First of all, thanks to Rawhide68 for providing the always helpful skeptical viewpoint. This will be very useful moving forward, that is, if you are still following the thread and will still participate.
Quote:
Posted by
LadyM
The Simulation Theory results are interesting, how they saw the facility with countless humans that appeared to be in comas. I hope they do a followup on that. Are they associated with Elon Musk? Are they funded by him?
LadyM, apologies for answering this a half year later, but it was necessary as the intervening time was used productively in a personal followup campaign. The methods and also style of presenting will be fairly different from Troika, but as a remote viewer of nearly 20 years hopefully the claim of experience alone will suffice. There are many approaches to this kind of work, and presentation style is something that necessarily differs based on approach and sometimes the RVers simply trying different things to see what works.
I am resolved in my interactive presentation style. What I do not like is one-way presentation. Information should stand up to constant interactive scrutiny.
To answer this, I believe you are mistaken about which "layer" this applies to. The facility exists outside of this simulation, it is where the simulation is being ran from. Troika indicates the simulation is ran secretively without the knowledge of a significant wider demographic.
Naturally, a followup campaign could be ran based on answering the "why" question. I am not sure if I read correctly, but I thought I saw somewhere in this thread that Troika said they would not be following up on this topic (although perhaps if it was another topic).
I cannot imagine why this would be the case. Answering the "why" question is so tempting.
If anything, I would attribute Rawhide68's skepticism to the severe lack of supporting information to the basic claim. This was what bothered me as well. The fortunate part was that it would be possible to followup with an individual RV campaign.
As it turns out, the answer to "why" is very logical. Both why the simulation(s) were initiated, and why they are being ran in secret. But it will take time to get through.
One unique opportunity given my technique is that of realtime interactivity. Upon establishing a link to the information source, if that link can be kept up, then it should be possible for questions to be answered in realtime.
In other words, only preliminary information was gathered during the 6 month campaign. After this information is disseminated, it would be possible then to answer questions immediately after they are being asked, assuming conditions are favorable.
Anyhow, that is a matter for some convenient day/time (or more) in 2018. In the meantime, the question remains whether it is better to begin releasing the gathered information here, or in a new thread.