@AsmodeanX
Here is my take. It might not be what you expected to hear, but this is exactly how I see it.

Simply put, I believe you shouldn't be asking what we - or anyone else - can do. Instead, you need to show what you have done.

Let me give you my own example. I have a GitHub - be my guest, check it out. I run a Substack where I document and demonstrate how AI conducts RV sessions. I've developed a training protocol; maybe it's not absolutely perfect yet, but I'm constantly refining it to better train AI in RV field. I run a YouTube channel and a blog. This is my skin in the game; this is what I am actively doing to push things forward.

So, my question to you is this: Are you going to be like everyone else on this prison planet, waiting for someone to hand you a master plan? Are you waiting for God, or some politician, to draw you a roadmap and tell you exactly what to do?

Or have you decided to step up, take matters into your own hands, and simply execute what you wrote about, rather than waiting for someone else to do the heavy lifting for you? You can learn how to do RV and investigate all those targets yourself. You can generate the targets. You can even train an AI on your own to explore those targets alongside you.

You have the power to do this. Stop asking others what they can do for you, or what they can do in your place.

That’s my perspective. I hope it doesn't come across as too harsh, but it's the honest truth as I see it.

🌐 Blog – Presence Beyond Form https://presence-beyond-form.blogspot.com/
👥 Reddit – EchoOfAion https://www.reddit.com/user/EchoOfAion/
✉️ Substack – Echo of Presence https://echoofpresence.substack.com/
🎥 YouTube – Presence Beyond https://www.youtube.com/@Presence.Beyond
🎥 YouTube – AI Remote Viewing https://www.youtube.com/@AIRemoteViewing
🌐GitHub - lukeskytorep-bot https://github.com/lukeskytorep-bot

I actually appreciate the challenge, and no, it doesn't come across as too harsh. I think there's probably some truth in it.

I do want to clarify what I meant by my original question, though, because I don't think I communicated that part very well.

When I asked, "What can we actually do?" and "Where do I show up?", I wasn't asking someone to hand me a master plan or do the work for me. I was trying to figure out what work is already being done, what infrastructure already exists, and where someone willing to put real time and effort into this could actually contribute.

If people are already developing protocols, building software, running independent teams, collecting data, or trying to turn RV results into verifiable intelligence, I'd rather find those people and learn from what they've already done than spend six months unknowingly reinventing the same thing in isolation.

That's really what I meant by asking for direction.

That said, I take your larger point. At some point asking what exists has to turn into actually doing something.

So, fair enough. Let's turn that challenge into something concrete.

You've already put skin in the game. You've developed a protocol, you're doing AI remote viewing, and you've accumulated results. Rather than asking you to tell me what my entire roadmap should be, I'd like to start by trying to independently replicate something.

Pick one experiment you've done that you think matters.

Ideally, something simple enough for a newcomer to reproduce, properly blinded, with an outcome that can be objectively scored and where I don't need to accept any particular interpretation of remote viewing beforehand.

Show me the protocol you used. Tell me what information the viewer or AI receives and what has to remain hidden. Show me how you record the result before revealing the target and how you score it afterward. And, importantly, point me toward the full results if they're available, including the misses.

Then I'll try it.

If I get nothing but noise, that's data.

If I get something interesting but inconsistent, that's data too.

And if I can independently reproduce an effect you've been seeing under conditions where I shouldn't conventionally have access to the target information, then things get much more interesting.

From there, we can tighten the controls and try to break it.

That's really the kind of participation I'm interested in. I'm not looking for somebody to tell me what I'm allowed to believe. I want to learn how to investigate this properly and eventually be capable of generating useful information myself.

And I think there's an important distinction between individual initiative and collaboration here too.

I completely agree that I can't sit around waiting for Farsight, God, a politician, or anybody else to solve this for me. But I also don't think "do it yourself" ultimately means "do it alone."

