So, after several targets I formulated for practicing, one still running at the moment, this is what I learned so far:

1. You can't make the viewers go where you want.

It doesn't matter how accurate you task. They seem to plop into the scene and look around, then focusing on what they want or not want to focus on. Formulations like "The viewer will perceive" seem to be redundant.

2. Prejudice matters.

Even if the viewer is on target, the prejudice he holds affects the viewing. For example, I learned a lot from Pat McDonald not wanting to look at the Tank Man again. He was blind to the target and still tried to avoid it. He knew without knowing. Another good example was Edward Riordan not wanting to look at aliens, not wanting to go there, but then having to accept that it was the target.

3. All remote viewers seem to be on target initially.

It doesn't matter how good they are. The tasking creates a connection that simply is there. Tazz proved it with the dot. It's as simple as going through a door that is just there. But then, what is seen can be interpreted and described very differently, or the viewer runs away from it. The tasker or project manager must be really open minded to see the connections, and it helps to know the viewer personally.

4. Pictures are still best for beginners.

Simply because they are easily verifiable. For example, when I tried to view a picture with silhouettes of giraffes, of course being blind to it, I saw the silhouette as a line and couldn't make sense of it. After the picture was revealed, I learned something about how you focus when remote viewing: You don't see the whole picture like you see it with your eyes. Pattern recognition doesn't work the same, because you don't have all the information at once. This teaches you a lot about what you focus on, and why.

I have removed all of my comments on these Fora due to ongoing jealous hostility by certain posters

"You CAN retask th viewer on a specific element"

Yes, redirecting is possible mid session, but that's not what I meant. I was speaking about the first tasking. For example, when I want the viewer to look at the Eiffel tower, which is a clear target, he is free to look at the red woman in front of the tower first. Which is really interesting because, to me, it feels like they are looking at reality and not at what I want them to look at.

"All viewers seem to be on target initally. Well, if they are not, this can be a sympton of a biased nonsensical tasking"

Maybe I'm less biased than others? All I can say is that I really care for the truth. I don't expect anything – if a viewer reports something different than I can imagine, or even nothing at all, I would find it interesting, too.

I have removed all of my comments on these Fora due to ongoing jealous hostility by certain posters

"I despair of taskers who set up like 6 diffferent areas of interest with just one coordinate."

But that could be the point, like the tasker doesn't want you to see one thing exactly, but look around and see what's there. We could call those targets "scout missions" – for example, go to Gobekli Tepe at a certain time and look around. The purpose of such a scout mission would be to find the dinosaur in the picture that nobody thinks of beforehand.

I get the feeling that you still want to be right with your summary, as if you could lose a game. I don't see remote viewing like that. I think all data is important – for example, you not wanting to look at the Tank Man again led to me learning something. You did nothing wrong.

I have removed all of my comments on these Fora due to ongoing jealous hostility by certain posters

Not entirely sure about #3

ALL of them...? Back when Shiningbrow was still active here, I made a mention that the «skeptics» tend to often point out, validly, that, even the «world's best remote-viewers» seem to actually «miss» the target something like half the time... demonstrating that it is not entirely «reliable» for you to come to your conclusions from #3 about «ALL» Remote-Viewers actually landing on or at the target; his response was that 50% accuracy is actually a phenomenal-statistic given how the Viewer is literally working «Blind» to the target (and he'd probably also concur if I add that even the «best» baseball-players don't hit Home-Runs anywhere near 50% success-rate or basketball-players who score 3-pointers also don't do it all the time, and, they aren't even «Blind» to the Targets like Remote-Viewers are).

I am also of the opinion (but a very valid-opinion based on plenty of both learning as well as teaching experiences in a variety of different topics/subjects) that a Remote-Viewer's results simply aren't going to be as good or accurate as they could be unless they have learned & practiced all of the ASRV-Methods that are available from Far-Sight Instructional-Videos and/or learning all of the Protocols & Training Methods from Certified Remote-Viewers (even I charge 70$US/session for people who really want to learn martial-arts in the most-effective manner possible that will get them to even be able to easily defeat Black-Belts of other styles in less than a matter of six months because I know enough about combat to be able to guarantee their results and so if anybody thinks that their tuition is expensive it is because receiving «coaching» in a «pure-lineage» manner is going to be amongst the most-comprehensive manners in which you will be able to learn such material in any particular system).

