Hi everyone.
I have recently found out about Telepathic Overlay (TO) and I am totally blown away by it…
I intend to further research and test the concept until I find out exactly what is going on, so any help in discussing and testing TO is welcome!
Now, I used to think than when multiple Remote Viewers blind to the target describe the same thing, what they get is real data, ie the truth about the target - as Courtney always (fraudulently) said. Nevertheless thanks to a post by Manuel (thank you Manuel) I learned about ‘’Telepathic Overlay’’, ie that a blind viewer can simply read the taker’s mind instead of going to the actual target and report what the Tasker believes about the target (and possibly also access thought-forms created in the aether or morphic field, because many people believe or think about them, even though they are not actually real). Many fictional targets have been created and tested, confirming that a blind viewer can actually report fictional, Salta Clause like targets as real - and Courtney knows about it (he even was a viewer in one of them, Tanner Dam, see here):
https://www.remoteviewed.com/what-part-if-any-does-telepathy-play-within-remote-viewing/
There is also a clip where Courtney admits that a blind viewer can read the targeter’s mind in real time - so his ‘’Instrumental Blinding protocol’’ where he himself actively sees and listens to viewers during their paper sessions is not a good idea at all (video below at at 2:50:40 - 2:52:20)

So, since TO is really happening and ruining the credibility of Remote Viewing data, I now have 2 questions:
1. Can TO also explain cases where a viewer deeply connects with an entity during a session, can feel his/her energy and talks face to face with him/her? Can this also be not true and simply just an imagination, a thought-form created in the morphic field because some people (Courtney for example) believe its real? See below a few minute from Yeme Jeaneé feeling and touching a Lady Dragon - is such a deep level of communication happening with a thought form?
https://rumble.com/v5zcllq-h-yeme-jeane-.html
2. Is it even possible that Remote Viewers can perceive actual distant events in space-time or is it alway a telepathic connection between viewers and tasker? And if they can, how can we tell what is happening in each case - and also, how can we safeguard a RVing session to only access real world data?
Now, my current understanding is that both scenarios can happen (real world data + Telepathic mind reading). Evidence for the first scenario (for me) is as follows: In my view RVing is similar to many other experiences of non-local perception (including MindSight, Clairvoyance etc) and I know of many cases where a Clairvoyant tested something that nobody else knew and later it was confirmed to be so (eg found underground water, tasted it mentally, said its drinkable and when the well was dug at the point specified by the Clairvoyant, water was found and it was drinkable).
I also remember a few of early Farshight projects where Courtney said he was stunned by the results as they were not what he expected - I might be able to find the videos if I have the time (but this also has the issue of Courtney’s credibility). Evidence for the TO was given above. For testing the theories now, I have some ideas but I need a team to test them and I don’t currently have it (I can remote view but I am not that good). My main idea is that if the target clearly states ‘’the viewer should only perceive the actual events in the target time and location, in the timeline that led to the current moment, regardless of what I the tasker or anyone else believes or thinks he knows about what really happened and regardless of any related imagination, belief, symbolic imagery or telepathic impression from any person, including the tasker”, then the viewers will get nothing else than what actually happened there. One potential test for my statement would be this: Tasking a real life event but with a fictional concept (known to be fictional like Daz Smith’s UFO scenario). Then giving a target with 2 focuses (one with and one without my statement) and see if the fictional event is picked up only on focus 2. Another test would be to have say a faithful Muslim as Targeted and set as target ‘’Prophet Muhammed when speaking with Archangel Michael” with the above statement. If Keymaker is right and target wording is irrelevant, viewers will get both Muhammed and Archangel Michael as they will only read his mind. If we can indeed perceive real life events (and my statement facilitates this), viewers will either perceive Muhammed by himself, with an Alien or anything else. I have also send a mail to Daz Smith and hope he will reply and help test this as he is also very concerned with TO (in contrast to Courtney that simply ignores whatever does not fit his worldview).
My time for forum reading and posting is limited so please in this thread be concise and data driven only, no endless speculation, so I can follow along, thank you all!

