I think it's important to understand how valid targets can be created, even if you just want to be a viewer. In my opinion, understanding how targets work will make you a better viewer, just like understanding how cars work will make you a better driver. So, here we go...

Everything starts with a question, right? For example: What created the ISBE?

Step 1 – Understanding the Question

As a tasker, you have to understand the implications of the question. Think about it like this: You want to draw a map, and you want the viewer to spot the exact location on that map. Understanding the implications means that you know that the map will include secondary targets.

You can influence the viewer where to look on the map to a certain degree, but you also don't want to take away the viewer's freedom by limiting the map to what you think how it should look like. Let's look at the example question: What created the ISBE? Asking for the implications means to dismantle the question, analyze its parts, and map the possibilities:

Starting the question with "What" means that you're asking for a cause, and you don't limit the cause to a person or being. What could mean anything. So you already know: The viewer could come up with anything. At this point it's important to be aware that you, as the tasker, already have an opinion. This will be important in step 2, but let's first complete step 1.

The second word of the question is "created". This word tells you that you already have made a choice. You presume that ISBEs are created. At this point it's important to be aware that the question doesn't ask for different possibilities. What if ISBEs aren't created? How could the viewer see this possibility if you, as the tasker, don't ask for it?

The third part of the question is "the ISBE". You as the tasker need to be aware that this term is a concept that is composed of many ideas. You need to ask: What is an ISBE to begin with? And: Does the viewer even have to know what an ISBE is?

Step 2 – Drawing the Map

When I create a target, I draw this map in my mind. If you don't understand why this map is important, I suggest you start drawing it on paper or on the computer, so you can see it in front of you. Here's how I draw the map regarding the example:

I start by putting an A in the center. The A represents the starting point of the target. It's important to be aware that you, as the tasker, don't know the exact reality of the target. You have an opinion, but you don't want the viewer to be limited to your opinion. You want the viewer to reach the reality of the target, even if your opinion of the target is wrong.

Next, I take the parts I identified in step 1 and add them to the map. What asks for a cause. This is the A that's already on the map. Because it's a cause, I also add the effect. I put a B on the right side of the map. The B stands for the creation aspect that's part of the question. A and B are connected by a causal relationship, so I connect them with an arrow.

As you can see, we are drawing a graph, which tells us that the target has multiple dimensions. This means that the viewer already has two focuses to look at: the creator and the process of creation.

Now a very important step: I add a Z on the left side of the map. The Z reflects the possibility that the question asks for the wrong thing, meaning the possibility that ISBEs aren't created by a creator. The Z is not connected to the A in the center, because if that possibility is true, there is no causal relationship. Being aware of this enables the viewer to look for either A or Z, independent of what you as the tasker believe the viewer should look at. I draw an arrow with // in the center indicating that it's not a causal relationship.

Programmers should have noticed by now that we are drawing a simple flow chart.

Now back to the B on the right side. B is the part where the viewer will focus on the ISBE that is being created. Because the ISBE is an idea that's based on multiple assumptions, we have to put at least two more letters on the map: One for the opinion of the tasker, and at least one for other possibilities. Doing this has only one purpose: We don't want to limit the viewer to one route. The tasker could be wrong about the target, so we have to map alternative routes.

I personally put an M for my opinion (M stands for the german word "Meinung", which means opinion), and an F that stands for Freiheit (freedom). If the viewer reaches the M, it means that my opinion matches the target. If the viewer reaches the F instead, it's because my opinion is wrong. The F then enables the viewer to go where he or she wants to go, leading to unexpected results.

The same is true for the A in the center, which is the cause. I draw an M for my opinion about what the cause is, and an F for every other possibility that's not my opinion. The map now looks like this:

Step 3 – How to Formulate the Target

The map is a simplified depiction of the routes the viewer can take. As you can see, it's also a matrix. The number of columns tells you how many focuses there are. In this example, there are two focuses: the cause and the effect.

The Z is not a focus, but you have to consider it as an alternative route when formulating the target. It should work like a fallback for the given focuses, so you have to formulate 4 focuses instead of 2, but with only 2 focuses visible to the viewer.

