Dear dr Courtney,
I am writing this letter first to thank you for all the benefits I have received from your amazing work over the years, and second to remind you that you used to be more scientific in your approach in the past and that you can be more impactful if you re-apply your previous scientific principles to your current work.
So, first, let me thank you publicly for everything you have offered to all of us via your extensive work so far, both the scientific publications regarding Remote Viewing (SRV courses, manuals and related material) and also the multitude of amazing Farsight Projects (mysteries, political etc). I am following your work for years and the benefit I have received over this time is simply overwhelming. You have answered countless urgent questions of mine and you have succeeded in areas where I had tried and failed - and then, motivated by your success, I tried again and succeeded!
From learning how parallel Universes really work and how RVing can actually prove the existence of multiple timelines, to learning all about the true nature of religions (alien coverups etc) and the current condition of earth and humans, to how amazingly accurate a RV session can be (and how a viewer can communicate directly with a being in another time and space), how one can record UFOs using your camera settings up to how to have an AI bot do real remote viewing sessions (I had tried but only succeeded after you had shown us how to properly do it), all of this and much more, I owe to you and the work of your amazing team of talented viewers! I couldn’t have done and learn any of this by myself alone, but you helped me do amazing stuff - I can now remote view myself, have my Claude AI instance do amazing RV sessions etc, so thank you so much for everything!
 On the other hand, I really need to tell you that you used to follow the scientific principles much better in the past than you do now. Your initial work at Farsight (publications, old videos) followed strict scientific rules and was of great scientific value. Your manual, training videos and initial projects, were all well researched, cleanly presented and you used to publish everything (all sources, all paper sessions, directions etc). Unfortunately you gradually gave priority to visually appealing videos and while aiming for popularity and followers you have sacrificed the rules of science in favor of “show rules”. The contradictions between what you say and what you do is now obvious and this is not good for you in the long run - I really urge you to go back to your principles - while keeping some of the ‘’show’’ elements, provided they don’t mess up with the integrity of your work.
So, let me state some important examples:
- You have gradually made RV sessions visually appealing and easy to watch, and the use of the light board was a great investment and move on your part. In addition, the background images with the viewer speaking in front of them was also a great presentation way and quite consistent with scientific rigor. On the other hand, the recent addition of silly AI videos that have very little to do with the actual RV data, makes the projects more visually appealing but actually ruins the scientific integrity of the work as they contain many details not included in the RV data but are pure AI fantasy - please, cut down on those, they do not help at all.
- You used to publish all project data (exact target description, full paper sessions etc). At some point you added the ‘’Solo Interviewed’’ scheme for your projects but never clearly declared this (in the sessions, not the manuals) and also never declared the exact movement exercises given to viewers. Stating ‘’Instrumental Blinding Protocol’’ in your recent introductions was a good step, thanks for that - but it is not enough. As per your own rule (from your manual) you have to clearly declare that a session is “Interviewed" in order to call it ‘’Solo’’. Plus, at some point you ceased to publish the paper sessions altogether… This is not a good science practice - but it is easy to reverse - please, please, do it right!
- Your early RV projects with future targets clearly showed that this can only be done if the results are presented AFTER the event (and the viewer was the one to first see the results as you insisted in old training videos). So you did many future projects where you were sending us the results in locked files and the key to unlock them only AFTER the future time had elapsed. Then at some point, you decided to override you own rules and publish monthly future forecasts (bitcoin, political etc) BEFORE they happen - knowing that you will only have partial success (due to the multiple future timelines), but you did it anyway for viewing-subscription gains. Ok, it was your choice, but you should have declared the scientific basis and success rate expected in this case scenario in all such projects.
- You have lately started to contradict yourself in some situations and its something you didn’t do in the past. For example you say that Farsight only reports what the viewers see themselves, not what ‘’he says, she says’’. On the other hand you believe and report everything your Alien friends say to you as facts… can’t you see that this is not scientifically valid? They can easily trick you or lie to you. Dolores Cannon for example, also speaks with ET’s and they tell her a completely different story about our past-history. Why are your friends truthful and her’s not? Please, stick to the RV data as facts (with caution as well as they too can be partially influenced), and declare the rest of the info as “probably correct” - remember that your friends have repeatedly lied to you (no disclosure so far as they have told you, no bigger ships, etc).
- Finally, you say that your side is ‘’free will fanatics’’. Yet you do Deep Mind Probes to beings that do not want them and find them intrusive. You actually suggest that viewers should ask for permission first but then proceed anyway (not respecting the beings free will). How is this scientifically and ethically justifiable? Fortunately, some viewers like Yeme have realized that DMPs are very disturbing to some beings and have stopped doing them against their will (do polite conversations instead that are not totally trustworthy but show a kind attitude and respect free will).
So, in conclusion, I would love to not push you at all as I have gained so much value from your work over the years - but I feel that if you re-apply the rigorous scientific principles of truth and transparency in your work as you used to do, your work will become even more valuable and far-reaching.
Thanks so much again and all the best to you and your amazing team!
Dimitrios

Farsight has been trying to set the "pure" bar. Pure science, pure free will, pure AI scoring.

I can see how this could work on principle in parts of the galaxy. I don't see how that works effectively on Earth. Besides, combining too many things becomes a handicap.

For example: you could be a carbon dating service that works for a fee and strives for a scientific standard. But to stay scientific you need to drop ideologies. You need to work the same service for the same fee- whether the customer is a random curious civilian or an atom-bomb wielding warlord.

But this to me is not an indication that Farsight must change. Farsight is Farsight... whatever the heck that is. But it does show a need for a competitive market.

I would very much love to see a remote viewing service that publishing service that just published their findings and quite honestly doesn't care what your motivations are, as long as you're paying. If their system is consistent and blind, then it becomes hard to suggest that they had any agenda other than getting business.

I *want* to see a "we're not trying to save the world, we just want money" - that is what will offer a pure service instead of a narrative, an ethos.