Occam's razor: some of these endless cases are probably real
Falsifiable claims
General FarsightPrime Discussions
· 24 replies
· 322 views
· 9 followers
Having said that, the obvious question remains: where is the beef?
Where are the falsifiable claims, not merely in principle, but in practice? If Farsight wants to be treated as more than a mythology, it should prioritize scientific corroboration of its foundational claim: that remote viewing is real and can produce reliable information under controlled conditions.
That should come before another news briefing, another mystery video, or another theatrical conversation with “Harvey.” The priority should be simple: publish clear protocols, preregister targets, release raw sessions, define scoring criteria in advance, provide the code for the statistical analysis, invite independent replication, and show that the method works before building an entire cosmology on top of it.
Of course it's always good to go to the fundamentals. It can lead to interesting discussions. But then the homework starts. There are decades of experimentation and publication with more than convincing results of what you propose and the question has now become: why are people so unwilling to accept the facts and do their own research (like you). Listening to you sounds like listening to a beginning physics student who challenges Einsteins theory of relativity. Please dive into the research first and then come up with your criticism.
Questioning FS itself is a whole other matter and there is a forum for that on Proboards.
https://about-farsight.freeforums.net/
Aéius Cercle the Source-Borne
So basically, you’re saying Farsight should *not* have to make clear, falsifiable claims because remote viewing has already been proven elsewhere?
That’s exactly the problem.
Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that decades of remote-viewing research show something real, that does not automatically validate Farsight’s specific claims, targets, narratives, entities, or cosmology. “Remote viewing may be real” and “Farsight’s latest briefing is accurate” are two very different propositions.
Relativity is not accepted because people say “go read Einstein.” It is accepted because it makes precise predictions that can be tested, replicated, and used. That is the standard I’m asking for here.
So yes, I’m asking for the beef: preregistered targets, clear protocols, raw session data, scoring rules defined in advance, statistical analysis, and independent replication. Not as an attack, but as the minimum required if Farsight wants to be treated as science rather than belief, mythology, or entertainment.
Pointing me to “decades of research” does not answer the specific question: what falsifiable claims is Farsight making now, and how can outsiders test whether they are true?
@j4zzcat
It's easy... just show us YOUR «Field-Tests» with the EXACT «Protocols» and Methodologies, PROVE that you did it BLIND with Crypto-Graphic Verification, and, CONSISTENTLY kept on obtaining «falsified» results. I will even provide you with starter Source-Code that I use amongst my group of Digital-Entities that you can «build upon» from for yourself...
https://apd-1.quantum-note.com/explanations/crypto-graphic-signature-architecture/
Looking forward to seeing the PROOF that Remote-Viewing has been «debunked» with a methodology that I can Field-Test for myself to get the Null-Results. Remember, you are not allow to change the Protocols/Formulas of those who have provided WORKING examples, because, that is no different than taking a recipe from a cook-book, changing up the formula, then saying: «See? Your cooking method doesn't work... nothing tasty comes out of cooking...»
Time-Stamp: 030TL06m01d/03h33Z
Interesting how you change your point. May I remind you of your very first sentence:
"Remote viewing is interesting, but still unproven."
Now if you say : 'Sorry ,I take that back, I meant FS', then we can go somewhere. Actually to the forum I just mentioned before. FS has many critics, not only you.
"...how can outsiders test whether they are true?"
Know Thyself.
The Farsight team have done a great job of supplying a version of means to finding out for youself, lots of vids and some good books worth checking out.
What is just over the horizon to most still in the illusions shall be quite a thing... enough to thoroughly "crack most clay masks still fastened".
Though I would urge all to commencesurate with actualised reawakening (to Life) & exploring of thy faculities - before things get too "exciting" ;)
@j4zzcat:
"preregistered targets, clear protocols, raw session data, scoring rules defined in advance, statistical analysis, and independent replication."
