So, there are targets that are protected, the death of Epstein being one example. Farsight's first attempt to view Epstein's death resulted in wrong data because of protection measures on the target side. Farsight then made a second attempt with the help of their ET friends, and got a different result. This raises questions for all remote viewers:

How does that protection work? How can we identify wether the protective measure is technological or coming from a being? How can we see wether a protective measure is there to hide a crime, and in contrast, wether it is put up to protect the right to privacy? Can the ETs Farsight is allied with teach us in that regard?

Also, what is needed to circumvent protective measures? Courtney described it this way: The viewer is "channeled" through the consciousness of one of the ETs, similar to a "piggyback ride", so to speak. That reminds me of what Yeme did in the Essassani Resistance Movement project, where she helped the target subject to remember his forgotten past. She essentially did for him what the ETs do for Farsight.

I thought about that and got two ideas:

1. Is it just strength through numbers? I mean, can we do a collective remote viewing, like, channel our "subspace mind", as Tazz calls it, through a whole group? It would be like a group attack, and therefore we would have to consider moral principles as well.

2. And/or is the tasker the crucial point? I mean, what if remote viewing already works like this: The tasker's consciousness is the "entry point", so to speak, so having a strong tasker who is more strongly connected to the target makes a difference. What if the help from the ETs just consists of "retasking" the target such that the viewer will use a different entry point?

The Jeffrey Epstein RV is a very interesting one.
I got different results. And I'm not throwing out my data even though others have different data sets on it - more so, I respect their data as much as I do my own, it is inclusive into the enquiry - but I did not do my Target blind, but I did do it without any input - seconds after being alerted to the alleged Event. I did not assume a result either way, but once I had my data, I could see a cover up, as the person in flesh, born as Jeffrey Epstein, was alive at the time of when I did the RV. Moreso, the subject had 'retired'. So, yes, I believe the data, but I also believe that the person proclaimed dead was also Jeffrey Epstein. Now that doesn't make sense, but it doesn't have to either, they can both be right.

[quote - edited] ..."Is it just strength through numbers? I mean, can we do a collective remote viewing...
...It would be like a group attack, and therefore we would have to consider moral principles as well.” [end quote]
Creation doesn’t do morals, it just 'does' things. There are no morals - morals are a human construct. Asking questions is not immoral either 😉 it is an expression of free will. Yet ushumans, we set ourselves up, and are set up as civilizations over eons, with a moral compass - even in our dreams we can act with moral/immoral intent which spring from our conscious core beliefs in our waking state or as it demands in our sleep state.

Being moral might mean that you unintentionally (which is the same as intentionally) set yourself up to task a session without getting to the crux of the inquiry thus limiting the remote viewers or self-limiting your own session data due to the internal self-moral compass going into the 'red' zone - maybe information coming through is confronting your sensibilities and you turn away from the incoming data your compass has spiked on. You may get some insight or information but turn your attention away so as you don't receive it in the form it was meant, or in the clarity it was given.

Placing moral values on creative, artistic human endeavours such as the act of Remote Viewing, and using such tools as Telepathy to paint that data picture with, will only give you the version of that creative data, that your restrictions have defined.

Solutions to the protection and Connection?
Ask permission - just like Yeme does - and if the Subject or Object don't want to give permission (or can't in some cases because permission isn't theirs to give, or they don't understand the concept of allow/disallowing) assess the answer by then probing further. The data, if you're will-ing to accept it, will be forthcoming. No data is still data of a specific type.

It might just be a matter of timing. 🤔
Not all electric fences are on forever. It's a lot easier to get over the fence when the electricity is turned off - or the guard dogs asleep.
Going in with a collective army who are on sneaky group attack mode - well that could set off a lot of bells and whistles but it's not conclusive that you will have a breakthrough and infiltration, nor that a collective group provides better protection (safety in numbers), or better chances of accessing the Target.

There are many ideas, methods - some abstract - that can allow access to protected Targets. This is all just my views to add to the conversation. My mind can be changed, and I'm open to new ideas 😉
Energy against energy, frequencies against frequencies - sometimes I don't think it is as complicated as it seems. I agree that the more people who do the Target the more data can be collected - and it will all be different and some will be very similar and some not. Collective painters painting one picture.

[quote]..."And/or is the tasker the crucial point? I mean, what if remote viewing already works like this: The tasker's consciousness is the "entry point", so to speak, so having a strong tasker who is more strongly connected to the target makes a difference. What if the help from the ETs just consists of "retasking" the target such that the viewer will use a different entry point?" [end quote]

In reality we are all connected – to everything, anyway. I suppose it depends on the construct, mechanism and quality and our own natural capacitors and dielectrics – if I can put it like that. We have inbuilt mechanisms for protection and connection. I think there can be a lot of different variables of strength and connections, or connecting threads, between the people involved throughout the RV process and to the Target at hand, and then the relationship to the quality of the session and the data received. I think if the Tasker has a connection to the Target, the intensity and the focus of that intent of interest is relevant to the way they will word the task - even to the way the Remote Viewer will do that Target. The thing is, I don't think it’s absolutely measurable - as in better or worse data, easier or harder session, good or bad - those things are not quantifiable. You can express these things, but the session itself - with all its connections and connecting threads - will be what it is.

There are personalities I am drawn to for their Tasking abilities - Tazz is one of them, and we have worked together on many projects. There are 5 other people I could name where that I feel 'connected' to. At this stage, for me, it's a matter of trust, I think. In those cases, it's when the intention of the Tasker comes from a place of focusing on everything that Remote Viewing encompasses, and not just the end result, there is a personal expectation developed and placed in trust. Now if I felt different about that, I’d let them know – lol.

In relation to the FS team’s method of protection and connection - To me, using the abilities available by ET family is akin to having more members in the RV team. If that is the teamwork combination that works, and the methods utilized get the desired results to get through and beyond to reach the Target, then that is a team effort of value and ingenuity!

This post was going to be about 4 sentences when I started replying – oh well.

The right tools for the job - the right solution for the problem.

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

"Creation doesn’t do morals, it just 'does' things."

So, you would be okay with a murderer killing your wife because it's just creation doing a thing?

"There are no morals - morals are a human construct."

This is an illogical statement: If morals are a human construct, then they are there.

"Being moral might mean that you unintentionally (which is the same as intentionally) set yourself up to task a session without getting to the crux of the inquiry thus limiting the remote viewers or self-limiting your own session data due to the internal self-moral compass going into the 'red' zone"..."

This is a very important point: As far as I'm concerned, it's not "having morals" that can prevent us from seeing the truth, but having the wrong morals. For example, respecting privacy while in reality a crime is committed that should be seen.

Imagine a man kidnapping a young woman and locking her in his basement. Is that privacy? Of course not, because it's a crime, in this case the violation of the self-ownership of the woman. Do we allow ourselves to look at that? Yes, we do, in order to help that woman.

In contrast, we shouldn't allow ourselves to trespass, meaning to violate privacy when there is no crime. For example, imagine a target to look at you having sex with another person. We could do that, but would you deem it to be moral?

"Ask permission - just like Yeme does - and if the Subject or Object don't want to give permission (or can't ...) assess the answer by then probing further."

The question is: Can we see wether a person tries to hide a crime without trespassing?

I ask this question because if there is a crime, we should be able to circumvent or destroy the protective measure because it's a right to defend the victim of the crime.