Quote from the latest Spotlight titled "The History of the Galaxy - Volume 1":

[38:02] "For those people who say: 'Oh, Courtney, this is all esoteric stuff. You don't have anything that's real.' What? You're stupid. They're stupid for saying stuff like that. So, when you hear people say stuff like that, what do you mean there's nothing verifiable? It's pyramids. These are huge pyramids in the middle of the desert with people in loincloths and camels running around and these whole pyramids. And both remote viewers, under totally blind conditions, not communicating with each other, are describing them exactly. They're not describing anything else. They're describing the Great Pyramids in the Giza plateau, and they're doing it exactly."

This doesn't prove that they saw the reality of the Great Pyramids at the given time.

It only proves that they saw what the tasker wanted them to see.

So, how do you prove that the data is not only a product of Courtney's mind?

How do you prove that the data hasn't been tampered with by the ETs when the remote viewers connect to them?

Don't you see the possibility that someone can use telepathy to manipulate remote viewers as soon as they believe that remote viewing will always yield correct data?

Don't you see the possibility that they could provide truth mixed with lies to make the lies more believable?

[39:12] "And then, since our remote viewers got all that right, they went on to describe the stuff that was new information, such as how did the blocks get there..."

The new information doesn't have to be right just because a remote viewer was right on other things, even if it makes sense.

Courtney, it's obvious that you want the data to be correct, and you want it so much that you are willing to violate the principles of the scientific method. Corroboration becomes proof. Correlation becomes causation. This should be questioned.

@David Lyon:

"Remote-View it yourself or with a team?"

Remote viewing alone doesn't prove the state of physical reality. That's the entire point.

"Look at the technology that is actually at the Pyramids?"

So, get in touch with physical reality to create the possibility of replicating the technology, which would be proof. I agree.

"Decode the name Pyra-Mid, means 'Fire within'. Does that describe the Engineering of them?"

We can only speculate.

"Why is your criteria believably?"

Because lies only work if you believe in them. Belief is a way of controlling people.

"Debate your 'issues' from an Engineering / Spiritual perspective."

I already debate it from a scientific perspective.

"I'm ready to discuss the details."

Okay. Start with providing physical proof that the stone blocks have been cut with the technology the remote viewers saw. I acknowledge that it is possible. Now show me that it is true.

Manuel wrote:

> Okay. Start with providing physical proof that the stone blocks have been cut with the technology the
> remote viewers saw. I acknowledge that it is possible. Now show me that it is true.

Challenge accepted.

Sign up for this tour:

Here is the link. It goes in March 2027. You need to pay for yourself.

https://horusrising.com/high-tech-and-metaphysics-tour/

@David Lyon:

"Sign up for this tour"

The organizers of this tour will provide physical evidence of the technology by cutting stones in front of people?

Manuel wrote:

> So, the organizers of this tour will provide physical evidence of the technology by cutting stones in front of people?

No, that is an experiment that you can do in your workshop [if you have one]. Consider it homework on your part.

Here is a preview of what it might look like:

Also:

Obviously, his laser isn't powerful enough. But that is obvious and it's obvious that a higher power laser would fare better. Just more $$/€€.

@David Lyon:

The viewers saw a technology that was able to cut giant stone blocks out of the ground at once. They also saw a technology that allowed to levitate the giant stone blocks by use of a handheld device.

I acknowledge that it is possible. Now show me that it is true.

And if you still don't get it: Show me that it is true thousands of years ago.

Don't you recognize that we are debating over things that don't change anything about our situation in the present? Yeah, it's possible that people cut stone with advanced technology. It's possible that ETs enslaved humans 10,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago, and build the pyramids for whatever reason.

It's all possible.

But what do we do with that knowledge NOW?

Manuel wrote:

> Don't you recognize that we are debating over things that don't change anything about our situation in the present?

Debating this did change things for you because you now have enough evidence to get yourself half-way to being able to validate in your own mind the remote-viewing story of how the Pyramids were made.

