
I've attempted to do this throughout the book. So some of what I've concluded will eventually end up very close to what proves to be true, some of it will gravitate to the opposite end of the stick, or about as far from ground truth as you can imagine. What will be fun is seeing which of it does what. In all cases, it will be fun to read about, and perhaps make for less of a surprise in our future.