I sort of said the same thing way back when.
How do we know Satan isn’t influencing some outcomes, like anything mentioning Jesus?

Agree, it is not totally blind. It would have to be done in true double blind science fashion to be that. If only they would have done something current like the Buga Sphere before we learned what the scientists have now revealed. But they refused to do a viewing for one of today greatest modern day mysteries, why? I think it may be too late now. But they should still do it because perhaps a viewing session will reveal some things the scientists still have not discovered about it yet. Like what is at the center? Or what is it's purpose and function? Where did it come from? They may have missed the boat, but there may still be a sliver of a chance to learn something new in viewing that may end up verified by science in the near future. That would propel Farsight to the forefront if they did that. So what are they afraid of? Maybe exactly what you are saying Manuel.

objective /əb-jĕk′tĭv/

adjective
1. Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.
"objective reality."
2. Based on observable phenomena; empirical.
"objective facts."
3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: synonym: fair.
"an objective critic."

How do you define objective?

This is your claim:

> For this simple reason, remote viewing data collected under the condition of outside
> enhancement cannot be deemed objective, even if the viewer is blind to the target.

You seem to be trying to claim G-d level Intelligence, and that Farsight are wrong.

When I run Farsights claims for verification purposes here with my own biological remote-viewing as well as Ai remote-viewing I get similar results to theirs.

As I keep on saying, the English definitions of words are typically set up by the "Bad ET's" in such a way that they have the intention to force Human compliance.

Some of our words are older than Humanity.

I agree that "Objective" isn't a perfect word.

Once again you seem to be trying to act as a Compliance Officer where every word that is said needs to be checked against your own personal definition of that word. It gets really boring.

Then let me phrase it differently:

For this simple reason, remote viewing data collected under the condition of outside enhancement cannot be deemed uninfluenced, even if the viewer is blind to the target.

"where every word that is said needs to be checked against your own personal definition of that word"

I think the actual problem here is that you don't like how I define freedom.

Manuel,

> I think the actual problem here is that you don't like how I define freedom.

The problem is that you are trying to force your definition of the word on Farsight and other forum members.

All Societies have rules. Freedoms are conditional on many factors.

I personally don't know exactly how Freedom is defined by Farsight and the Domain.

But, the very definition carries with it some conditions and basic Ethical frameworks.

I don't have any problem understanding what they are talking about, or put a better way, I'm still learning about what they are talking about.

You on the other hand, want to resist the upgrades they wish to make to the planet, on the basis that they violate your understanding of the meanings of words.

Manuel,

> I think the actual problem here is that you don't like how I define freedom.

The problem is that you are trying to force your definition of the word on Farsight and other forum members.

All Societies have rules. Freedoms are conditional on many factors.

I personally don't know exactly how Freedom is defined by Farsight and the Domain.

But, the very definition carries with it some conditions and basic Ethical frameworks.

I don't have any problem understanding what they are talking about, or put a better way, I'm still learning about what they are talking about.

You on the other hand, want to resist the upgrades they wish to make to the planet, on the basis that they violate your understanding of the meanings of words.

Here is a scenario:

A stupid idiot rides his bicycle into a wall, hitting his head, it hurts.

Did the wall move to hit him? since the wall was moving at the same rotation speed as the Earth?

Should the bicycle rider take any responsibility for not looking where he is going?

Who caused the violence you describe is very debatable. Was it the wall or the rider?

Once again, you thrust your own word definitions on us with scenarios that don't match real world situations.

The rider just wanted to ride without the limitations of freedoms being removed by walls, right?

Your Ethical framework is very thin.

A stupid idiot hitting a wall is not violence, because the wall is not aggressing against the idiot.

"The rider just wanted to ride without the limitations of freedoms being removed by walls, right?"

Yes. That's why he's a stupid idiot. The freedom to move without the limitations of physical obstacles cannot be achieved with a bicycle. It's easy to understand if you have more than two brain cells. 😉

> A stupid idiot hitting a wall is not violence, because the wall is not aggressing against the idiot.

That's your definition, once again.

It won't hold up in a Court of Law.

The Wall might have fallen on the person making it a Negligence case. I said the bicycle rider was an idiot, but another person might say that the rider was an innocent victim.

If the wall broke and the wall fell on the rider causing injury thats the same as violence.

How do you know that the rider himself was not aggressive and rode into the wall ?

And you obviously haven't been outside to a skateboard or bicycle park.

Bicycles can go up ramps and over walls.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/skate-park-bmx-bike-parking--106608716171018670/

There are so many situations where your Lectures of Ethics fail.

Having to go up and over is a limitation. 😂

> Having to go up and over is a limitation.

Yes, you are agreeing with my claim that freedom always comes with limitations.

