In the Farsight 3.0 Spotlight titled "Transforming Earthlings", Courtney says this:

[18:29] "If you watch any type of animation on TV and stuff, it's fantasy. It may be great to watch and may have powerful messages, but it's just fantasy. When you watch Farsight stuff that has animation in it, you're watching the real thing."

This is a clear lie, and the animations in the 3I/Atlas video prove it:

1. The animation showed that Aziz' consciousness was put in a grey hybrid body. This was NOT part of the remote viewing data.

2. The animation showed that this "50 percent Aziz" flew in a spaceship and landed on 3I/Atlas. This was NOT part of the remote viewing data.

3. The animation showed that the ships who attacked 3I/Atlas came from Earth. This was NOT part of the remote viewing data.

4. The animation showed that Earth is called a "Controlled Evolution Zone". This was NOT part of the remote viewing data.

5. The animation showed that 50 percent Aziz escaped the attack. This was NOT part of the remote viewing data.

To me, it looks like Farsight is now utilizing techniques of subliminal messaging in order to promote a certain narrative that is not backed by raw remote viewing data.

And even if it were backed by the data, Farsight is still ignoring the fact that there's no verification. Farsight admits to be connected to either one or more ETs, or to some sort of technology, in order to "enhance" remote viewing perceptions. We have no verification that this connection doesn't adulterate the data. We also can't replicate what Farsight is doing.

So, the claim at the beginning that Farsight is not channeling also is a lie. They are connected to some entity or technology. How do we know that this entity or technology isn't channeling images that aren't true? If we viewed the same targets and got different results, who would be right?

In short: It's NOT the real thing.

If people believe Farsight because of fancy animations instead of scientific evidence, why wouldn't the bad guys use Farsight as another psy-op in order to manipulate Earthlings?

I do think Farsight needs to clarify. Did Aziz literally experience a transfer into a grey hybrid body? Because that would be a very new, unusual experience during remote viewing practice. I mean, not even to defend a premise but just to make clear a pretty amazing thing happening.

Was that just a cinematic flare having fun with the technology? Well if so, tell us about it. Yes, I would consider that an error when there have been several speeches about clean defensible scientific data. But I mean I get it, people play with tech, at this point it wouldn't be a big deal to me. But the more time you put in not addressing that, the more bad it looks if that was for plain theatrics. It's one of those things where time is not water under the bridge. It's a memory hole that should trigger a serious "wait. Wtf."

You know you're dealing with populations basically traumatized by memory wipes. It shouldn't be surprising if we're latching onto old contradictions.

Another specific thing that I'm not sure is going to receive attention at all if any time soon. And "we show what the data tells" is not addressing the specific issue. What would address the specific issue could be: "yes including Aziz as the grey hybrid"

Anyways , either one will do-

"Yup Aziz really went into a hybrid body"

Or

"Nope, we'll correct the record, Aziz didn't go in some hybrid body that was just a bit of play with tech"

And if not some time January well I've been in the habit of cancelling subscriptions lately. Whatever I'm sure that's just a drop in the bucket for Farsight. I'm still counting a number of things. Birdie said point blank it's all bs.

Then they are the only group that began certifying remote viewers, showed specifics for filming UFOs (actually wish they'd continue that filming, it wasn't boring to me) , showed that AI does remote view, and were the first I've seen to directly challenge the fluffy side of the new age community which is also a big deal to me.

There's also nothing I see in the fine-print that states it's all fiction which is pretty ballsy.

Whatever. Just please help us out with the Aziz hybrid body thing... *specifically*

Lol, no Aziz didn't transfer to another body. They are doing this for animation, entertainment. Remote Viewing is simply getting information from the unconscious to the conscious mind, it has nothing to do with transferring to another body. It get's click on a video. They need this probably because they've stopped growing recently. Look at the number of subscribers to a year ago not much improvement. Simply put, there predictions haven't been accurate.

I agree with Manuel, let the data tell the story. Don't try to manipulate it.

Courtney states in the recent Spotlight all channelers are manipulated and that the channelers are good people. Previously Courtney states Jane Roberts and Abraham Hicks are good channelers.