Ultimately, developing «Psychic-Abilities» does seem to be a «core» pre-requisite to being able to get better results & more-accurate data, and, I can pretty much guarantee you or anybody else that who-ever really learns every existing protocol in a «systemized» Remote-Viewing System & practices them all is going to produce far-better sessions even within six months or less of «training/practicing» than «Joe Blow» down the street who is just given a bunch of co-ordinates to «Remote-View» who has no idea what a full-and-comprehensive complete remote-viewing session even entails; keep in mind that, even amongst some of the recent-videos released from Far-Sight, Dr. Courtney Brown himself said that the Blind-Sessions weren't as secure as the Solo-Sessions, and, not only that, the Blind-Sessions often took MONTHS to complete and were FAR more «time-consuming» than the «Solo-Sessions» that they had developed which allows them to be able to complete their Remote-Viewing Project-Sessions much more quickly than with the other method(s).

Ultimately, from my thus-far experiences with Remote-Viewing, I have this impression that the Viewer needs to FIRST learn how to put themselves into something of like a «mental-trance» state of as close to extreme-calmness as possible in order to be able to «receive the visions» so-to-speak for lack of better ways to describe this... even for as much as many of you say or claim that ALL data/impressions are «relevant» for any Remote-Viewing, I think many of you are either forgetting or perhaps haven't even bothered to listen when Dr. Courtney Brown himself says that it is better when the Remote-Viewer has a lot of «doubts» about the accuracy of their target, resulting in really good session-data, where-as when the Remote-Viewer thinks they've «got this» and have «nailed» the target, I will re-quote his own words that you actually end up getting «garbage» data...

Want me to take Taskers, Remote-Viewers, people who are trying to «promote» Remote-Viewing more seriously ? Then you all need to be more specific with instructions as to how to go about improving the Session-Data with EACH time you «Task» a «Target» for others to Remote-View rather than JUST «View This Target» (e.g.: Try standing on one leg while holding the knee of your other leg; once you're able to remain balanced for at least a full minute without needing to hop around or set your foot down to re-gain your footing nor grab onto anything to keep from falling over then «Zone» your mind for another full minute without falling over... once that minute is up, grab your pen, press it down onto your first Gestalt with your eyes closed, and, anything that is perceived should be written down). This is just an arbitrary example of what I mean... want people to LEARN how to DO Remote-Viewing (or ANYTHING ELSE for that matter) ? Then LEARN how to TEACH others how to ACTUALLY DO it in a manner where they can «measure» their «progress» towards fluency/mastery/etc.

"ALL of them...? [...] even the «world's best remote-viewers» seem to actually «miss» the target something like half the time..."

Yes, what if ALL viewers are on target initially, and the 50% miss statistic means they chose to look in the wrong direction in combination with a tasker not recognizing that they just look in the wrong direction?

Doesn't mean it's true, but after collecting some data myself, my impression is that viewers arrive at the target and then can go wherever they want. When I probed your mentor figure, I saw the target in the window you were looking at. It was the correct window. So, the connection is always there. But what matters is what people do with it. Following protocols and practicing just makes you better at staying over the target and describing it more accurately (which of course is very important).

Think of it like a rubber band that's pulling you in the wrong direction. You need to be in a calm and confident state to not get pulled away.

I have removed all of my comments on these Fora due to ongoing jealous hostility by certain posters

Actually there's a good point being raised but I want to shed a bit more light on the matter.

A lot of people get concerned about poor remote viewing. Such as if someone is right less than 50% of the time, or even less than 60%, it's garbage.

There is an old addage (no, I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote) - "The only thing worse than a weapon that never works is one that works sometimes". It makes sense because if you had an an aggressor you'd probably rather want to improvise without a gun rather than have a gun aimed at him only to realize that the damn thing doesn't fire when you pull the trigger.

I think in the military, remote viewing had a similar concern. Acting on the viewing when it's "maybe right" is a real sh*t kind of usage. This is why I think some are put off at times when Farsight is under a bit of obligation to say "these predictions are not certain" or to that effect.

But there are workarounds to that. If you, for example, have a team - some on your team are experienced and accomplished, others are stumbling noobs, and you create a strict baseline, and you weed out whomever doesn't meet your baseline criteria, you are bound to have accurate results even when you have to remove some of the talent from the pool because the baseline will ensure some level of accuracy. So if you go advertise yourself as a professional, charge money, and give them garbage that's a dumb idea.

