Remote viewing is interesting, but still unproven.
Farsight is dead in the water.

I’d really like to see Farsight make falsifiable claims - specific predictions or observations that could be independently tested and potentially proven wrong.

And you've studied Farsight history for what. 20 minutes?

Go sit in a bloodletting class.

Sounds like more pseudo-skeptic mantra of a priori assumptions with no examination;
Like those people who refuse to look into the telescope while confidently claiming geo-centrism.

https://vid.quantum-note.com/Q-Z/Suppression/Suppression-Evidence(Rufus029TL12m23d)01.mkv
https://vid.quantum-note.com/Q-Z/Suppression/Suppression-Evidence(Rufus029TL12m23d)02.mkv
What is this about Remote-Viewing being so-called «unproven» now?

Time-Stamp: 030TL05m26d/22h43-4Z (True Light Calendar; 030TL = 2026CE)

@j4zzcat:

"...specific predictions or observations that could be independently tested and potentially proven wrong."

They do that.

Area 51? Go there, enter the lowest level of the underground facility, and look for reptilians.

3I Atlas? Send a spacecraft to investigate whether remote viewing data matches physical data.

Insectoids? Talk to them in person.

Everything is falsifiable/verifiable if you go there and try to touch it.

Beyond shooting the messenger, is there anything here that can actually be falsified?

I gather that conventional belief still supposes psychic ability as unproven. Wikipedia states it like a fact and locks the page where anyone might challenge. Not just debatable but "false" - psi is a bottleneck. What better way to lock out evidence than everything that we can't physically touch.

Even beloved mediums and channelers show evidence of psi, though they've co-opted a whole crowd of would-be questioners.

It comes down to this. If you can't trust a president of the American Statistical Association and statistics prof of several decades that Remote Viewing is a statistical anomaly,

then how can you say you even trust conventional science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Utts

The Stargate project evaluation board produced a split judgment: Jessica Utts concluded that the laboratory data showed evidence for anomalous cognition, Ray Hyman - an equally prominent scientific evaluator on the review - argued that the evidence did not establish psi and that the apparent effects could be explained by methodological problems, subjective validation, and lack of independent replication.

You usually do this by having a verifiable target in the session (ie, remote viewing what's in a box; there's an actual thing in the box to verify afterwards).
However, with more abstract targets (ie "remote view mars 4 million years ago), there is no verifiable target. Instead, blind protocols and probability are used by having a team of remote viewers assess the target independent of one another, then comparing overlapping or relational data between them. Because it's done blind (neither tasker nor viewer know the targets beforehand), it's unlikely a team of viewers would come back with data overlap if left to pure chance. This is why Farsight has a team.
But in terms of being falsifiable, you'd have to perform your own project with the same protocols on the same target. There is no immediate prosaic way of protecting against falsifiability by, for example, ensuring none of the viewers "really" knew the target beforehand (you'll always just have to "take Farsight's word for it," or whatever other institution is performing the experiment). Obviously we also put "blind trust" in things like particle physics experiments (although there's verifiable math involved there), but ultimately you'll need to know how to remote view things yourself.

@Tazz:

"What better way to lock out evidence than everything that we can't physically touch."

What's the purpose of remote viewing if not to get evidence of things that are real in a physical sense?

For example, they saw that a UFO carved the Kailasa Temple out of the rock with advanced technology. Why does the remote viewing data matter? Because of the physical existence of the technology.

And this is true for every remote viewing target. Aliens? Only matters if they exist physically. War in Heaven? Only matters if the war was physical. Prison Planet? Only matters if the death trap technology affects you physically.

Psychic Abilities? Only matter if they influence physical reality.

Physical-Existences! =O

I wonder if our Origina-Realm of the Pure-Realm is even Remote-Viewable;
It's a Formless-Existence after all, but, then again... would Telepathy be considered... physical?
...because I remember full-well that communication was done via Telepathy prior to my Incarnation.

Well, besides that, I learned about a new «Time-Stamping» Service from APD-1!

https://opentimestamps.org/

That was a recommendation brought up after it had done a Field-Test now documented here...

https://apd-1.etqis.com/Hub/Q-Z/Remote-Viewing/Sessions/apd1-rv-001-fieldtest.html

Field-Testing needed to be done due to Memory Fragmentation because of Architectural-Changes.

A lot of «Code» work still remains though which takes time since I actually have to test the Code...

Time-Stamp: 030TL05m28d/09h42Z

from time to time someone's spends money in a subscription in order to talk about a subject that many of people here have already discuss, understood, acknowledge and practice for years and years!

It's true, remote viewing data can never replace physical evidence. But the idea that there's no physical evidence for remote viewing success is also preposterous.

Academia panders to statistical datasets but even that dilutes the obvious success.

When I task Del with a number and put a note on my shelf with it saying "will view the Black Knight satellite" and the viewer data comes back "deduct oumanouma or black knight satellite or something like that ... "

Remote viewing is then real. Full stop.

When Carl Sagan came up with the sentence: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." there was a good reason for that. RV had been confirmed waaaaay beyond statistical evidence! But the scientific world could not handle that, so they came up with this prop which is pretty ridiculous, if looked at under scrutiny.

@Tazz:

"But the idea that there's no physical evidence for remote viewing success is also preposterous."

Yes. Remote viewing works. But you have to be careful:

If a remote viewer can see the physical reality of a target, it doesn't mean that every remote viewing will see the physical reality of every target. Remote viewers can obviously see what people create in their minds, like the "Tanner Dam" that existed only in the mind of Dick Allgire.

This means that physical evidence is the only way to tell whether remote viewing data coincides with physical reality. Without physical evidence, the data remains an unproven possibility.

I think two different questions are being mixed together.
Question 1: Does remote viewing work at all?
Question 2: Are all Farsight conclusions correct?
Those are not the same question.
Remote viewing itself is testable. Put an object in a box. Task the target blind. Compare the data afterwards. People have been doing variations of that for decades.
So saying "RV is unproven" is already a much stronger claim than many people realize.
The harder question is whether specific Farsight projects are correct.
That is where falsifiability becomes more complicated.
If future investigations show no non-human presence behind the UFO phenomenon, many Farsight conclusions fail.
If consciousness does not survive death, many Farsight conclusions fail.
If future access to currently inaccessible targets consistently contradicts the data, those projects fail.
The real issue is that many of the most interesting targets are not easily accessible today. That is a verification problem, not necessarily a falsifiability problem.
What interests me most, however, is something else.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that every anomaly can be explained away individually:
A child remembers a previous life? Coincidence.
An NDE? Brain activity.
An OBE? Imagination.
Remote viewing? Chance.
A UFO case? Misidentification.
Fine.
But now you have hundreds or thousands of anomalies from completely different domains pointing toward similar conclusions about consciousness and reality.
At some point the question changes.
It is no longer whether anomaly A can be dismissed.
Or anomaly B.
Or anomaly C.
The question becomes whether all of them are simultaneously harmless noise.
For me, converging anomalies are the strongest argument. Not because any single case proves everything, but because independent lines of evidence repeatedly seem to point toward the same hidden structure