Assumption: "If the target has verifiable elements that provides evidence."

I disagree.

Let's imagine a target where it's important to know the color of the car of the perpetrator. The remote viewer who has the best track record in identifying colors sees the correct color of the car. Can we now assume that everything else he sees is also correct?

Let's say we want to know who drove the car, because there's no evidence. The viewer sees a woman with long blonde hair, but in reality, it was a man with short dark hair. He doesn't get it right because he is being mentally manipulated. Everything he sees is correct, except for one little, but crucial detail.

And Courtney even talks about this possibility, quote from the "Synthesis" Spotlight:

[54:29] "The Seraphim project brings the mirror full circle. Those radiant beings – the reptilians – those project visions directly into the human nervous system. Ancient augmented reality, telepathically inserted into those people by the Seraphim, or reptilians. They override perception itself. Modern AI art, for example, and video synthesis are very faint shadows of that capability. But the logic is the same: External intelligences producing inner realities. Think telepathic manipulation, mental manipulation, okay?"

Remote viewers would have to have the ability to recognize manipulated perception. But there will always remain a possibility that there's a manipulator who is stronger than the viewer, even if it's more than one viewer. We just can't be sure.

This means that remote viewing doesn't replace verification.

And Farsight ignores this. The Vault is implemented as a means for verification, including the non-verifiable targets. This is not science – it's the implementation of a narrative without sufficient proof.

➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/76150-i-m-tired-of-farsight-s-ignorance

Okay, here's an idea...

I thought about: How can viewers perceive mental manipulation? Then I thought: What if viewers can't? At least not for themselves.

What if it's about collaboration? It's a numbers game, right?

How the mental manipulations works: Manipulating the perception of another has to be aimed at that person, either directly, as a 1:1 relationship, or indirectly, as a means of self-defense. For the latter, think of MMORPGs where certain classes have the ability to buff themselves and others with a passive force, like, when you get hit, the damage is reflected to the attacker.

The manipulation always is aimed at the viewer, because the viewer is the cause and the manipulation is the effect.

Now, imagine a second viewer who is viewing the first viewer while the remote viewing takes place, with the sole purpose of detecting whether the first viewer is being manipulated. The target who defends itself by manipulating perception doesn't affect the second viewer, because the second viewer is not part of the initial viewing. In other words: The manipulator cannot aim at outside observers.

That way, we at least could be able to detect whether mental manipulation takes place.

This is why evidence is not fact. Fact is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. An unreasonable doubt could still be true it's just that the proponent of the allegation failed to provide satisfactory reason using language.

Evidence, proof, and fact are still ultimately subjective. Trying to say what is and isn't fact objectively is meaningless if you're not using a *social science* to help define it (people agreeing).

Remote Viewing data is evidence. Evidence is verification of something pertaining to the allegation. It's not fact by default.

I do agree with the idea of RV "chains" so to speak, and I've suggested those things in the past. Del revealed in one of our targets that by tasking the remote viewer while in session, the second viewer will actually piggy-back the first. This opens a lot of potential interesting projects.

We can set targets in the forum that follows the Farsight viewers and you will potentially go where they go, or you can potentially try to pierce through an illusion

I think that you need to work through the Farsight remote-viewing courses yourself to understand what is and is not possible with remote-viewing, and experience what the limitations actually are.

You seem to spend a lot of time on the forum posting your own analysis from your own perspective.

They come across as descriptions of watching people swimming. But wouldn't the best use of your time actually be grabbing your swimmers and walking down to the pool and getting in?

@Tazz:

"Remote Viewing data is evidence. Evidence is verification of something pertaining to the allegation. It's not fact by default."

That's my whole point. Farsight is establishing the Vault as if the data is factual. AI is supposed to work with the data as if it's factual. The underlying assumption is that the remote viewing hasn't been compromised by mental manipulation, which, according to Farsight, is a thing.

"Fact is proof beyond a reasonable doubt."

It's not reasonable to use remote viewing data as the foundation for AI analysis, if there's a possibility that the data could be manipulated. This means there's a reasonable doubt.