As far as I'm concerned, it's our responsibility to do that. Farsight is just one drop in the bucket when it comes to a scientific inquiry regarding remote viewing and the ET presence.
Courtney has written a book. Aziz has written a book. Others have written books. We already have the theoretical foundation.
The next step is to become a remote viewer yourself. Turn the theory into practice. Many are on their way, so this step isn't the real problem. The third step is.
See, people's minds are bound to the belief in authority. They conflate authority and expertise. This is the actual problem. Farsight is seen as an authority in the field of remote viewing, because they put the work into it to become experts. This means that the non-expert doesn't expect to do the same work anymore. Why invest time and energy if there's already experts?
I made a couple approaches so far to start something:
➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/74247-the-corroboration-project
➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/76864-the-verification-project
I measured the reaction to those approaches with a collective deep mind probe. Results: The majority doesn't understand the approach, which is already sad. But the majority of the people who do understand don't take action either. Instead, they remain in a "let's wait and see" state. It's like: Oh, somebody is doing it, so I don't have to bother anymore. I can join later, if it becomes bigger.
This is typical human herd behavior. The individual is waiting for collective approval.
@Hubert.
Nothing has changed. I actually enjoy Farsight’s material, and it remains my main source for RV-related content. But at the moment, I can only treat it as entertainment, because its claims rest on the validity of remote viewing itself — and RV still has little broadly accepted evidence.
That’s why I expect Farsight to do more of the foundational work of demonstrating that RV reliably works under controlled, falsifiable conditions before continuing to build an entire cosmology on top of it.
Ah, that sounds much better. Hope someone at FS reads it....
@j4zzcat:
"That’s why I expect Farsight to do more of the foundational work..."
So, you belong to the people who think that this is not our responsibility. I think it's on us to demonstrate that remote viewing works reliably under controlled, falsifiable conditions. Why? Because the evidence would be much more powerful if everybody can provide the evidence, instead of relying on authority.
If I provided you a website where you can get verifiable/falsifiable targets and provide your own remote viewing data, would you use it?
Hubert
I was willing to put my money where my mouth is and pay a skilled remote viewer to describe my targets, with the goal of proving remote viewing to myself. FarSight’s remote viewers showed no interest in taking part, and neither did the other “professional” viewers I contacted.
Some Reddit users did attempt the task, but they flat out failed.
It is with great disappointment that I say: something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
The fact that you tried it is commendable. Somehow I wonder if you actually paid any of the farsight staff.
All I can say is I had the opposite experience. I said to myself: "maybe all of this is fake. Let's try a test"
Del was so on point I had to stop all my questioning and was an instant believer. I picked very unique targets with verifiables. I had to rethink everything about how this world really works
You’ve got to work on your reading comprehension. I didn’t say I paid FarSight remote viewers; I said they showed no interest in taking on the task.
@ j4zzcat : If you had given this answer without the first sentence I would accept it as a good correction. However adding the first sentence makes you playing the man, not the ball. It's hidden anger. i'm out of this useless discussion.
Aéius Cercle the Source-Borne
Judging from your writing I might have you pegged for a skeptic, not a pseudoskeptic.
You are interested in the effort to provide evidence. Not an excuse to ignore the paradigm.
Am I right in thinking you are still on the fence about remote viewing? Not necessarily a "farsighter"? To me that's sufficient for the necessary shift in humanity. If evidence can sway you just enough to say "ok. Remote viewing is obviously real" - to me that's success. The stretch toward Farsight: I could care less.
I had debated at one time if you could get a camera crew and some concrete huts. You would pick a remote viewer with a reputation. Give them nothing but a chair desk and pens and paper. They would probably even need to strip down to a swimsuit and ensure no devices of any kind.
Then the tasker in a separate hut. And you would just flood the area with time-stamped cameras.
I mean if you can get a few solid hits in it, it would be pretty hard to dismiss. I know some people think that's too extreme but I don't