I would like to suggest a few focused projects that target mechanics rather than narratives. The goal is clarity on structure, timing, and control points.
The moment of death
What happens in the first seconds after separation from the body. Is there an automatic pull. Is there a neutral phase. Is orientation stable or chaotic. Is there a short window before routing. This determines whether the process is forced or steerable.
The white tunnel as infrastructure
Is the tunnel a field, a constructed pathway, or a routing mechanism. Is it local to Earth or externally generated. Does it appear universally or only under certain conditions. Understanding this clarifies whether avoidance is possible.
Memory wipe timing and method
At what stage does the wipe occur. Entry, transit, or near reinsertion. Is it a single event or progressive. Is it imposed by technology or field interaction. This is central to continuity and identity.
Attachment to the fetus
When does binding occur. Before birth, during pregnancy, or very late. What is the anchor point. How is phase lock achieved with the nervous system. This explains how containment is maintained.
Possible lunar involvement
Is the Moon used as relay, monitoring node, or processing hub. Or is it irrelevant. This is frequently suggested and should be tested directly.
Planetary grid or containment field
Is there a structured field around Earth. Are there nodes. Does it constrain movement. This could explain consistent routing.
Operational hierarchy
Is the system automated. Are there operators. If yes, at what level. Who controls routing versus wipe versus insertion.
Anomaly cases
Investigate failures. Missed routing, extended out of body states, individuals not entering the light. Exceptions reveal system limits.
These targeted projects would help move from speculation to structure. Even partial results on any of these points would be highly valuable.

Okay, I will provide answers, but don't take them as truth statements. Those should be seen as possibilities, and I am open to independent data that either confirms or refutes them.

"What happens in the first seconds after separation from the body."

Confusion.

"Is there an automatic pull."

No.

"Is there a neutral phase."

No.

"Is orientation stable or chaotic."

Orientation is always stable by definition. The chaotic component comes into play when orientation doesn't work.

"Is there a short window before routing."

This depends on the consciousness of the person that died. Routing can be avoided if the requirements are met.

"This determines whether the process is forced or steerable."

If the process wasn't steerable, the death traps would be perfect and couldn't be overcome ever.

"Is the tunnel a field, a constructed pathway, or a routing mechanism."

The tunnel is a reflection of the mind of the person that died. If the person is narrow-minded, it will see a tunnel.

"Is it local to Earth or externally generated."

It can be both.

"Does it appear universally or only under certain conditions."

This question doesn't make sense. Certain conditions can be universal. The problem arises because no consistent definition of the term universal is being used.

"At what stage does the wipe occur. Entry, transit, or near reinsertion."

The given possibilities are too restrictive. The wipe must occur outside the biological body, otherwise access to ISBE memory would manifest inside the growing brain, and getting rid of that would destroy the structure of the brain. The wipe must also occur near reinsertion to prevent natural recovery of the ISBE. But this doesn't mean that the wipe occurs near biological reincarnation, as ISBEs can be "parked" in consciousness loop traps.

"Is it a single event or progressive."

The wipe is a single event, but the process can include several wipes, if the consciousness is strong. Think of it like a knock on the head. There are people who go unconscious after the first hit, and there are people who must be hit more often.

"Is it imposed by technology or field interaction."

Can't answer the question because of inconsistent definition of the term field in the given context.

"When does binding occur. Before birth, during pregnancy, or very late."

Binding can't occur before the body is capable of creating a consciousness loop.

"What is the anchor point."

The consciousness loop of the mother. In case of mammals, the phetus is attached through the umbilical cord, which allows the phetus to be "in tune" with the heartbeat of the mother. In case of eggs, it's the mothers care for the eggs.

"How is phase lock achieved with the nervous system."

This is essentially the question how the consciousness loop works. The key is external feedback creating a feedback loop. A "blank slate consciousness" (after the wipe) is like a numbed person. It will accept the first thing that makes sense. If you want to bind to a distinct phase, you need to make that phase the first thing that's interacting. Consciousness then is rebuilt from there.

"Is the Moon used as relay, monitoring node, or processing hub."

Every system needs a backup to work reliably, especially with large populations.

"Is there a structured field around Earth. Are there nodes."

Can't answer the question because of inconsistent definition of the term field in the given context.

"Does it constrain movement."

A prison planet without constrained movement wouldn't be a prison planet. It's not just a psychological prison. The prison authorities prefer the prisoners to not see the wall, because this makes things easier. But there is a wall, because the prison authorities aren't stupid.

"Is the system automated."

To a certain degree.

"Are there operators."

Yes.

"If yes, at what level."