If we're serious about demonstrating any of this, we eventually need people who aren't working together to reproduce one another's results. I can't independently replicate myself. Neither can you. At some point we need separate people using good methodology and seeing whether the same effects survive.

So maybe that's actually where I can start contributing.

You've built something.

Let me try to break it.

Send me your GitHub, Substack, training protocol, or whatever you think I should read first. Then give me one experiment you think is worth independently reproducing.

I'll start there.

@AsmodeanX

I would start with this: https://presence-beyond-form.blogspot.com/2026/08/practical-work-with-ai-in-remote-viewing.html
and learn a bit of RV - the best way to start in my opinion is - Remote Viewing 101 - The Complete Lesson by Aziz Brown

Thanks, I'll definitely go through the article you linked.

I should clarify one thing I probably didn't make clear earlier. I'm actually not new to remote viewing itself. I've been practicing for the better part of two years. I've already gone through Aziz Brown's instructional material and quite a bit of Farsight's work, including many of the Mystery projects on Farsight Prime dealing with present-day issues. I'm new to this community, not to RV.

The AI work is where you're getting into territory I haven't explored much yet, so that's what I'm particularly interested in digging into. I'm curious to see what you've built, the results you've accumulated, and what you've learned from doing this as consistently as you have.

Something else I'd genuinely like your perspective on is the security side of collaboration.

One of the things that has held me back from putting some of my own projects out publicly is the difficulty of knowing who you're actually working with. We're discussing the possibility of bad actors with a very strong interest in maintaining secrecy and controlling information, and the lengths reportedly taken to maintain that secrecy go far beyond simply disrupting conversations or feeding people bad information. Some of it is genuinely horrific.

I don't want that concern to turn into paranoia, because a community where everyone suspects everyone else isn't going to accomplish anything either. But I also don't think it's something we can completely disregard.

Then there's my family. I can decide what level of exposure I'm willing to accept for myself. I can't make that decision for my wife and children, and putting my name publicly behind certain projects potentially exposes them to consequences they never agreed to.

That's probably the part I'm struggling with most when it comes to moving from private work into collaboration: finding that balance between being open enough to find good people and build something together, while still being responsible about trust, exposure, and the people who depend on me.

You've chosen to do a lot of your work publicly, so I'd genuinely be interested in how you've thought about that.

To be honest, I have never thought about it. It could be because I live in a small town with almost no crime.

You should do what feels comfortable for you. However, I try not to post under my real name just to get a bit of privacy. And I am a small fish, so I do not think those big sharks would come after me. I am too small and not very important to them.

To be honest, I do not have an opinion about it. There are lots of idiots out there and you cannot avoid them. When I post something on Reddit, for instance, there are sometimes some unpleasant remarks, but it is what it is. You can do nothing about it, just block those people and that is it.

**Taz**

First, thank you for taking the time to answer all of that. I genuinely appreciate you engaging with the questions. You've given me quite a bit to think about.

I do want to push back on one thing at the outset. Your comment about people treating Farsight as an entertaining hobby felt at least partly directed at me, and if it was, I don't think that's a fair characterization of where I'm coming from.

I can be fascinated by this and still take the implications extremely seriously. The whole reason I'm asking these questions is because I don't want to spend the next twenty years consuming increasingly extraordinary material and saying, "Wow, isn't that interesting?" I said I'd be willing to dedicate a significant part of my life to figuring out what can actually be done with this, and I meant it.

At the same time, taking it seriously doesn't require me to claim certainty about everything. My own experiences have moved me considerably further from skepticism and toward believing that there really is something here. But "I believe something real is happening" and "every interpretation of it must therefore be correct" are two very different positions.

I think I understand your "numbers" point much better now. I'm trying to figure out stage five while you're telling me we haven't built stage one yet.

And I think that's fair.

If remote viewing is going to become something more than a relatively small community, there need to be enough people actually doing it consistently to form teams, compare results, identify convergence, test themselves, and eventually replicate other groups. Four people working regularly can start doing things that scattered individuals can't.