But on the other hand, if you want to practice on the forum, I believe saying "I'm not ready yet" is a very grave mistake. At times you might decide you want to "do the full job" and see if you can meet the deadline, maybe you don't. But to criticize the tasker that they didn't do good enough for your standard as a viewer is bullocks, and also to assume that you should never view unless you have a good tasker and good training and good time and . . . is also bullocks. Readiness is not a universal mandate for all skill, it's about the nature of the application.

If I'm on a farm with a small tractor, and I want my 10 year old to learn to drive, I might put him behind the wheel for a spin on a random field (seen it all the time on farms). Or if I want someone to learn code, yes, I might do a code camp and open a text file and show them some example JavaScript and CSS and ask them to write me a script even when they've never tried a damn code in their life. Or if I want someone to learn to fight, I might tell them to go playfight with their buddy and see who gets pinned to the floor first.

On the other hand, I don't want to teach someone to drive who's never touched a wheel by putting them in a car on the interstate. I don't want to expect someone to code who's never done so, and market their website before it's even written. Or tell someone who's never been in a fight to learn martial arts by putting them in a boxing ring with no gloves or helmet.

Some skills require a little more "safety training" before hand. I wouldn't put someone in skates on an ice rink without a helmet. I wouldn't ask someone who's never cut a diamond to start working on the raw expensive material (it's actually a lie that diamonds should be as expensive as they are but that's another story)

When it comes to remote viewing, a skill that I think we have unconsciously been programmed to (a) believe we are incapable and (b) become afraid of, and (c) require basically no resources (because they are so innate and natural) - then I say, no damn helmet and no 5 hour safety speech. Try the damn thing. This is a more natural ability like crawling, or breathing, or eating food. We've forgotten to breathe, eat, crawl. The best thing to do is just stretch the muscle at random.

Now I could just call myself a noob, and say that's a really call to all the other noobs. I don't know what makes it projecting, I guess read a dictionary. But on the other hand, I could take a bit of arrogance here and yes say . . . guess what. I am a certified remote viewer. You can have proof if you want it. And yes, as a Farsight remote viewer I'm saying just try it. Try tasking, try viewing, try funny things, try basic things.

Yes, the training helps. But don't bother waiting for the training. If you don't like people doing it that way, I guess go sulk in a corner until you find some people doing it "your way"

What I recommend is doing the two types of approach simultaneously. Do some random tasking and viewing, and then learn a bit of the formal methods, try a bit of the formal methods (including the tasking) and then play again and try a basic informal style.

I find I get better results by alternating than just insisting on "the right way"

And the reason this topic is dear to me is because . . .

It surprises me that this forum, the core of the Farsight community, isn't teeming with attempts at remote viewing. For the longest time it was like herding cats just to get one or two to try a target. Now you get . . . a . . . target. And . . . another . . . target.

It is . . . slow!!! Way too slow!

You should have 2 threads popping up almost every day, with new tasks, new viewings. Actively trying. Some asking for a big formal pdf like SRV. Some asking for "I don't care, look at the dot."

What doesn't help is the "you should do it this way, and if you don't you're not good enough" diatribe.

Just start. Wayne Gretzky: "You miss a hundred percent of the shots you don't take."

PS, this is not in response to any one particular message here, but several messages I've seen over time on discord chats, other forums, in real life, etc.

Some are saying "I can't do it I'm not ready yet" but others are taking an even more aggressive stance like: "you can't do it yet, you're not ready" - and that's the one I want to challenge a fair bit.

@Tazz

Yes, we need a "just do it" mentality, and I for my part just do it. You want a target? Here's a target. You want me to look at 3 dots? Let me wrestle with my intellect for a minute to withstand the impulse that it's just 3 dots, and then I'll have a look...

Do I need to be right? Well, everybody likes to be right. But you can't control it if you are blind to the target. The tasker can trick you, maybe there's no target at all and you come up with something, and the next thing you see is how the whole class laughs at you because you are wearing no pants.

But here's a point: What if it's impossible to see the wrong thing? What if you coming up with some nonsense actually is important, and you can't know beforehand? I'm too curious. Let them laugh while I learn the mysteries of the universe...

The information that we have about RV on this planet is comparable to how inmates trade recipes for how to turm ketchup into beer.