At every level, because if automation fails, you need a plan B (and C).

"Who controls routing versus wipe versus insertion."

The use of the term versus doesn't make sense in this context. Control of the process is absolute.

"Exceptions reveal system limits."

I already suggested to look at mass death events, like earthquakes, as they would put the system under a certain amount of stress.

➡️ https://www.farsightprime.com/forums/general/68541-dt-logistics-and-a-disturbing-possibility

I think I should explain how I obtained the answers.

I have a technique that basically goes like this: I ask a question inside my head, and write down the first thing that comes to my mind. Sometimes I get a feeling that the signal was disturbed (usually by my own ideas), so I ask again until the answer feels right.

It's like remote viewing, but with language instead, based on the assumption that everything can be described in words. When I write down the answers, I always feel that the words are not enough, so I go with "that's 90% accurate" or "that's only 50%, but I can't do better".

The underlying intention is to connect with truth, no matter whether I like it or not.

For example, with the question "Is there an automatic pull", I personally would answer yes, based on my opinions. But when I asked, I got a clear no.

Then there's answers like "The use of the term versus doesn't make sense in this context. Control of the process is absolute." – which even I don't comprehend fully. If I switch to visual mode, I see a big glowing octopus that controls everything with its tentacles. My guess is that this thing is an AI that connects a hierarchical structure horizontally.

When I confront that octopus with the question about exceptions, it looks like a shiver or wave going through it, as if it tries to adjust to an anomaly (and succeeds in doing so). It's slipping through my hands. This thing is exceptionally versatile.

Is this just my imagination? Could be...

You might be interested in a method used in scientology. Not to say that all scientology is correct. I didn't investigate this technique enough to justify if it really works but it goes something like this. I think it's part of dianetics.

An electrical signal is induced to show one's clarity if thought. A certain level of thought will actually produce a measurable output in the signal.

20 years ago I would have told you that's a bunch of lunatics but now, from what I learned about the world, well I'm prepared to re-evaluate just about anything.

Yes, thoughts can be measured, because in nature, everything is measurable.

The brain must be able to measure thoughts in order to translate them.

Measure is just another word for difference.

Thank you for the detailed response and for explaining your method. I appreciate the openness. However, I think it is important to be very careful here, because the approach you describe is not remote viewing in the strict sense. It is essentially internal ideation guided by intuition. That can generate interesting hypotheses, but it cannot be treated as data. Without blind targets, multiple viewers, and separation between question and interpretation, confirmation bias becomes almost unavoidable.
Several of your answers also seem internally inconsistent or conceptually weak.
For example, you state there is no automatic pull, but at the same time you describe a prison system with constrained movement and absolute control. Those two positions do not fit well together. A prison system without an automatic routing mechanism would be extremely unreliable at scale.
Similarly, describing the tunnel purely as a “reflection of the mind” does not match cross cultural consistency. People with completely different beliefs still report similar structural features: brightness, directionality, attraction, and guidance. That suggests an external mechanism interacting with perception, not a purely internal construct.
The statement “control of the process is absolute” is also problematic. If control were absolute, anomaly cases would not exist. The very existence of missed routing, extended out of body states, or avoidance reports implies operational limits. Absolute control contradicts observed variability.
Your description of a “big glowing octopus AI” is interesting symbolically, but it highlights another issue: the imagery appears after interpretation. This is exactly where imagination can dominate signal. Without blind protocols, it is impossible to separate metaphor from perception.
For clarity, here is how I would currently answer the same questions, framed as working hypotheses:
Moment after separation
Likely brief orientation phase with partial stability. Not fully chaotic, not fully controlled. Probably seconds to tens of seconds. This window is operationally important.
Automatic pull
Probably yes. A weak but persistent directional bias or field attraction. Not irresistible, but default routing mechanism.
Neutral phase
Short neutral window possible before stronger routing engages. This would explain anomaly cases.
Orientation
Generally stable perception but limited mobility. Constrained freedom rather than chaos.
Tunnel
Likely infrastructure interacting with perception. External routing mechanism rendered subjectively. Not purely mental.
Memory wipe
Probably near routing completion or pre reinsertion. Possibly layered rather than single event.
Binding to fetus
Late stage binding seems more plausible than early. Likely when nervous system reaches minimal complexity.
Anchor point
Interface with developing nervous system. Possibly via specific biological structures.
Moon involvement
Open but testable. Could function as relay or monitoring node. Needs direct viewing targets.
Planetary grid
Likely structured containment field. Would explain directional routing consistency.
Automation vs operators
Hybrid system. Mostly automated with intervention capability.
Exceptions
Most valuable data source. Mass death events, extended OBEs, and failed routing should be prioritized.
So in short, your answers are useful as hypotheses, but they are presented too strongly given the method used. The next step should not be more conceptual answers, but blind multi viewer projects that directly test specific mechanics.