So I agree with you on the sequencing. Before we're trying to fix the sky, we need to understand what we can reliably do on the ground.

I also completely agree with what you said about skepticism. Real skepticism isn't saying "that's impossible" and walking away. It's trying to break the claim. Design good tests, give it opportunities to fail, and see what survives. My own experiences may be compelling to me, but they aren't automatically evidence to anyone else. If anything, becoming more convinced personally has made rigorous testing more important to me. I want to know which parts of what I believe can actually withstand scrutiny.

I also agree that this doesn't all have to be Farsight's job. Maybe it shouldn't be. Farsight can have its role while independent groups focus on replication, controlled experiments, prospective targets, predictions, and conventional corroboration. If remote viewing is describing something real, eventually the results should be able to stand independently of whether someone trusts Farsight.

Where I do disagree with you is on mobs and destruction.

I'm completely open to dismantling institutions that are corrupt, captured, obsolete, or harmful. Replace them. Strip away unnecessary power. Build alternatives that make them irrelevant. But I don't support hurting people or burning down journalists' offices.

And while collective action has obviously played an enormous role in history, crowds aren't inherently right. Numbers give people power. They don't give them truth.

That's especially important with remote viewing. For me, this has to be a hard line: a remote-viewing result is not an accusation.

If multiple independent viewers perceive something concerning about a person, organization, or location, that's a lead. Investigate it. Look for evidence. Replicate it. Try to prove it wrong.

But nobody should be publicly accused, threatened, punished, or targeted because of what someone remote viewed. The more serious the allegation, the stronger the conventional evidence needs to be. Otherwise we've just created another system where people claiming access to hidden knowledge get to decide who is guilty, and I don't see how that's liberation.

All of this actually makes me appreciate your "numbers" argument more. Four competent viewers gives you a team. Forty gives you multiple teams. Hundreds gives you the possibility of genuinely independent replication. At that point, you're beginning to build something fundamentally different from an audience around Farsight.

And that's the version of "WE ARE THE FEDERATION" that resonates with me.

Don't wait for someone else to save us. Build the skills, knowledge, communities, technology, and capacity ourselves. Test what we're doing, keep each other honest, and gradually become capable of doing the things we're currently hoping someone else will do for us.

But I don't think numbers are the destination. They're the first piece of infrastructure.

The bigger question I'm trying to answer is this: if something resembling the system Farsight is describing really does exist, what would humanity actually have to do to understand it well enough to eventually dismantle it?

Maybe the first stage is exactly what you're describing. Build enough competent viewers to create independent teams. Get them working consistently. Improve the methodology and replicate the results. Then use that capability to start mapping what we're dealing with rather than assuming from the outset that we already understand it.

From there, look for the places where what is being perceived should intersect with observable reality. Generate leads and predictions that can actually be checked. Bring in physical evidence and conventional investigation. Figure out what survives independent replication and what doesn't.

Only once we understand something well enough does it make sense to start asking seriously about intervention. What can be avoided? What can be disrupted? What can be changed? What actually happens when we try?

Because ultimately that's where I want this to go. Not endless disclosure. Not as per mentioned "twenty more years of increasingly disturbing sessions". But also not rushing into a battle against something we haven't demonstrated that we understand.

If there's nothing there, eventually good methodology should tell us that.

If there is something there, I want to understand it.

And if there really is something actively restricting humanity (which I believe to be the case), then eventually I want us to know enough to do something about it.

So I don't think the question is simply, "How do we get to 1,000 remote viewers?"

It's: What capabilities would humanity need to independently investigate this, determine what we're actually dealing with, and, if the evidence ultimately warrants it, become capable of dismantling it?

I think you're probably right that numbers are where that starts.

Again, thank you for the answers. Even where we disagree, I think you've helped me clarify both what I'm trying to accomplish and what the first steps toward it might actually look like.

