Source: Farsight Spotlight titled "Anatomy of a Revolution"
[9:26] "Why do academics avoid debate? Well, academics avoid public debate for three rational reasons. The first one is that they cannot win cleanly. Debate requires ontological openness, and their frameworks forbid that. Second, debate implies legitimacy, meaning you don't debate somebody who doesn't have some level of legitimacy. So, silence implies dismissal. And they vote for silence."
This is so ironic, because Farsight is avoiding debate in the same way. There are lots of questions asked on the forums, lots of things that don't add up that have been brought forth for consideration... but Farsight doesn't consider. There has been the attempt of the "Ask me Anything" format, but focus evaporated as soon as the questions became uncomfortable. Farsight chooses to ignore the inconvenient topics just like academia does.
As far as I'm concerned, this is because Farsight also has their "framework". There's a narrative they aren't allowed to deviate from. And this is a major red flag, because if the narrative was true, they would simply provide the answers.
[11:20] "What we at Farsight need to do is to create undeniable visibility."
So, Farsight is creating undeniable visibility by talking to invisible people and creating AI animations? 🤨
[12:11] "Universities produce lectures. Farsight produces the immortality of ideas. Every video, every transcript, every word is preserved, nothing disappears."
That's all well and good, but there's still one important question: Are the ideas true?
[12:53] "Livestreaming does three things no edited product can ever do. The first is presence. It exists in the present tense. It cannot be retroactively dismissed. It's there, you're live."
You can livestream a pre-recorded video and most people wouldn't recognize. Also, AI will soon be capable of manipulating video data in real time.
"Second, there's irreversibility. Now, a paper can be ignored, a book can be ignored, but a livestream is witnessed by tens of thousands. And it becomes a historical event."
I'm looking foward to you livestreaming the landing of an ET ship and then meeting the ETs in person. Everything else wouldn't be a historical event.
"Third, epistemic independence. Live thinking resists caricature. Viewers see cognition unfold in real time, and this is not content, this is presence. You are there."
No, the people watching the livestream aren't there.
[14:04] "The ETs that we interact with are not interacting with us so that we can be special. They're interacting with us because they want to show through us the example of how they wanna talk with everybody else."
This means they want to talk with everybody else via telepathy, instead of talking with them in person. Which looks like they want to avoid physical contact. And this raises the question: Why do they avoid physical contact?
[15:20] "They don't wanna hide anything! They want the complete secrecy to end. But... and you know you can't say well then just show your ships. They did show their ships!"
Actually, I didn't see ships. I saw blinking lights, orbs, car-sized "drones" with unclear features, and other strange objects with even more unclear features. If you say "ships", I expect something else.
"But it requires more than that. It requires that the war that's between what we call the good ETs and the bad ETs be resolved, so that they can literally land and show themselves and talk and so..."
So, the reason why they don't land and don't show up in person is because of the war. If they landed or became visible during a meeting, the military would capture them, and they don't want that to happen. This raises the question: What is the purpose of the non-personal contact with the so-called good ETs? Why do they want to talk to us?
"What they're doing now is they're using us as an example for how you can safely interact with them."
To do what?
[16:14] "Remote livestreaming. We're taking you to distant locations. We're taking you to where we have been going for years, in different places, to have these secret meetings in, you know, weird places, in the middle of the night and everything like that. We're taking you with us now."
I don't see how the place matters if the ETs stay invisible. I also don't understand why the locations must be secret in the first place. If the good ETs don't show up and stick with telepathy, the bad ETs have no reason to intervene. You can do this from your living room. So, what's the reason for the places to be secret? Also, why are the bad ETs too stupid to trace you on a prison planet they own?
"And remote livestreaming is not aesthetic... it's epistemic. It's signalling. Epistemic signalling. The beach, our camper, the night sky, a remote desert. These places say this knowledge does not originate in universities. It does not require permission. It exists where reality actually happens, and that matters, especially to younger scholars."
Nice try to frame it like that. What you actually do is subliminal messaging based on religious myth. And it's the same myth the ETs used back in the day: A person going into the desert to find spiritual insight and meet with "God".
It's the desert religion... again.