any website, or post about a website, or mention of a person or event or group in which-
-the base claim is that they were contacted by extraterrestrials and given information or
-the message is channeled
. . . is essentially, based on the farsight claims, all unreliable. aka: garbage.
It is true that sometimes it becomes more confirmed. Lacerta from "lacerta files" was remote viewed. The conversations with Harvey are definitely a "contactee" situation but also accompanied with remote viewing. So by itself they would fall under the same category. I know that Courtney and Aziz are under the category of "being one of them" as it were. But with zero biological evidence. Starseeds, the term I feel most fitting. Mind you, courtney's age and life accomplishments need to at least shine a light into one's curiousity. But again, they seem to try and consistently go back to the RV data, and not any of the other claims. And the data, of course, is dependant upon exactly how defendable their conditions really are. But I know that the universities don't confirm its legitimacy. But if we were to assume the whole prison planet, of course it's fair to say "if I'm in hell, I don't think going to the more authoritative archdemons is going to give me the most accurate information about the hell I'm in" And please anyone spare me the sentiment of verifiable fair and balanced peer review with almost no gaps. Just as well, most mainstream media is not necessarily false but is largely absolute garbage.
My only point here is simple. Sorry for wasting your time taking so long to get to it. Everything I see, hear, read, view - whose basis is about a channeler / contactee - garbage. Mainstream - garbage. It rules out about 90% of all media. It includes forum threads titled things like "Carl Mcmuckabee says he speaks to blue reptiloids named Gaagaa" - "Jim morrison former military says he now talks to a large headed green man named Bob on his porch every friday over tea." That's not to say any of it shouldn't be written. Free speech needs to be exercised and welcomed. But you know . . . just on my giant list of "to ignore"
The only applicability any of this would have is if someone were to take the claims, and attach them to a task. There is of course still some of the more obscure white papers where scientists studied something and then for almost no reason at all were just removed from the case. But still those papers need to have something of a repeatable experiment that could show validity.
Forgive me for probably stating the obvious. Or for sullying the vast majority of all information.
(This post has been deleted)
I am drawn to believe, yes, a lot of supposed remote viewing agencies are also psiop insurgency trash
...and your sentiment re: this group Farsight - which I presume you've paid for?
Oh I meander in and out of the "farsight is also trash" bandwagon. I keep paying because Courtney is right about the fact that they're the only remote viewing venue that actually publishes material consistently, and I know remote viewing works because I've witnessed the process firsthand. Whether all the farsight crew are making it up . . . there is a margin of possibility from my view because even though they promise they weren't told anything beforehand, to prove it they'd need a whole setup with cameras, and bolted separated rooms, and vigilizers and . . . I see why it's hard to make the evidence clear. So there is a bit of "leap of faith" that I still think less of a leap than the channeler / contactee business.
Yes, I know there's also Dick Allgire HRVG stuff, kudos to them. It's kind of a mixed decision between the two.