Very important post Dimitrios. I'm thinking about it.
One thing now: you say: "... what they get is real data, ie the truth about the target."
But is there such a thing as 'real data'? Suppose the viewer sees a car. The car is a mostly empty collection of atoms, molecules, energies. So the viewer sees a 'mental concept', a translation. It's always a translation, even if the dowser sees water and tasts it, he/she still translates the energies into concepts. So you can never know, if you 'see' something if it is 'real' or a concept in someone's mind, since it's always a concept.

Keymaker’s comment was deleted (I suspect they deleted his account altogether - good practice Farsight police, thanks for allowing free speech) but I have a copy on my email, so here are his points: He suggests we should find material things (list them) that exist physically but no-one knows about them (no-one has ever seen them), and test my theory (if they can be remote viewed, then both scenarios are valid) - but he believes there are not such things. He also says dowsing for water is a good potential example but is it really RVing? My answer (sorry he can’t read it) is that yes, dowsing and intuition do use the same underlying mechanism of non-local perception and if they can access info not on someone’s mind, RVing also can. As for the examples he asks for, dowsing is one, current condition of abandoned cities (eg in other planets-lost civilizations) is another (there are some Farshight’s projects with such info), even Mindsight done alone (eg the below demonstration, done solo, it can be done). Any other ideas?

Important: I made AI (ChatGPT) remote view a fictional target a while ago. The target was Luke Skywalker when he lost his right hand in the fight against Darth Vader. The AI actually stated that the target doesn't feel real while still being blind to it. This is a hint that remote viewers can distinguish reality and fiction (if the requirements are met).

If you need a target for testing, let me know.

Manuel, thanks for sharing this.
I am afraid I do not agree with your conclusions at the end of the session and in the post above. Reading the session, it seems to me that ChatGPT was totally off-target and you simply interpret as “on-target’ any vague element that you thought could possibly fit the target - while ignoring the multiple impressions that are clearly wrong. ChatGPT’s initial perceptions included: ‘'no person visible, Nothing is moving, I feel **no being**, Still energy and other completely wrong perceptions’’. So, when you then told him that there are 2 subjects (that he missed), he didn’t want to admit he was wrong, so he said ‘’Yes, there are 2 subjects but not as persons but as fields..’’. This is not getting a fictional target correct. This is not admitting that you were off and making up a compensatory story… sorry, this is what I see here. The “Tension in the right wrist” was the only element potentially correct, yet having lost the right hand is quite different than having just tension - and also he speaks for himself, the viewer (he felt it) as he was not perceiving any subjects at the moment. Anyway, thank for sharing.

So this is not new in terms of questions we have with RV and ways to actually perceive "real data", my question is, also as an opinion of what we could do help to filter any doubt, is to create a target a DMP deep mind probe target about the tasker in the moment they are creating the remote viewing target.. If a tasker creates a simphony in his mind to protect his /she intellectual property (has stated in the "What part, if any, does Telepathy play within Remote Viewing?") then we can pinpoint that the data collected by the viewer (where he/she saw / heard a simphony ) was created by the tasker, for example, and therefor not "distraction of the remote viewing process.. this also can help us to indentify if the tasker when creating the Remote viewing target, what was his bias or porpuse!
An idea that i had some time ago and that i had when practicing the target pool, in this case it was to perceive the Partenon in Greece, the target was the simple image of it, the structure itself, clear sky look like summer time.. but when i perceived the target what i saw was fire, a battle / clash between forces, a triangular shape building with columns burning and being destroyed.. Well for my surprise i saw that the target had the building in it but the not the clash and fire, and yet what i perceive was "exactly" what happened to the Partenon to become what we know now has it is! at least according to history books!
So i thought, could we do for example DMP deep mind probe target about the tasker to see and identify if when creating the target if there were expectations about Event 1 (the target picture) or event 2(the rv data collected ), and if so how much in a scale of 1 to 10, this could probably help us revealing where the bias is more focus on and if the tasker had any previously or preconceived notion idea of what was described on any of those events which then can also describe that... 1: although there was bias towards the target created the rv data collected is not what the tasker expected, 2: If the tasker had no bias at all, meaning he was in a neutral space of mind while creating the target..
These are just thoughts that i had back then that could help us dissect more, to filter more, to then come to a bigger conclusion, it doesn't cover much but the more tools we got the better!