How the tasker picks future timelines - Farsight Forums

In the latest Spotlight titled "Venezuela, Science, and Remote Viewing", Courtney says this:

[16:29] "So, the core insight is that the remote viewing data does not predict the headlines. Remote viewing data does not give you dates; it does not give you press releases; it does not give you slogans; and it does not give you election outcomes. Remote viewing gives you structures. Pressures. Patterns. It gives you psychological stress, psychological states. And it gives you the constraints. It shows you what must happen, not what will be announced. And this is why predictive remote viewing often looks vague to people trained in journalistic or academic traditions. But it looks extremely precise after the events unfold."

I think that Farsight still doesn't fully understand how remote viewing the future actually works. Let me explain:

When remote viewing the future, the tasker picks the timelines. He can choose from nearly infinite timelines that remain possible from the present point of view. For example, if you plan to go to the dentist tomorrow, remote viewing you visiting the dentist requires the tasker to formulate the target in a way that every possible timeline where the visit is not happening is excluded.

Here's an explanation based on the Venezuela session:

"Target Goal: To determine the future of the upcoming conflict between the United States and Venezuela, specifically focusing on the pinnacle of the U.S. engagement"

With this formulation, the tasker excludes every possible timeline in which no conflict is happening, regardless of their probability.

"Event Z: The largest military operation taken by the United States against Venezuela across the next four years"

With this formulation, the tasker picks every possible timeline in which the conflict is happening within the next four years, regardless of their probability.

"Concern S: The feelings and thoughts of President Nicolás Maduro regarding the extent to which he is willing to go to defend himself from Donald Trump"

With this formulation, the tasker picks every timeline in which Nicolás Maduro will still be president.

Because of these different picks, the viewers will jump timelines within their sessions. It will look like a coherent picture, but it actually is a mixture of all the possible outcomes that fit within the given constraints.

In short: YOU ARE NOT VIEWING ONLY ONE TIMELINE!

Because you can't. The tasker determines the scope of possible timelines, but it will always be more than one timeline. For example, if the tasker wants to look at the most probable timeline regarding a specific event, that probability not only is based on what the tasker knows in the present moment, it also can change after the target has been set. This is because all the involved actors will make decisions that affect the probabilities of the possible timelines.

The tasker has to take all this into account. When it comes to future targets, the correct understanding of the present moment and the involved actors is crucial. For example, Courtney didn't see coming that Maduro could be kidnapped. It's also highly subjective what "pinnacle of the U.S. engagement" means. Who decides what this pinnacle is?

Because of this, we are looking at a highly subjective "blending" of possible timelines. It looks like a coherent picture, but there is no reliability that this exact picture will happen.

That's why remote viewing the future is vague. You can't narrow it down to what must happen. It only looks extremely precise after the events unfold if the tasker narrowed it down to what probably will happen AND it actually happened.

A target where the tasking didn't seem to get it right was the remote viewing of 3I/Atlas. The viewer saw an ET attack on 3I/Atlas when it is closest to Earth. The problem here: In focus 2, the tasker assumed that the time when 3I/Atlas will be closest to Earth is in December 2025. But he didn't narrow it down to December 2025. This makes the viewers look at all the timelines when 3I/Atlas is actually closest to Earth, and this doesn't have to be in December 2025.

From a scientific standpoint, remote viewing the future can give you valuable insights about how events can develop under given premises. You will see things you didn't think of before, and with that knowledge, you can change possible outcomes. But you will never get what must happen. If you think that that's how it works, you are wrong.