So, we are reaching the point where the logic, the second step in the Trivium (see video below), is fulfilled. All the required information to enable an informed decision making process has been provided.

The next step, the third step in the Trivium, would be the rhetoric, or action. This means that we don't just talk anymore, but get things done.

As Farsight has pointed out, the goal is to make them dispensable. We should be able to do what they are doing. So, correct rhetoric would be to practice remote viewing, reproduce or refute the data Farsight and other remote viewers provide, and collect real world evidence in order to support or debunk the collected data.

For that purpose, I want to create a society, an association, that does not consist of remote viewers alone, but also scientists and other people who interprete the data and put it to the test. In that sense, it's not just another Farsight, HRVG, or IRVA, who focus on collecting data. The goal is to incorporate remote viewing into consciousness based on rationality and the scientific method. You could say: To prevent remote viewing from becoming a cult that is divided into a "psi elite" and mere consumers.

The first thing we need to do is to find a name for that society, and discuss its protocols. And I'm not talking about RV protocols, as they are just the protocols for data collection. I'm talking about protocols that describe how to deal with the collected data. Those would include standards for:

- how the data is dealt with after target reveal, either scientifically and ethically,
- how it is interpreted preserving objectivity,
- how targets can be cross-examined,
- how remote viewers and participating scientists are rewarded.

Please post your ideas and questions in this thread.

The Trivium:

So, my first thoughts about how to deal with collected data after reveal:

1. All data is deemed speculative until proven to be correct.

2. The collected data is categorized into verifiable or unverifiable, and tagged with fully verifiable, partially verifiable, or not verifiable yet, so that people can see wether a presented data point or claim is worthy of further investigation.

3. Next, the requirements or conditions that need to be met to verify the data are added. This is important because it creates entry points for scientists to look into certain aspects or claims and provide additional data for support or refutation.

For example, the Destruction of Tanis sessions provided by Farsight indicate that Tanis has been destroyed by some sort of energy weapon. Let's go through the steps:

1. The claim that it has been destroyed by an energy weapon is deemed speculative until it is verified scientifically.

2. The target is categorized as verifiable, because the method of destruction can be replicated. It is tagged with not verifiable yet, because we don't have those energy weapons at hand, at least they are unknown to the public.

3. The requirement to verify the claim is to reproduce the evidence we already see in reality. This means: Get hands on a technology that is able to melt rocks in the same way we see on the ground.

As you see, a lot of the data Farsight provided so far is not easy to verify. Additionally, you can't verify a whole target at once, because even if we can reproduce the melting of rocks in Tanis, we still don't know who did it in the first place. Can we verify who used the energy weapon thousands or even millions of years ago? So, some data points of a target can and will remain unverifiable while others can be verified.

I came here in the first place, because I hoped FS would do exactly that: Continously improve RV methodology and data analysis techniques in a scientific manner. "Scientific Remote Viewing" by an experienced data scientist and his well trained team. - Financed by a clever strategy of edutainment and entertainment, making RV less boring by bringing a little more attraction to the subject with the help of attractive, sexy-dressed viewers in a professional setup.
Now I see channeling and get information about the exceptionally high testosterone levels, plastic surgeries and the "ET ambassador mission" of the chief scientist. And also the claim that FS is the only "voice" of the "Good ETs on planet Earth". I also have been asking myself several times, why so many of the best viewers left the team without giving any farewell message to the FS audience in the past. - Do not want to judge, but somehow have a feeling of inconsistency ... And we also have heard of the many "cosmic jokers" in channeling in the past. - I hope this feeling will turn out to be wrong.

I appreciate any attempt to bring more structure and systematic approach into the topic, Manuel. That is what has to be done. We see it much too rarely. One cannot act as if RV has already been totally proven and all information gathered is automatically correct. Science has to question itself. We still need to explore how unbiased data can be gathered in a secure way and how methods to reliably evaluate data bias can be developed for targets which are not verifiable for us in the "real world" so far. This will decide about the acceptance of RV in the future.

Courtney did a video on this matter a bit. It sounded like Dick and Daz in particular wanted to look at more broad targets like bigfoot and mountains that don't quite seem like mountains and giants and quarries etc etc. But Courtney at the time kept steering it toward very specific things like a moon near saturn or some spot on the asteroid belt. And insisted that he's the tasker every time.

I guess what he wasn't allowed to say was "because I'm an alien and my alien buddies have very specific targets in mind to help humanity piece the whole picture"

Anyways, the splintering looks to be a good thing.

I don't think it's worthwhile to start another"new" RV group. We have little pockets sprouting up all over the place. I align quite a bit with Dave2 from uncontrolled remote viewing and I'm curious how he might lead (and put up with) a group of newbs like myself.

I'm working on a pdf that's a straight up template for an RV organization but how soon I accomplish it depends entirely on how soon I can be sure I don't fail my college course and ruin my career.

My suggestion for anyone wanting to get further in this space, though, is put yourself out there. Trying and failing a hundred times looks a lot better than having no record at all and speculating the idea. Put random youtube and stuff, post random guesses. Speaking of which I know I still have 4 more targets to do lol

"I guess what he wasn't allowed to say was "because I'm an alien and my alien buddies have very specific targets in mind to help humanity piece the whole picture""
i also think that if i was in the position of Courtney i definitely wanted to explore more of whats going on with the ET stuff, our cosmic history and so on instead of focusing on a mountain or something like that..
This is something that i don't understand about FFG, how can you/they remote view an Et activity on a project, for example, and don't ask questions or try to get to the bottom of things, like what is going on, instead they don't focus on it and even call it woo woo stuff!
It's like a sheep that evolved its psychic abilities, but it's still a sheep!
But apparently things are about to changed, apparently they've created "another" (the 4th channel i believe!) to explore these woo woo stuff! And in my opinion this could be also indirectly influenced by Courtney claims and controversial narratives!

"I don't think it's worthwhile to start another"new" RV group."

That's not the intent. The goal is an assocation or network of existing and new RV groups AND scientists, even hobby scientists, in order to verify RV data. Gather real world evidence and proof. If we don't do that, remote viewing will become a tool to provide truth, as if everything we see was true.

For example, Courtney telling everybody in a video "We now know exactly what happened" would be seen as unscientific within this association. We don't know, because we have no proof yet.

Think of it as a "hub" where data is collected and invastigated further. The association does not do the remote viewing and investigations, it just provides the framework and infrastructure for everybody to use and keep track.

For example, imagine different RV groups looking into the same target. The hub presents their data in a way that people can easily compare it, discuss it, and start further scientific investigations and research.

I'm contemplating the idea of just calling it "Remote Viewing Hub" to be as neutral as possible. Any better ideas?