@Gewo:

"Without blind targets, multiple viewers, and separation between question and interpretation, confirmation bias becomes almost unavoidable."

I call it "semi-blind". While I know the question – and therefore have ideas about what the answer could be – the intention is to be open to answers that could deviate from your own ideas. Essentially, it's a practice for open-mindedness, and the ability to admit being wrong.

And the same is happening when viewing targets completely blind, because you will always get data that you can interpret while remote viewing. For example, if the target is the Eiffel Tower, and you see a large tower with a distinct pattern that reminds you of the Eiffel Tower, you will have the idea that the target could be the Eiffel Tower. This "Analytic Overlay" then must be consciously put aside in order to not adulterate the viewing process.

When asking questions, the AOL already is part of the question, because every question is built on assumptions. But I found that this is not different from the tasker baking assumptions into the target. Blind remote viewing is just an easy way to separate the viewer from those assumptions. It's essentially forcing the viewer to stay open-minded. But if you are aware of why staying open-minded is important, you can handle the assumptions consciously. They key is to not cling to what you want to be true.

"For example, you state there is no automatic pull, but at the same time you describe a prison system with constrained movement and absolute control."

This is a valid point. I don't claim that the answers must make sense. It's what I'm getting while I'm practicing to stay open-minded. So, when inconsistencies occur, it doesn't have to mean it's the wrong answer. It could also mean that you lack knowledge to ask the right questions.

I asked why there is no automatic pull, and the first answer that came to my mind was this:

Answer: Automatic pull induces the possibility of resistence, and that possibility has to be avoided as long as possible. There is a pull when necessary, but it doesn't happen right after physical death.

I also got a feeling that the term "automatic" cannot be used here, so I asked why, and got this:

Answer: Automatic means without awareness. The subjects are taken care of.

My intepretation: It's a conscious process, like an operator – probably an AI – consciously deciding how to react when resistance occurs.

"A prison system without an automatic routing mechanism would be extremely unreliable at scale."

I agree, but the routing seems to occur at later stages. There's definitely a time window in which the person who died can decide what to do. And this matches what Harvey told Courtney: If you are aware and know what you're looking at, the "good ETs" can get you out.

"Similarly, describing the tunnel purely as a “reflection of the mind” does not match cross cultural consistency. People with completely different beliefs still report similar structural features: brightness, directionality, attraction, and guidance. That suggests an external mechanism interacting with perception, not a purely internal construct."

I never claimed that it was a purely internal construct. There's a "system" that adapts to what the subject believes, and this system seems to be highly sophisticated. I feel a sense of "proud" about how sophisticated it is. Whoever invented it put a lot of effort into it, so the subjects can't figure out what's happening.

The term "echo chamber" comes into my mind. The subjects get what they believe they deserve – either positive or negative. If the believe they need guidance, they will get guidance.

"The statement “control of the process is absolute” is also problematic. If control were absolute, anomaly cases would not exist."

You're absolutely right. My theory is that when I ask the questions combined with the intention to get the truth, I go to the source that can provide the answers. Maybe it's because I'm curious about who made that thing. And the person that invented the death trap mechanism is very proud of it. This person believes that control is absolute, because anomalies are taken care of.

"Your description of a “big glowing octopus AI” is interesting symbolically, but it highlights another issue: the imagery appears after interpretation. This is exactly where imagination can dominate signal."

I agree.

"Without blind protocols, it is impossible to separate metaphor from perception."

It's definitely metaphor, because it's definitely not a big glowing octopus. When I "switched to visual mode", I essentially asked what it would look like if it was something that can be seen. This highlights the importance of being aware of how you ask.

"The next step should not be more conceptual answers, but blind multi viewer projects that directly test specific mechanics."

Yes.

I think this approach of asking questions is to gather possibilities rather than accurate data, so you can set targets you wouldn't set if you didn't ask. Like dipping a toe in the water to see who will bite it. 😉

Farsight killing it with all the new projects they are putting out on a daily basis. So proud of the GFW, they are here doing amazing things. Shit amazing here. New mystery projects daily, GFW is blowing shit up in the sky over my house, WW3 has started, and farisght is getting ready to testify before congress and now they have milions of viewers.

@Morphius:

Sarcasm will bring you exactly nowhere. Didn't you realize yet that the ETs have more time than humans?