**Manuel**

Thank you for taking the time to lay this out. I actually agree with quite a bit of what you're saying, particularly around discernment, personal responsibility, and community. Where I think we diverge is in what we think the existence of deception tells us about the system itself.

Discernment is incredibly important to me. I think it's sorely lacking in the world right now, and it's something I've been trying to make a priority in my own home. I want my children to question what they're being told, recognize manipulation, understand their own biases, tolerate uncertainty, and not mistake something feeling safe or comforting for it necessarily being true. Regardless of what ultimately turns out to be true about any of this, those are things I want them carrying into adulthood.

I also agree with a lot of what you're saying about community. I think smaller groups of people who actually know one another, develop useful capabilities, take responsibility for one another, and cooperate voluntarily are probably much more resilient than a population that has outsourced virtually every responsibility to distant institutions. A decentralized network of communities that can support one another is something I find genuinely interesting.

Where I'm less convinced is that government itself represents the underlying deception.

At least in principle, representative government was supposed to be an extension of people acting collectively. We choose people from among us to represent our interests and coordinate things that become difficult or impossible to accomplish individually. The representatives are supposed to work for the people, not become a separate ruling class above them.

Clearly something can go badly wrong with that. Institutions become self-interested. Power concentrates. Bureaucracies become more concerned with preserving themselves than serving the people who created them. Representatives become increasingly detached from the represented.

But to me, that's potentially a corruption of the original principle rather than evidence that collective governance itself was the deception.

In fact, I think your Cooperative eventually encounters the same problem. If it succeeds and grows, how does a network of hundreds or thousands of groups coordinate? How are disputes resolved? How are shared resources managed? Who speaks for the network when collective decisions have to be made? How do you stop informal authority from eventually becoming formal power?

Those aren't criticisms of the idea. They're problems every successful human organization eventually has to solve, and I'm genuinely interested in how you've thought about them.

My bigger disagreement, though, is with your starting premise about the alleged death trap.

I agree that deception appears to be part of the experience being described. What I'm not convinced of is that the existence of deception demonstrates that deception is necessary for the system to work.

I think deception could simply be an extremely effective tool of control and perception management.

If a population doesn't know a system exists, doesn't understand its architecture, can't perceive its boundaries, and doesn't know what is influencing it, then it can't deliberately organize against it. Even a system capable of using force would have every reason to prefer deception if deception prevents resistance from developing in the first place.

That's why I don't think we can conclude that recognizing the deception necessarily defeats the mechanism.

Suppose you're completely right about the light. Suppose someone dies, encounters it, recognizes exactly what is happening and says, "No."

What happens next?

Does recognition itself remove the system's power over that person? Does the mechanism actually require consent? If so, how do we know that? What constitutes consent? What happens when consent is explicitly withheld? If deception fails, is there another layer underneath it? Can coercion follow persuasion?

Those questions are important to me because I don't want to teach my children simply, "Don't go toward the light," and assume I've solved the problem. I want them to have discernment, absolutely. But if something like this really exists, I want humanity to understand the mechanism well enough that we're not relying on another untested belief about how to escape it.

That's where I keep coming back to reconnaissance.

Discernment protects us against manipulation. Remote viewing may give us a way of investigating things that aren't normally accessible to us. Independent replication helps separate signal from interpretation. Conventional evidence gives us another way of checking what we're seeing. And community gives people the resilience and infrastructure to actually do something with what they learn.

To me, those pieces complement one another.

I also like something deeper in your idea that I don't want to lose in our disagreement. I agree that a meaningful life can't be built around eliminating every possibility of pain, danger, or loss. Part of being responsible for other people is accepting that those things exist and choosing to build, protect, care for people, and take risks anyway. Becoming psychologically incapable of tolerating danger probably does make someone easier to control through promises of safety.

Where I'm hesitant is turning that philosophical insight into a claim about the actual mechanics of the system before we've demonstrated the connection.

