Please join this Wikipedia edit war. Here is the article.

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

A couple of people are trying to remove one simple line. It says: "There is no scientific evidence that remote viewing exists." That's it. That's the only change people are asking for.

If someone tries to revert it, remove it. And add a comment on the edit page about why that's a garbage proposition.

And if you can't do that much . . . come on . . . what the hell.

I guess now that they went with the psyop label you could elaborate that it's a disinfo psyop.

My inclination is to believe that they're toeing a certain line out of fear of getting kicked off the air entirely. Alternatively it's an extreme of controlled opposition.

So, then, do you think something like Remote Viewed is more genuine? I don't think they buy into death traps. I definitely buy into prison planet theory

Yeah, I was thinking about this lack of integration.

Like, why don't they invite Dr. Greer to one of their board meetings? Don't they want to give him a chance to ask the questions he wants? I'm sure he'd be open to it. Now that Yeme and Aziz connected with what's-his-name the 20-and-back supersoldier, why don't they collaborate more with him?

Even the people who disagree with each other should be trying to challenge each other directly. I have great respect for those whom are willing to discuss things with their enemies. There's a guy (I suck up about him all the time) named Brandon who talks about state nationals ("sovcits" if you want the pissant name) but he doesn't try to cloister himself with tiny little groupies of his own make. He'll gladly talk to Alex Jones or Joe Rogan, or cops, or lawyers, or whatever. This is the attitude that needs to be had.

So . . . message to Farsight . . . I don't know if Cy Ko is right about this thing with you guys being a disinfo Project Blue Beam psyop - but I think he's right about this need to get more integrated in the outward community in order to satisfy the skepticism and also to have more impact of your brand anyway. I'm not even that concerned if you were more after money or more after disclosure. It seems to me it would get more profitable to be out there more and even talk to the people that want to challenge Farsight. The time of Hale-Bopp and Carl Sagan is over. Those wackos can go choke on more poison punch if they're so inclined, to hell with stupid people . . .

I don't get it. When did I say "no it's not a psyop"

This is meaningless semantic word dribble. Are you saying they're all full of shit working for the enemy or are you saying they're kinda random human trying to make sense? which one? I don't really care which, just I want to know which one you're saying.

PS, original point of this post, but the assholes put the line back in so please revert it if you catch them trying.

The effort to remove the essential line from Wikipedia's page leaves me astonished about such an attempt. Wikipedia needs the fact check to avoid permitting false science in its content. I have monitoring duties to maintain the accuracy of Wikipedia pages despite attempted modifications that dilute scientific evidence.

You should be dealing with the Search-Engine Algorithms preferably;
Why aren't you hacking the Search-Engines to show the correct results instead ?
https://skepticalaboutskeptics.org/wikipedia-captured-by-skeptics/wikipedias-culture-editorial-chaos-malice/

They locked the page. You could potentially threaten a ddos. I don't know if anything like the LOIC is still around

Wikipedia is not what it should be: a contribution based open platform based on consensus.

Since 2006 at least it has been owned or "hacked" by NWO groups (Israel has an entire team of soldiers dedicated to Wikipedia alone) who "protect" certain pages.

This strategy of censorship moved to another level in January 2017, after the first election on Trump. This one targetted Facebook, Google (and youtube). Soon later, before the Plandemic, they also added "fact checkers."

2017 was a big turning point: the end of the first "organic" Internet lead by Google who was until then a true oganic search engine and thus the backbone of the web. This suddenly ended. And "truth" had to find other platform and hide deeper on blockchain based websites.

Even before 2017, when you tried to change one line on Wikipedia to a page on 911 or on ANY other fabricated terror event (school shootings or 'islamic' terror or fake DEW fire event) you had a "guardian" that would block it.

Solution?

These platform are owned. They are not the web, they are private website. (1) You need to go and do your own sites. (2) Or set up a team of 50+ internet soldiers to spread and do your fight.

I've heard that all the media about the "dark web" was purely to demonize and shut down what is plainly the real internet.

But even say if you make your own software platforms, they'll still use converging cell companies to basically shut down unwanted platforms using "china web" systems.

Why is nobody talking about peer to peer internet??? It was like only what 2007 when I think egypt had their internet shut down and a bunch of worldwide geeks were able to show them how to get internet independently.

If at least a good lot of us understand in theory it makes the end of open internet that much harder to do. I'm too stupid at the moment but I'd like to know more about peer to peer