I ran across this video on YouTube, an interview with Stephen A. Schwartz on the Next Level Soul Podcast. Schwartz has been Remote Viewing the future timeline of 2050 and 2060 and is about to publish his findings. But his take on why he disagreed with Edgar Cayce on Atlantis is idiosyncratic:
We know from the experimental research that the intention and beliefs of the questioner influence very strongly the remote viewer. The people who asked him (Cayce) the question were all Atlantis fanatics….So the researcher’s intentions and attitudes have an effect on the ability of the remote viewer to get information because in the non-local…in the “Great Google in the Sky” as it were, inaccurate information…that’s strongly believed is part of the information architecture.
There are 2 thoughts worth unpacking here. This is an area I have wondered about but never heard anyone examine: the role of the questioner in Remote Viewing. (Schwartz hates that name and prefers to call it “accessing non-local consciousness.” ) But Schwartz claims it can “very strongly…influence” the remote viewer, or whoever is looking for the information. This could explain the “feedback loop” that can occur in groups doing this kind of work, where the questioner’s beliefs affect the remote viewer, who then reinforces the questioner’s opinions, closing off any hope of keeping an open mind.
Schwartz, who jokingly refers to remote viewing as searching “the great Google in the sky,” suggests that inaccurate information, like in the above example of the strong beliefs of the questioner, then becomes part of what he calls “the information architecture.”
So if a Remote Viewer, and I’ll expand this to a channeler, can deliver inaccurate information when influenced by a strong belief system in the people asking them questions, and that inaccurate info is then “filed” in “Sky Google” - the Akashic Records, how vital is our “discernment muscle” when dealing with information from non-physical sources? This influencing is an open question I’ll be exploring.
Regarding Schwartz’s Remote Viewing of Future timelines: In the interview, he acknowledged his own limitations in doing this work with a mention of Jules Verne’s futuristic novel, Paris In The Twentieth Century, which wasn’t published in Verne’s lifetime. He saw this book as an example of our inability to look too far into the future because the information can exceed our ability to process it. Verne looked at Paris in the future and saw modern technologies, “automobiles, fax machines, elevators, even mega-corporations,” that were too unbelievable for his publisher. The book sat in a box until it was discovered and published in 1994…96 years after it was written.
As someone who has been exploring a Future TimeLine, I recognize the pitfalls. But I can rely on the personal connection to my Future self, “seeing through the eyes and hearing through the ears” of this 29th century personality, and take a “just the facts” approach to what I call the “science fiction reality” of that era. Schwartz gives a great interview, I look forward to the publication of his book.