This debate changed me, because now I want to go on the Pyramid tour that I linked to above, because wow, what a thing to go on. It's a bucket list Tour to actually go there.

> But what do we do with that knowledge NOW?

Well, I plan to visit the Great Pyramid of Giza next year.

Coming ?

@David Lyon:

"I plan to visit the Great Pyramid of Giza next year. Coming ?"

No.

"Debating this did change things for you because you now have enough evidence to get yourself half-way to being able to validate in your own mind the remote-viewing story of how the Pyramids were made."

You are right, I have enough data to convince myself to believe a story. But I don't have proof that things happened the way how the remote viewers described it.

You obviously don't get why this distinction is important, so I'll try to explain it once more:

If people accept remote viewing data as scientific fact without actual scientific proof that it happened that way, it means that those people are also easy to manipulate with telepathy.

Remote viewing is not a substitute for scientific proof. It's a method for revealing possibilities that can't be revealed otherwise.

Example 1: A person is missing. Remote viewers see that person in a city with distinct features. This leads to the possibility that someone can identify the city, thus increasing the chance to find the missing person.

Example 2: Remote viewing of future timelines reveals the possibilities that result from the present. This leads to a better understanding of the developments that occur in the present, thus increasing the chance to influence the developments in the present.

Example 3: Remote viewing of the past reveals possible explanations for why the present is what it is. But not more. You can't be sure that it went exactly in a specific way. And you don't need to. All you need is the knowledge of the possibilities, so you don't limit the scope of your mind.

Yeah. Farsight does have a funny way of cherry picking and anecdotal evidence while projecting those very fallacies on the mainstream.

I guess what can't be denied is how idiotically the academia has failed to address the UFOs, the stone temples etched into mountains, the many geological phenomena.

Farsight "science" is pretty sad. But it's almost the appropriate insult to the sanctioned info service. These "kooks" get it right a hell of a lot better than these lowlife officials ...

God. Give me more terrorists I don't care anymore.

PS statisticians like Jessica Utts are the real heroes behind proving remote viewing but of course her findings get trampled in the dirt. Well. We just need to destroy the empire

Manuel wrote:

> And the scientist can ground the intuitive visions in what actually is true and works. Can we build this?
>Is there science and math that backs this?

I think you have been tuned out to Engineering studies of the Great Pyramid made for the last 500 years.

All the Engineering and Business studies concluded the same thing - it cannot build it again, in this day and age.

From stone cutting, to the precise GPS placement of the Great Pyramid itself, it's not possible to build it again now.

You try to divert the problems to "Science" and the Scientific Community. It hasn't got anything to do with them.

So you know nothing about Construction projects.

First a Business Case is needed - how much will it cost and how are we going to get our money back?

Answer that question first.

Then Engineering provides a Cost-Analysis, it will cost you $XM to build.

Then you get Finance to pay for it.

At the moment, it was a 'free' ancient building, and yet Egypt in this day and age struggles to pay to keep it open consistently as a Tourist site.

What you fail to mention is that much of the complex has been *closed off* to Scientific Research for years.

So demanding that Scientists somehow get past that problem to work on it more, is just a fob. It hasn't really
happened. When it has happened, the answers and Reports quickly get "lost".

It's a total scam, and you are contributing to it with your demands on what others should use Public Institutional Funds for.

Yet, you won't even consider going yourself. It's a bit weak.

At least keep yourself up to date with what limited recent Scientific adventures have gone on there.

They all confirm the wonder of the Engineering and that much of it can't even be replicated. no matter what the budget actually is.

@David Lyon:

"Manuel wrote"

I didn't write what you quoted.

"Yet, you won't even consider going yourself. It's a bit weak."

You're talking to a straw man.

Manuel wrote:

> But I don't have proof that things happened the way how the remote viewers described it.

They describe cutting the blocks out of stone with Lasers. Watch exactly what they were describing here:

@David Lyon:

"They describe cutting the blocks out of stone with Lasers. Watch exactly what they were describing here:"

A video proving that a technology works doesn't prove that this technology was used in the past.