Imagine a room full of people. They all speak at the same time. Information becomes noise.

Does it matter whether the noise is external or inside your head?

Who do you listen to? How do you decide who to listen to?

Now look at this forum. Written words, like thoughts frozen in time. You can literally go back to what I said yesterday, or 2 years ago. Information is ordered in a particular way to make access easy, and independent of your location in space and time.

But the technology is just a substitute.

So here's an exercise: Choose a thread on this forum from last year. One that you didn't write. Don't open it. Don't read it. Instead, try to access its essence. The thoughts behind the written words that are stored inside spacetime itself. Then write them down, as if you were remote viewing. Then compare what you perceived with what has been written.

Manuel wrote:

> Imagine a room full of people. They all speak at the same time. Information becomes noise.

That's your friends, or lack of. But I am not picking on that.

Let me tell you have an actual group of Telepathic friends operate.

They all sit in the room having conversations. Everything in the room feels like "flow" not noise.

Someone tells you a story that you were only just talking about with other friends the day before.

Another person tells you a story about something else that you forgot.

Then, you get a text message from someone not in the room, and it feels like they are listening in to whatever you are actually half in the middle of a conversation about exactly that.

At the very least, try find a psychic meetup group in the city where you are, and hang out with them.

This will be a shorter trip than going to visit the Great Pyramid of Giza :-)

Imagine a telepathic conversation, and someone like David Lyon interrupts it just like he did here. He is adding his own thoughts that totally miss the point. Maybe he even wants to disturb the "harmony" of the conversation.

How would you handle that situation?

How do you separate the noise from the useful information?

But if you can follow backward in time easily, then spoken words or even telepathic messages in the moment could potentially sit like words on a page

Manuel wrote:

> How would you handle that situation?

Actually you have done the same thing many times to others.

> How do you separate the noise from the useful information?

Don't let others put you off so easily.

Prove that you can do it.

What can you show us ?

@David Lyon:

"Actually you have done the same thing many times to others."

What if it can't be prevented?

"Don't let others put you off so easily."

So the question is: How can we convince others of whatever we believe to be true?

And when is the right moment to stop the interruption?

"Prove that you can do it."

Do what?

Manuel wrote:

> Do what?

Show us how you would do your exercise:

> So here's an exercise: Choose a thread on this forum from last year. One that you didn't write. Don't open
> it. Don't read it. ?Instead, try to access its essence. The thoughts behind the written words that are
> stored inside spacetime itself. Then write them down, as if you were remote viewing.

Go ahead. Show how it is done.

@David Lyon:

How do you know that I'm not cheating?

Manuel wrote:

> How do you know that I'm not cheating?

Try this one: https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/78737-rv-the-may-2023-los-angeles-ufo-crash

I have already remote-viewed it.

@David Lyon:

See, this is why I said that you missed the point.

Whatever I write here, I could have just read the thread beforehand. You won't know.

Do you even understand the exercise?

Manuel wrote:

> Do you even understand the exercise?

I'm trying to learn.

In my post that you rudely hijacked, there was additional remote-viewing that I didn't publish.

So if your theory is correct, you should be able to reveal that information, right?

@David Lyon:

"In my post that you rudely hijacked"

What post do you mean? If you mean the one you linked above: I didn't "hijack" that post, I just noted that viewing under non-blind conditions makes the data useless.

"So if your theory is correct, you should be able to reveal that information, right?"

No, because I already know what the target is. It's fascinating that you don't understand why front-loading should be avoided.

Manuel,

You really are at your grumpy best today.

Did you hit your head walking into a light pole?

@David Lyon:

"Did you hit your head walking into a light pole?"

No.

Do you have actual arguments?

@David Lyon:

"I want to see you complete your experiment."

This is not an experiment that can be proven to others. It's an experiment that proves something to you if you do it yourself.