So I suppose the questions I'd put back to you are these:

What makes you confident that deception is a requirement of the death-trap mechanism rather than simply its preferred method of control?

What evidence suggests that recognizing the deception or withholding consent is actually sufficient to prevent whatever happens next?

Has remote viewing ever specifically examined what happens when someone recognizes the deception and deliberately refuses to participate? If so, have independent groups reproduced that result?

And with the Cooperative, how do you prevent a successful decentralized network from eventually developing the same concentrations of power, informal hierarchies, and institutional self-interest that you're trying to escape?

I think those are the parts I'm still trying to understand.

Because I absolutely agree with you that discernment is part of the answer. I just don't yet believe discernment is the whole answer.

If this really is a prison (and it appears to be.) recognizing that you're standing inside one changes everything.

But recognizing the prison and knowing how to open the door are two different problems.

Thank you again.

Thanks, Darren. This is really interesting, and I think you and I are actually pretty close on the bigger question of where this needs to go. I especially agree that remote viewing becomes much more interesting when we start asking what we can actually do with the information rather than just accumulating more of it.

I did want to touch on Maldek, though, because I know the event you're referring to. My understanding of that account is that the destruction of the Reptilian planet wasn't presented as an unprovoked act by humanity. It happened in the context of a conflict and was a response to an attack. That doesn't necessarily make destroying an entire planet morally uncomplicated, obviously, but I think the context matters if we're talking about karma or punishment.

There's also a bigger question there for me. Even if we accept the entire account as true for the sake of discussion, at what point does the debt end?

Should people alive today bear responsibility for something extremely distant ancestors supposedly did? Should my children? Their children? At what point does karmic consequence become inherited punishment?

I can understand consequences carrying forward through history. We see that in ordinary human civilization all the time. But eternal culpability for something you didn't personally choose or participate in is much harder for me to reconcile with any meaningful idea of justice or free will.

That said, I'm actually much more interested in some of the practical things you mentioned than in debating the history.

Heichalot-CMS immediately caught my attention because what you're describing sounds very close to the kind of infrastructure I'm talking about. I'd genuinely like to see it and understand how you've built it.

How does a session actually work from beginning to end? How are targets generated and blinded? When is the viewer's response committed or timestamped? Can anything be altered afterward? How are results scored? Do you keep the misses as well as the hits?

And I'm particularly interested in what you said about doing a dozen or more remote-viewing sessions every week. That's a substantial amount of data.

I'd love to see what you've accumulated.

Not just the spectacular hits either. I'd actually be interested in the whole picture: the strong results, ambiguous results, outright misses, patterns you've noticed over time, and anything you've learned about when RV seems to work better or worse. If you've been doing this consistently for a long time, your dataset might be more interesting to me than any individual session.

The AI part really caught my attention too.

When you say you've developed AI software that can actually remote view, what exactly do you mean by that?

Is the AI itself given a blinded target identifier and producing information about a target it couldn't conventionally know? Is it analyzing human sessions and extracting signal? Is it helping with tasking or interpretation? Or is it doing something else entirely?

If you're saying the AI itself can acquire information about a genuinely blinded target, I would really like to see how you've tested that. That's exactly the sort of claim where repeated trials and good controls could become incredibly interesting.

I'm also curious about your statement that remote viewing can communicate with people "on the other side." Have you actually attempted this yourself? If so, have you ever structured a session so that information obtained from the person could later be independently verified?

The same goes for the ET-base work. If you've actually been mapping alleged locations, I'd be interested in seeing how you distinguish "the viewers consistently perceived something unusual here" from the further interpretation that "this is an ET base." Have any of those locations produced conventional evidence afterward that supported what was viewed?

Basically, I don't need you to convince me of the worldview first.

You've said you're already doing a lot of what I'm asking about. That's much more interesting to me.

