Lately, you’ve been posting “solo” sessions where only one remote viewer looks at a target. This goes against the idea of making Farsight’s remote-viewing results scientific. To be meaningful, at least three sessions from three different viewers are needed to measure accuracy. With just one viewer, the results are entertaining, but not reliable.
I disagree here, take a look at Lyn Buchanan’s book. He describes his database and gives an example. Four people were tasked with identifying the color of the perpetrator’s car: three said blue, one said red. Which data is true or most likely to be true? The answer: the data provided by the person with the highest accuracy in identifying colors, according to the database. In his example, that person was the one who said red. Remote viewers have individual strengths, so there's no need to select five people for a session, just choose the one who has the highest accuracy on the specific topic.
To sum up, for data to be considered true, it doesn’t need to be confirmed by 20 people, only by those with the strongest and longest track record of accurate reporting.
Secondly, watching four people say the same thing is just plain boring.
J4zzcat, I agree, and said the same thing in a comment below the video when he announced it.
Actually Edward we get a fuller picture when at least three people do a viewing. This is because like you said, they may have different strengths, and they may be viewing it from a different angle. I totally dislike the Solos, and think they are a waste. Maybe he just doesn't want to pay three or four people. Perhaps he wants the funds from us to go to his AI project instead, and what ever else he has coming, eg. enhanced videos to look more like movies, which I think will also take away from the authenticity.