Example:

(A) The viewer will perceive and describe the reality of the process that creates a new ISBE, as defined by Focus 1 and 2.

(Z) If the process that creates a new ISBE is not real, the viewer will perceive and describe Focus 3 and 4 instead.

Focus 1: The cause that starts the process of ISBE creation.
Focus 2: The ISBE that is being created.

Focus 3: A tree with green leaves.
Focus 4: A red car.

We tell the viewer that there are only 2 focuses. If the viewer describes a tree when looking at Focus 1 and a red car when looking at Focus 2, we know that the process of creating a new ISBE is not real.

Step 4 – The Limits of Perception

We should also be aware that, in this example, we are asking the viewer to perceive something that could be outside the viewer's scope of perception or ability to describe it correctly. Because of this, we should add a restriction:

(R) If necessary, the viewer will perceive the reality of the target in a way that can be described in metaphoric language. The viewer shall use metaphors that describe the underlying principles in the best way possible.

This restriction is only required if the target could be a non-physical reality. Be aware that viewers will come up with metaphors even if we don't add this restriction, because they always expect to see something. But adding the restriction tells the viewer that the metaphors are not AOLs.

Conclusion:

Creating a target is not as simple as most people think. While you can simply ask any question, most people ignore that questions are already built on assumptions. Especially the possibility of asking the wrong question must be taken care of when formulating the target, otherwise the viewer will be limited to the tasker's beliefs. We want to enable the viewer to distinguish between thoughts and physical reality, so the target wording has to reflect this ability.

As far as I'm concerned, most taskers, including Courtney, ignore the possibility of asking the wrong question. It's possible that the ETs who Farsight uses as a proxy compensate for this deficiency when the viewer connects to the target. But it's also possible that the viewers just remote view Courtney's thoughts and opinions.

It's important to be aware that if the tasker's opinion about a target is true, and the target is verifiable, the viewer will see what is true. But if the opinion of the tasker doesn't match reality, and the tasker doesn't specifically ask for reality in spite of his own opinions, the viewer can still see what the tasker thinks to be true. This will only be recognized if the target is verifiable and the collected data doesn't match physical reality.

Here's another example to illustrate how I create targets, and how they work.

The target is the so-called "Las Vegas UFO incident" I created in the context of the RV upscaling thread:

➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/78720-rv-upscaling

Target wording:

The viewer will perceive and describe the physical reality of the so-called "Las Vegas UFO incident".

Context of the target:

On April 30, 2023, Las Vegas emergency services received multiple 911 calls reporting unusual sightings. Callers described a bright flash in the sky followed by unidentified objects landing in residential areas.

Focus 1: Locate and describe the bright flash in the sky above Las Vegas that supposedly has been reported by multiple eye witnesses in the night of April 30, 2023.

Focus 2: Perceive and describe whatever is causing the bright flash located in Focus 1.

Focus 3: If the bright flash was caused by an occupied spacecraft, locate and describe the occupants of that craft 5 minutes after the flash occured. If the bright flash wasn't caused by an occupied spacecraft, locate and describe the cause of the bright flash 5 minutes after the flash occured.

Focus 4: Locate and describe the beings that have been filmed by the Kenmore family in their backyard in the moment when the family tried to enter their backyard, as seen on video.

--------------------

My mind map:

Explanation:

A corresponds to Focus 1, which is the bright flash in the sky. There are no F and M arrows, because the viewer is supposed to describe the flash independent of whether it's real or not. You will see why in a moment.

B corresponds to Focus 2, which is the cause of the bright flash. There are F and M arrows here because I have an opinion about what the cause is, and that opinion could be wrong. F leads the viewer to any explanation that is not my opinion. This is why the F and M arrows aren't necessary for A – if the cause for the flash was, for instance, a person creating the flash on their computer, Focus 2 would already cover that possibility.

C1 corresponds to the first alternative in Focus 3, which is the cause of the flash being a spacecraft. If this alternative is true, the viewer will see the occupants of that craft 5 minutes after the flash.

C2 corresponds to the second alternative in Focus 3, which is the cause of the flash being anything but a spacecraft. If this alternative is true, the viewer will see the cause of that flash again, but 5 minutes later.