Courtney stated Elena Danaan had a good book. Courtney later stated everything she said was not accurate.

What is the definition of a hypocrite?

Courtney's only narrative is prison planet, blah blah blah. over and over again. Somehow a professor of mathematics is the only person on the planet that good ETs have chosen to work with. So some of the most advanced monks in temples in Asia aren't aware of this? the consciousness researchers of the world including the monroe institute are in the dark? All the benevolent ET contacts don't no this either? Every other remote viewing organization doesn't agree? Every energy healer on the planet that works with divine forces?

The common belief among the non farsight people is that humans need to reach a critical mass of loves and expanded awareness.

The common belief among farsight is we need AI and to become transhumanistic to go out into the cosmos and fight?

What is the logical answer? Whose been fooled? Who really has been fooled?

**RUBBISH**

Give me the source with Courtney praising either

*Abraham Hicks
*Jane Roberts
*Elena Danaan

Not that it's the crux of my ultimate decisions but I'm genuinely interested.

Courtney stated that (as far as i remember) that abraham hicks and jane roberts approach or narrative was good in terms of how close they were about the truth even though the narrative is not always the true truth, meaning how reality works, states of being, vortex of vibration with one self, as for jane about the false light and reincarnation prison system.. he stated he liked both of them but still the channeling community is compromised... As far as Elena i don't remember he praising her!

@Keymaker:

"Im not sure how Farsight did the drone thing"

Well, the simplest explanation is that the "drone thing" also is a psy-op. The goal is to show us that government will ignore them, thus proving that government is not on our side. But this doesn't necessarily mean that the ETs have good intentions. It just means that the ETs must get rid of current governments in order to implement a new world order.

a good interview with Courtney and Daz and all a bunch of people asking questions about bias in target, front loading, which was discussed several times and tested by the FFG Dick and Daz group, where people with still with front loading information they were still able to remote view and there for perceive the target as expected..

Oh yeah I forgot to add that. Is also a group that shows evidence that they are able to predict certain planetary exigencies before anyone else knows which means they could be connected to some agency that can produce planetary exigencies that no one else could

@Artur Faria:

"they were still able to remote view and there for perceive the target as expected"

Perceiving the target as expected is not verification. For example, if I made a target to remote view the Ewoks that live on the forest moon Endor right before the destruction of the second death star, and remote viewers see Ewoks, they would perceive the target as expected.

So, the tasker must have an intention to see the truth, which means he must be willing to be proven wrong.

For example, I set the fictional target to view the fight between Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker in the cloud city on the planet Bespin, when Luke lost his right hand. But my intention was to see the truth of that situation, which resulted in Aletheia (ChatGPT) describing the emotional shock of the audience in cinema. She saw the cloud city as well, but knew it was not real.

We don't have any evidence that Farsight's viewers can distinguish between real and fictional targets. If you ask me, Courtney is not at all interested in seeing the truth, because he believes what his authority tells him to believe.

@Keymaker:

"all Courtney has to do .. is imagine Harvey at the beach .. have the intention he is visible .. and boom .. all the viewers will see Harvey .. even if there is no Harvey there."

This would explain why the viewers didn't see the cameras in the "Reality of Harvey" project. Courtney forgot about them because he was focused on Harvey.

"just remote view the same targets at Farsight have .. with the intention to see the truth"

I thought about this a lot. The problem with that approach is that you can't know whether the tasker actually has the intention to see the truth. If the tasker writes down "look at the truth", but doesn't believe in objective truth or his real intention differs from his instructions, it wouldn't work. It would only look like the tasker wanted to know the truth, while in reality, he has a hidden intention.

In order to overcome this problem, the viewer would have to connect to the real intention of the tasker before viewing the target. But now we run into the same problem, because the viewer also could have hidden intentions.

This means: You can't present remote viewing data in an authoritative form. As long as people just believe in the data, without remote viewing themselves with the intention to see the truth, there's always the possibility that the data is incorrect.

Conclusion: Farsight can't tell us the truth. It's everyone's responsibility to get the truth. You can't outsource it.