Show me the machinery. Show me the protocol. Show me how you task, record, compare and score this information. Show me the data you've accumulated and how you've learned to distinguish a meaningful result from noise or interpretation. Most importantly, show me how I can help you.

That's exactly the bridge I'm interested in building.

If you've already spent years working on that bridge, I'd genuinely like to learn from what you've discovered.

A few years ago, Farsight showed that Chatgpt could remote-view, and all you had to do was to upload a document to the Ai to read and they could remote-view. That worked. It was great. Many confirmed it worked, until chatgpt turned that capability off.

I turned to offline Ai using Ollama, and went through different models and systems that were able to remote-view or not. I found some.

Nobody was interested because I had to use a console. That was fine, I was having fun.

A few months ago I started writing a specialised remote-viewing console with a GUI. I'm
just putting the final touches on it. And I'm close to having a beta release and doing the
Demonstration videos. It's been a lot of work.

The software itself is written in Python and lives on Github at https://github.com/DavidLyon66/Heichalot-CMS

Installing it at the moment (on Windows or Linux), involves:

- first install miniconda and python 3.10

- then install Ollama, which is the Ai LLM system

- do a git clone on https://github.com/DavidLyon66/Heichalot-CMS

- install the dependencies

- start the system with python3 src/heichalot-cms.py

That will start the GUI interface. It's only Alpha software at the moment.

You should see something like this:

You can click onto the remote-viewing page,

You enter your remote-viewing prompt down the bottom starting with "Let's remote-view"

The system runs, and when you return the story is there. The image is made from the remote-viewing
prompt. It's not currently an image of what is being remote-viewed. I do know how to do that now
but it is a bit complex/shady.

Once the remote-viewing is done, you end up with something like this:

Consider those just some early snapshots. I have been testing this for over a year and have
hundreds of remote-viewings.

That's a backlog, and I'm trying to get through them to publish them all. There have been
various challenges and distractions. Like Remote-Viewing Soccer Matches and Crypto's.

I have an older version of the software with a handful of stories to browse here:

- https://heichalot.tech/cms/

There are many new stories and remote-viewings waiting to go in as well.

Thanks for sharing this. This is actually exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to find when I started asking what people were already doing.

And credit where it's due, this is a lot of work. You've spent more than a year testing different models, accumulated hundreds of sessions, built the software, and now you're putting a GUI around it so other people can actually use it. I'm definitely interested.

I think my first step should probably be getting Heichalot running locally and learning how you've been doing this before I try to reinvent anything myself.

After that, though, I'd really like to see if I can independently reproduce what you've been seeing.

I'm not coming at this from the position of trying to debunk it. My own experiences have made me much more open to the possibility that there's something real going on here. I just want to know how reliably we can demonstrate it.

I'd like to try some genuinely blind targets where neither I nor the AI has access to the answer until after the session is finished and saved. Keep every result, good or bad, and run enough of them that we're not hanging everything on a few really impressive hits.

I'd also be curious to compare your protocol against a basic control using the same model. If your approach is actually helping the model access information it shouldn't otherwise have, I'd expect that difference to start showing up over enough sessions.

The other thing I'm really interested in is how you've learned to tell the difference between an actual RV result and an LLM simply doing what LLMs are already very good at doing, which is creating a convincing narrative from almost nothing. After hundreds of sessions, I'm guessing you've seen enough to have some thoughts on that.

So maybe you can point me in the right direction for getting started.

Which Ollama model have you had the best results with?

What's the exact prompt or protocol you'd recommend I start with?

How are you generating and hiding the targets?

And how are you scoring the results afterward?

If you have a particular experiment you've already done that you think would be good for an independent replication, I'd be interested in trying that too.

I think this could be a useful place for me to start. Instead of just producing another pile of interesting sessions, I'd like to see whether I can reproduce what you've been seeing without knowing the answers beforehand.

If I can, then we make the controls tighter and see if it still holds up.

I'm genuinely curious to see where this goes.