Courtney responded regarding the problem of telepathic overlay in the latest Spotlight. Let me quote how he "solves" it, and then I will explain why his explanation doesn't hold up.

[21:47] "Telepathy is not noise, it IS the signal. But here is the distinction that really matters: Telepathy determines where to look, not what to see. You get that? It determines where to look, not what to see. And that difference is everything. Think of it like a laser pointer, use that analogy. Now, the thoughts of the analyst act like a laser pointer. They focus the remote viewers attention to a specific time and place. They do not determine the content of what the remote viewer sees. It just gets them to the right time and place. [...] So yes, intent matters. But intent is about location, not imagery."

Alright, but... what about the intent of the ETs providing "support" for the viewers?

See, by making use of the ETs help, the tasker isn't pointing at the actual target anymore. Instead, the tasker is pointing at the ETs. And the ETs then can decide what the viewer will see, just like Lacerta decides that she looks human to us.

Also, it's totally plausible that, when pointing at fictional stuff, the tasker is pointing at himself, or at the author of the fiction. The viewer then will essentially make a DMP of the tasker/author, because the target is the person's mind, not a place in physical reality. And the Tanner Dam experiment not only proved that this is possible, it also proved that the viewers can't tell the difference.

This criticism is not meant to invalidate remote viewing. It's meant to make us aware of how the "pointing" works.

[23:17] "And every project includes verifiable elements to confirm correct time and place."

The confirmation of verifiable elements does not necessarily mean that non-verifiable elements are also correct.

Let's use the example of the Pyramids: If the remote viewer is channeled through the mind of another person – which means the mind of the other person replaces the actual target – that person can add the elements you expect to see, like the Pyramids and the desert. But that person can also add fictional elements and mix them with the expected elements. For example, the person could show you King Kong sitting on top of a Pyramid. The viewer will see verifiable elements – the Pyramid and the desert – mixed with a fictional element.

Because of this, every project where the tasker points at an intermediary instead of the actual target doesn't fulfill the requirement of blindness anymore. The intermediary is not blind to the target.

It's very telling that Courtney doesn't mention the ETs' support in the Spotlight. He keeps ignoring the possibility that the ETs are manipulating the viewers for unknown reasons.

[26:41] "Farsight is not the savior. It was never meant to be the savior. Farsight is the archive. The memory store."

That's why it's so important to avoid filling the archive with lies. There's a lot of data in the archive that isn't backed by physical evidence or verification. From a scientific standpoint, it's just hearsay.

In short: Farsight's archive doesn't match the requirements of a proper archive, because the origin of the data is still unclear.

I have to think about this more because you make some valid points. Because you are right, what if the ETs are manipulating the remote viewers? How can we avoid that? After Courtney mentioned he thought the pyramids were somehow moved on water, then when no water showed up in the viewings, that showed there was not TO. Perhaps that is true and makes sense.

And that reminded me I recalled him saying once, I think in an interview, that he was surprised at the info he found out from the 911 viewings. He thought when he tasked it that it was just going to prove the authored government story. So while there may be some overlay, I don't think it all is.

I do wonder how several viewers come up with the same idea to do the time charts without being asked to do so in sessions. That has always been a question in my mind, and I thought they were prompted to do so, but I asked once what guidance they were given, and he did respond and say they were not given anything except the target. So like you, I still have more questions than answers. But I am trying to understand how all of this works.

im also worried about this subject.. but i also make the question, why did Bill the grey got sad when the viewers were remote viewing the tower of babel, why he was afraid that the viewers had a negative opinion over him about that battle, afraid they would judge him without knowing the full facts and what was like being in their "skin" at that time?!

@Artur Faria:

Yes, there are these little details in the sessions that make me wonder why they are in there. Bill getting sad is one of them. It's either a very sophisticated way of manipulation... or it's just the truth.

My guess is that Bill was sad because he or his people were part of the wrong side back then. But that's only one possibility.

The supposed insectoid in the latest Board Meeting was sad in a similar way. And angry. He mentioned that his species went through shit that we can't even imagine.

I see a pattern here: The identity of the involved ISBEs seems to be strongly attached to their species. Which is interesting, because changing the body should be a normal thing to an ISBE that is aware. But it seems like it's not very popular to do so. Most ISBEs seem to stick to their species.