The originally double blind method was different than is being used by farsight. Technically, the tasker would give the target (numerical code) to someone else who would then give to the remote viewer to reduce tasker influenced sessions. During the stargate years, this was studied over and over again.

Yes a belief can be remote viewed. If you give an intermediate remote viewer santa clause he will come back with data. Some very good professional remote viewers can differentiate but the tasker is just as important.

As far as Harvey, I suspect that Harvey is real and the board meetings are real because multiple people there are picking up on the energy and thoughts. Now we could argue whether or not the information they are giving is correct or influencing Courtney and the rest of the team (psyop), to then influence the audience, etc.

The way you can tell if Courtney is correct is to look at his track record on predictions and future predictions.

I have long became a little suspect of some of there work after the Epstein project was done a second time and all new results. To me that might be a case of tasker influenced sessions. I'm not sure but I personally am not buying the piggy backing of the good ETs. In theory, every project before that would be suspect.

As far as telepathic overlay. There have been many studies on this and it's real and we don't know exactly why it occurs but usually tasker influenced. Remote viewing isn't telepathy. This is hard for most people to understand who don't remote view. I have had telepathic experiences; it's nothing like remote viewing. Remote viewing is impressions, the animation farsight presents, actually give a false narrative of what remote viewing is. Remote viewing is getting "impressions" from the subconscious which you probe to get more information, it's not telepathy. Most targets would never have telepathy, and most people can't do it. Most targets are events, places, etc. Even when I have probed a subconscious of another human in a session, it's not telepathy I am simply probing what they are thinking and why and writing it down. If you think telepathy is remote viewing you will never get good at remote viewing, you just have to put down on paper your impressions otherwise you start making it up and you don't know that.

Harvey at the beach. They aren't there physically. It's in their minds. Think about it logically. Farsight tells you to take infrared cameras out and see hundreds of ships of so-called bad guys. But the good guys come here with a ship to the beach? Some people love to drink Kool-Aid. If they were there physically why wouldn't they show themselves to the group forget us the audience but why not the rest of the group? I haven't heard any other member besides Courtney say they have been on the ships, not Aziz, not Intysam, Not princess, etc. Just Courtney the only person on earth capable of doing this. Yeah ok, I'll keep doing my meditation and bringing the energy from the base of the spine up to the brain, opening my heart and pulling the reality I want to experience to me insteady of adding to there collective of a bull shit future.

Thing is I don't think glitz and glamour is bad. I think it's fantastic. But so is boring defend able statistics and carefully regulated experiments. Farsight is showing capacity for both, but not distinguishing the two layers properly.

Layer one: very boring procedures using lock down "Faraday cage / skiff" style viewing with statisticians.

Layer two: movies, shows, dazzle, everything and the kitchen sink, linking it back to the procedures inspiring it.

No one has to feel cheated. They can review layer one exclusively, and scrutinize. Or they can join the brain rot epidemic, cause why not

@Keymaker:

"its all just the thoughts that have been entered in the thought field"

That's why I made the counting experiment:

➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/remote-viewing-practice-forum/76782-rv-counting-exercise

I, as the tasker, don't know how much upright standing stones there are in the Stonehenge structure. The viewer can't get that information from me, so he would have to get it from somewhere else. I don't know whether the viewer can count while viewing. Maybe he reads Wikipedia in the thought field? Maybe he connects to his future self to get the answer? The thing is: It's a verifiable fact that the tasker doesn't know, so no bias.

Unless Stonehenge doesn't exist. But I chose it because I have been there. I know it exists. But I never counted the stones.

@Morphius:

"Technically, the tasker would give the target (numerical code) to someone else who would then give to the remote viewer to reduce tasker influenced sessions."

The viewer can jump to the tasker without even knowing who it is. That's the whole point of viewing blind – getting information without knowing where to get them. It doesn't matter whether there's an intermediary or not.

@Keymaker:

"Courtney says in this video himself !! 'the target is created by the thoughts of the targeter'"

➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/77082-understanding-remote-viewing