((38:20) Brown: I have to state that this really does look like there was some external mental manipulation of the remote feeling results that was distorting their perceptions of the actual death event itself. That is, it seems like something was interfering with or blocking our viewers from seeing exactly what was happening to Jeffrey Epstein. Let me explain how this works. It is possible for remote viewers to be mentally led astray with their perceptions by trained external actors. And we do have procedures that can prevent this at Farsight. But we did not use those procedures with these early Epstein results. In the absence of such procedures, extraterrestrials can corrupt remote viewing data easily, and the group of extraterrestrials who we call the Bad ETs unsuccessfully attempt this all the time with our viewers at Farsight. I say unsuccessfully, because we normally use anti blocking procedures whenever we do a project involving a target that might attract the attention of the Bad ETs. Aso there are highly trained humans who work for the US government who are capable at doing this, although they are probably not nearly as good at it as the Bad ETs themselves.

(39:16) Brown: Aso there are highly trained humans who work for the US government who are capable at doing this, although they are probably not nearly as good at it as the Bad ETs themselves who can use technological enhancements when this type of interference happens. The viewers who are working a project typically do perceive stuff, but some of the data come across as simply weird, with telltale signs, including things such as Invisible friends or Black Magic stuff. Again, at the time that we did this early project on the death of Jeffrey Epstein, we were not using our anti blocking methods for those sessions. We do indeed have methods that can blast through any attempts by extraterrestrials or government operatives to corrupt our data. There is no known way to block us when we use those methods. Those methods employ the assistance of a group of extraterrestrials who we call the Good ETs. And the methods essentially involve having an E.T. from that group use whatever methods that they have, including technological methods, to blast through the blocking attempts. And our remote viewers ride that consciousness like a carrier wave through to the target encountering absolutely no interference of any kind. So when we collected the original data for the death of Jeffrey Epstein, there were signs that our viewers were being messed with. And in retrospect, I should have used the anti-blocking procedures.

(41:22) Brown : So in such a sensitive situation, they would want investigating remote viewers to be blocked, and they would definitely try to do that. When considering a situation such as this, it is important to examine all other elements that could lead to the consideration of official tampering with remote viewing data. That is, if Epstein's death was of sufficient importance to involve the support of very senior governmental personnel and intelligence operatives such that they would authorize interference with remote viewing investigations, then there should be physical indicators that suggest that such things happened as well.

That last quote introduces the confusing suggestion that RV data is not by its self sufficient data to learn the truth of an event. If the bad guys are sufficiently motivated, one must also considers evidence from the physical world.

This is a very important point, thanks for bringing it up!

My two cents:

If the good ETs are capable of establishing a "clean" VPN, so to speak, they obviously know how to do it. If Farsight needs to call them before remote viewing, Farsight obviously doesn't know how to do it on their own. So, we have a situation of dependency, and that should always ring alarm bells.

The question is: Why is the "how to make a secure VPN" not open source? Why do the good ETs refuse to share that knowledge so Farsight could use it independently?

A plausible answer could be: Because it's a technology that doesn't belong into the hands of the bad ETs.

So, we would need to trust the supposedly good ETs. Farsight may have built that trust over the years, but we people out here don't, because we don't know who Harvey and their people are. We can't even see them. So we're back to he said she said.

And we can't even remote view Harvey and his group, as they should be able to tamper with the data just like the bad guys are. So, the confusion can't be solved by remote viewing.

This needs to be adressed in the next conversation with Harvey.

Let me just say that I hope these comments will be taken in the context of academic peer review of experimental methods, rather than personal attack of any kind. Personally, I want to protect myself from confirmation bias in assuming proper methods from an institution i which I feel a certain measure of investment. I think Dr Brown invites this sort of inquiry with his frequent description of data-driven approach, defensible methods, and warnings against he-said, she-said approaches.

Psychological science has experienced a replicability crisis. In theory, experimental researchers are supposed to describe their experimental methods in sufficient details such that other researchers could reproduce the same experiment and provide corroborating or contradicting evidence. In practice, few attempts at replication are successful. Is this a result of concept invalidity, poor descriptions of methods, imprecise measurement apparatus, or other threats to validity, I don't know. With regards to Farsight methods, we can say that previous descriptions of methods did not describe an apparently essential part of the experimental apparatus.

Sometimes there are good reasons to physically separate an experimenter from a subject, such that the behavior of the experimental subject occurs in a separate room and is observed and recorded through a camera. One would assume that the camera reliably conveys the physical activity of the subject. One would also assume that if there were multiple experiment rooms, each with a different camera, that each camera would be equally accurate in recording the physical activity in that camera's assigned room.

Can we assume that each "E.T. from that group use whatever methods that they have, including technological methods, to blast through the blocking attempts" is equally successful?
The fact that Dr Brown either doesn't know or is not at liberty to disclose the precise methods makes the ET VPN a sort of black-box filter through which all Farsight perceptual data is collected.

For as far as I know, psychological-science has replicated the Milgram Shock-Experiments, successfully, finding that 2/3rd's of any random population-sample from any culture are willing to follow orders, even against what would clearly normally go against any normal conscience, even to the point of pushing buttons that result in lethal-voltages to another subject/participant.

Nor should that be the only psychological-experiment with successful-replication.

For the Remote-Viewing and/or Far-Sight end of things, well, one of the requirements to learning their version of Remote-Viewing (ASRV) does happen to be that, not only is one at least 18 years of age, but, they also need to be mentally and thus emotionally stable; Myers-Briggs is also used in recruitment-selection by certain organisations for certain roles to be filled.

Like Ingo Swan before him, Dr Brown take an empirical approach to the science of remote viewing. Ingo pointed out, though I am not able to find the quote on the internet presently, that the material assumptions of most scientific research limit their applicability to psychic experiences. Nevertheless, the question at hand is whether RV procedures collect replicable data. Can two sets of remote viewers, using double blind procedures, with the same well formed tasking expect to collect similar data. Or are there additional, not well known or describe procedures that are actually necessary to collect accurate data?

What if the assumption that it works like a VPN is false?

What if their "help" consists of distracting the ones that would try to block or manipulate, such that the viewer has a clear view?

Maybe it's just a question of numbers?

If that's the case, we could learn how to do that by ourselves. It's just that we aren't strong enough yet.

It is actually a scientifically much worse situation if the analogy of the blocking methods as an ET VPN is false. A VPN is on or off.

If there is variability in the number or effectiveness of the ETs or technology doing the blocking than that becomes an uncontrolled third variable, otherwise known as a confounding variable, which explains the reliability of the remote viewing data.

In the July 28 2024 “Farsight Intelligence Briefing: Global War”, Courtney described how in 1870 Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck manipulated diplomatic communication to further his agenda of the territorial expansion of the Prussian state. He goaded the French into declaring war by altering a dispatch between the King of Prussia and the Emperor of France. In modern computer security terms, that would be described as a man-in-the-middle attack (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack). “the attacker secretly relays and possibly alters the communications between two parties who believe that they are directly communicating with each other”.