The Hellfire Remote Viewing club tackled the target of The Havana Syndrome causes.
Little did they know at the time but the hit the Target dead on. This video was sent to me by somebody following my work. They understood IMMEDIATELY, as I did, that these folks were discussing the IceCube Neutrino Detector at the South Pole Station. I did reach out to the team lead to let them know how well they did. Unfortunately Daz considers himself some sort of expert on Stargate topics. When I reached out to him I shared my Bio from this website. He promptly changed the subject from things I can prove about South Pole Station to things I can not prove about the Stargate Program. I can only make assumptions as to why he refused to talk to me. None of them are good!
From their post…
Havana syndrome is an alleged set of medical symptoms with unknown causes experienced mostly abroad by U.S. government officials and military personnel. The symptoms range in severity from pain and ringing in the ears to cognitive difficulties and were first reported in 2016 by U.S. and Canadian embassy staff in Havana, Cuba. Beginning in 2017, more people, including U.S. intelligence and military personnel and their families, reported having these symptoms in other places, such as China, New Delhi, India, Europe, and Washington, D.C. The cause and validity of the illness have yet to be determined.
Eight BLIND remote viewers worked on this Project for Daz Smith (the Project Manager) and this video is a run-through with each remote viewer showing what they found.
More projects and information of The Hellfire club can be found here: https://hellfirerv.com
Daz keeps overlaying his limiting story on the experiences of the viewers. Anita 58.18 seems to have penetrated the process. If only you could bypass the moderator, work with the viewers directly to move the topic forward. Instead of withholding information from them, give them your data and see where they can go from there.
Then again, you yourself could probably remote view as much as any of these individuals but choose to remain within your chosen parameters until this reality can enter into general acceptance.
I know Anita and have some experience with interpreting her data (everyone is different.) She can get some spot on useful and accurate data. You just have to be careful, as with anyone, not to take “outlier” data that cannot be corroborated or surmised as probable with what you already know, and use it to leap from.
When working in groups there is, more often than not, a division of labor. For that division to be useful there need to be overlays that contain corroborating data. These can sometimes be found easily if the viewers have grouped their sketches onto one sheet and arranged them how they think they “fit” in terms of placement, orientation and size. I’ve analyzed sessions, having physical printouts in front of me and the images didn’t “snap together” but had pieces along the edges that overlayed other sessions. (Sometimes, with a highly drilled down cue it can be images of an object that is very similar.) I’ve even done this with my own sessions done months apart – same cue, blind. I dug up the older sessions and they literally matched up side by side with some things around the edges being duplicated. This can also be done in a more abstract way when there are more words than sketches (or the site is so complex or so unfamiliar to many that it’s difficult to get basic images that you can say are very similar.)
I have seen where the division of labor doesn’t seem to go so well, but in most of them I’ve questioned if that had to do with strong tasker intent (or that of people speaking with the tasker about the subject or project) or the validity/clarity of the cue. I do sometimes suspect that someone has changed the cue outright or fine-tuned it after the TRN was assigned. I also think that if a remote viewer has a strong intention to please the tasker they can fall prey to overlaying some of their wishes.
We remote viewed the Dan Cooper incident, for example and I’m not sure if the cue was drilled down enough for all the viewers to get cohesive information, or to be able to determine what was amiss about the story told. I have a tendency to not give a crap what people think so I wasn’t unconsciously trying to impress anyone with my results. If I remember correctly I was the only one that got a moving thing in the air and then two things leaving that and separating, with one of them like many pieces of paper scattering in the wind. That made me believe with some certainty that at the very least that a person did jump out of a plane. (I questioned if that even happened. There weren’t a lot of people that witnessed a man sit in the cabin and then not be in the plane anymore.) It’s been a while, so I can’t remember all the details, but I do recall there was a lot of confusing data in the sessions that didn’t seem to fit together very well. Honestly, I can’t remember what the cue was exactly. I’d have to see if I can dig up the sessions and cues on that project.
Point being – even with good data from a group of trusted viewers: the way that the information is analyzed is very important; there are certain possibilities that need to be considered having to do with intention; and the cue needs to be scrutinized because the question is just as important as the answer. There’s more to it, but those are the basics and can get complicated enough.
I’m writing this before I even push play. Curious if these types of things get mentioned or contradicted.
As for the particular subject here – good to see public viewers make the connection, even if they don’t accept it. Having the raw data out there is more important than any “presented project.”
The website is lookin good, Eric! I’ll be sure to visit more often now 🙂