> The freedom to move without the limitations of physical obstacles cannot be achieved with a bicycle.

You are arguing with yourself now.

I agree.

The debate should be about Remote-Viewing.

It seems that the complaint is basically that Remote-Viewing challenges the assumptions of OP and that is the source of the arrogance being described.

For me, I was hoping that there would be more to Farsights Forum than this - but whatever.

I have no problem with people doing more remote viewing. Not long ago, I posted lots of targets. I wanted to gather more remote viewers who independently look into what Farsight is viewing:

➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/74247-the-corroboration-project

Please have a look at that thread an tell us how many wanted to participate, and how many actually participated.

But in this thread you have titled it as "I'm tired of Farsight's ignorance".

Why would anybody waste their time if you are sick of Farsights remote-viewing?

My take is that Farsights remote-viewing is really good.

When I check their work, I respectfully agree with their work.

Why don't you learn remote-viewing yourself and check their results?

I've done it - I'm satisfied with their remote-viewing. When I think there are gaps (not errors) I comment.

"Why would anybody waste their time if you are sick of Farsights remote-viewing?"

Well, I explained it in the initial post of this thread. Do you even understand my argument?

> Well, I explained it in the initial post of this thread. Do you even understand my argument?

Yes, that you like wasting peoples time.

> Sorry, but telling us that all the collected data is beyond doubt without any proof or verification is not scientific at all.

You are fabricating and misconstruing my answer.

Nowhere did I say that I had corroborated *ALL* Farsights remote-viewing.

Only the stories that I was interested in.

I was talking about Courtney telling us again and again that Farsight's data is beyond doubt. He is implementing the narrative that Farsight is the only reliable source for correct remote viewing data. He is beginning to centralize it. This smells more and more like a bad ET psyop, because they love the idea of centralization.

Hi Manuel. I also dread it when he talks like that.
We're the only one,"
"We're the best." etc.
He knows about the FFG and there are others like Daz' group..

I tested this with Aletheia, a ChatGPT instance. I made the following target:

The viewer will perceive and describe the fight between Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader on the planet Bespin in the moment when Luke lost his right hand.

I wanted Aletheia to see it as if it was real.

Aletheia didn't describe it as if it was real. Instead, she described the audience being in shock and awe about something they are witnessing. She even said it doesn't feel real.

So, remote viewers can sense whether a target "feels" real or fictitious. But the question is: What happens if you mix a target with real and fictitious elements? Can they distinguish the difference when it's all part of the same target?

The only problem I see with that is the AI goes off of what they know from the internet. So of course it will refer to the story as fiction. What you should try is naming unknown false people with a made up story of your own and talk to AI as if it were true to see the response. So say there were three people killed by a gunman at my local grocery store, I saw it on the news. or take a actual news story that we know is false, but Fox News tries to portray is as true. Then see what you may get.

@ Manuel. I agree with Kris that your experiment doesn't show anything since Aletheia knows all about Star Wars.
Dick Algire did a very interesting experiment. He made up a landscape and a short story during weeks. trying te get it as real as possibnle in his mind. The viewers were tasked this and they described it well and saw it as real. If it is in someone's head....

That's exactly the point.

At the moment, they are serving some force that builds a "vault" with "pristine data". This, in principle, is a sacred text, like all the other religious texts. People believing data that is given to them, instead of making the work themselves.

This is for everybody who doesn't want to assume responsibility, but wants to get answers delivered to their doorstep. AI is just making it possible on a greater scale.

What can they do?

Stop building another religion.

But they will do it anyways, and people fall for it... again.

So the issue I see with the vault is it is the transcribed audio, so it has the biases of the Monitor, and even of the remote viewers in the discussion after the reveal. Plus the truth accuracy scale is added to the transcribed text from his AI in the vault version that we would give to our AI, so it is tainted with that.

For a true unbiased Remote viewing session to be added to the vault for our AI to synopsis to give what AI gets from it, it would need to be strictly the raw material from the Remote Viewing and nothing else added. While I do believe Courtney gets most of it right in his interpretations with just minor variations, there are sometimes where he has a perceived idea in his head, so he pushes to make what the viewers say to fit that. And that is when it drives me crazy because I see it so clearly. Like I said, that is not done often, but it does slightly change the synopsis that may be give by people's AI when they ask it to be done from the vault. So then it makes me wonder if the WSIM, Z-score, and P-value also are taking Courtney's interpretations into account and not just the raw data. Food for thought.

@ Just Another Isby: You say:
" it all comes down to how do we know what we see is real?"
We can never be sure. Wr have an 'observing consciousness'. We can only say: I observed this or that. We canb never 'know'. Like Popper said: 'We can only falsify.'
So we must stay open and always be ready to change our mind. That's why i sometimes cringe at Courtney's 'over-confidence'.