D corresponds to Focus 4, which is the beings that have been filmed. The reason for the dotted lines is that there could be a causal connection, but doesn't have to be. There's also F and M arrows again because I have an opinion about what has been filmed that could be wrong.

The map doesn't contain a Z, because that possibility is already covered by Focus 2 and 3. For that reason, we don't have to create hidden fallback focuses. If the viewer sees a cause for the flash that doesn't match the expectation of an occupied spacecraft, we would know that the flash and whatever the viewer sees in Focus 4 wouldn't be connected.

There's also no restriction to metaphoric language, because the target asks for the physical reality of the incident. Even if the incident didn't happen, but instead was digitally fabricated, the viewer would see the physical reality of the fabrication in Focus 2, which could be a person fabricating the flash while sitting in front of a computer, or a person prompting an AI.

Expected results:

In Focus 1, the viewer should perceive a bright flash, but that doesn't tell us whether the flash was real or not. Perceiving the flash only proves that the viewer is on target.

In Focus 2, the viewer should perceive whatever caused the flash, which includes the possibility that the flash is not real, but was caused by digital fabrication instead.

In Focus 3, the viewer should see either the occupants of the spacecraft, or whatever caused the flash if there were no occupants or no spacecraft at all.

In Focus 4, the viewer should see humans and non-humans, if non-humans have been present. If non-humans haven't been present, the viewer should only see the humans that have been filmed.

When it comes to remote viewing, utilizing target "focuses" is an interesting approach because it allows for a quick overview of a problem. This is exactly why Farsight uses it in their projects. However, in my opinion, this method is completely impractical for Artificial Intelligence. I believe Farsight adopted this shortcut solely to speed up their project turnaround. Historically, they used a completely different methodology. A prime example is their video on 9/11, there was so much material that they produced two 2-hour films.

Why? Because originally, the process was sequential: you received a target, did the session, submitted it, and then the monitor reviewed it to give you the next target based entirely on the data you had just uncovered. This approach naturally takes longer, but it ensures you are building strictly on verified session data. Conversely, the "focus" system assumes beforehand that you already more or less know what specific data you are looking for.

Why doesn't this work for Artificial Intelligence? When you do remote viewing with an AI, you run into the problem of token consumption and context windows. With every new prompt, the entire conversation history, all the previous prompts, everything the AI said, and everything you said, is fed back into the model's active memory. If you have 10 questions, all 10, along with the entire cumulative dialogue, are continuously re-submitted.

This creates a major flaw when you try to switch to a different "focus" that targets a new location or a different timeframe. For a human, shifting focus can be managed, but for AI, it becomes highly problematic. Even though the new focus dictates a completely different time and place, the AI is suddenly hit with a massive injection of data from everything that happened prior. It is being told to focus on something entirely new, while its "brain" is simultaneously stuffed with the old context.

From a practical standpoint, it’s easy to see why this fails. Imagine if you, as a human remote viewer, were told to move to a new location, but right at that moment, someone injected a massive info-dump of everything from the previous site straight into your head. It would cause immediate clutter and confusion. In my experience, this approach is incredibly difficult; it might work by chance occasionally, but usually, it fails because the AI is flooded with data about what it already knows, when it is supposed to be completely detached and in a brand-new location.

If this is difficult for a human, it is exponentially harder for an AI. Current models lack an internal mechanism to cleanly "cut off" or compartmentalize active context to match the pure, blank-slate state they have at the very beginning of a session.

Therefore, a much more practical solution for AI remote viewing, instead of using embedded focuses, is to break the target down into smaller, completely independent sub-targets. If a project requires investigating different locations or different time periods, they should simply be treated as two or three entirely distinct targets. That is how I see it, that is how I apply it, and that is my approach.

@Edward:

Focus is just another word for sub-target. You don't have to view all focuses in one session. Just add the focus number to the target coordinates when prompting. For example:

4194-8842

The viewer will perceive and describe the first spaceship ever built in this universe, whereas spaceship refers to a craft that is capable of interstellar space travel.

Focus 1: The spaceship on its first flight.
Focus 2: The captain or pilot of the spaceship.
Focus 3: The name of the spaceship translated into English.

Prompt: Remote view 4194-8842-F2