Something came to mind just now whilst I was thinking about the idea of significant or prominent people as a subject/topic to talk about for my next video-recording of what I should be talking about before I upload such a video to social-media (I prefer not to live-stream since that would result in a lot of dead air-time with me just thinking about what I am about to say next so I'd rather first gather my thoughts).

Anyway, some of the first names that came to mind were/are people like Patrick Bet-David of Valuetainment and Tom Bilyeu, PBD whom I would put into the category of Financial, Business, and, Entrepreneurship; T.B. would be in the category (for me) of Financial, Business, and, (Self-)Discipline. Paul Anthony Wallis is of course in the category of a prominent/significant biblical-scholar. Courtney Brown would of course be in the category of Scientific Remote-Viewing, and, why I believe in his and the Far-Sight Mission and why I consider their version of Remote-Viewing to be far more reliable than the other versions of Remote-Viewing; I also did go over recently the «strongest evidence /against/ "remote-viewing"» as potentially a bunch of deceptions (see the most-recent NASA & Flat-Earth thread by Aaron M. for more details), and, when the woman in the video critiqued the session about «Ra» and his «Law of One» gobble-dee-guk-blathering, even I recognised that whole entire «sophistry» (pseudo-intellectualism) as a bunch of nonsense, even before I came across Courtney Brown videos of him talking about «channelling Ra» and also describing that whole entire «Law of One» mis-direction and mis-guidance designed to /sound/ «wise» but is really just a bunch of EXTREMELY AMGIGUOUS ramblings that have NO _real_ /meaning/ (and I have no idea why in the world the FFC, Future Fore-Casting Group, or at least their handler or handlers, would even assign them with such a ridiculous target; is/are their handler or handlers compromised ?).

Anyway, whilst I was (mentally) going down my list of «prominent» people in the world, eventually, I also ended up with my attention on Alex Jones, also combined with what a «Donald Marshall» wrote about «cloning centres» and past information that I came across about a Bill Hicks if I remember the name correctly being A.J., the source claiming potential body-doubles.

With that, what came to mind is the idea as to how would the «prompts» be described, for purposes of being able to distinguish as to whether a particular Subject is really the target-subject of interest in a Remote-Viewing Session or if they are a potential Body Double, if any Body-Doubles of them exist (I also came across an interesting anecdote about someone who's friend is a huge Trump-fan, and, he was surprised that his friend could not recognise Donald Trump at some particular appearance; long story short... this eventually led him to conclude that the «Trump» he saw was a body-double, especially after his friend looked very closely at the photo, insisting that the man was not Trump).

SRV-Sessions have already revealed that there are indeed «vats» with creatures apparently being grown artificially in them (and to think that this was thought to be the type of thing that only existed in movies and video-games). What are the purposes of these artificially cultivated bi-pedals ? Clones ? Cloning ? Anyway, and, finally, although it might be better to get «physical-evidence» of the existence of these things before starting on any such SRV-Sessions, just for the sake of keeping things as «scientific» as possible, here is ONE example-idea that I have as to how to describe and determine and distinguish between a genuine-subject versus a body-double-subject...:

«Subject A is [which-ever name is to be R-V'd]. Subject B is [also the same as Subject A]. Focus 1 relates to Subject A's media-appearance at or during [T.V./News-Outlet at Time A]. Focus 2 relates to Subject B's media-appearance at or during [T.V./News-Outlet at Time B]. Focus 3 is to compare the Resonance-Frequency or Energy-Signature of Subject A with that of Subject B and determine whether they are matching Resonance-Signatures.» Presidents and other such «important» people supposedly have body-doubles or a variety of body-doubles so this is a /basic/ idea and description that I have as to determining whether who-ever is being remote-viewed is indeed the genuine-article or a body-double... I could of course make this a lot more descriptive, but, kept it simple here since I already wrote (typed) a lot. Anybody else have any other ideas of how targets can be described in order to add a disambiguation-protocol to remote-viewing sessions to rule out that they are body-doubles ?

During Saddam Hussein’s rule, President of Iraq, the use of body doubles was well-documented. These individuals were trained to resemble Saddam and would sometimes appear in public on his behalf. There were also body doubles used for his son, Uday.

Iraq: Seeing Double In Baghdad -- Saddam Uses Look-Alikes To Disguise His Whereabouts (2002)
https://www.rferl.org/a/1101033.htmlote -
quote:
"In an effort to learn more about Saddam's use of doubles, the German public television station ZDF recently asked a forensic specialist to make a scientific study of some 30 films of the Iraqi president taken from 1988 to late last month. The expert, Dieter Buhmann of the Institute of Forensic Medicine at Saarland University in Homburg/Saar, found that the pictures reveal there are as many as three Saddam doubles who regularly take the president's place."

With that being said - I think there are many ways to possibly approach the issue to distinguish a difference - but RV should give you data.

You could use actual pictures or photographs to get a sense of what the different frequency/signatures could feel like. Probe the Target and see what you get.
In the case of Husseins son Uday Hussein, Latif Yahia (his body double) wrote about his time as Udays body double.
There is an article here: (2011) My Life As Uday Hussein's Body Double
https://www.newsweek.com/my-life-uday-husseins-body-double-68475

Use a dated timeline for each Subject - past, present, future. In Saddam Husseins case, there is an actual date where he died - (and footage) - if it was him who died that is, and not one of his body doubles taking his place. Or if he was executed at all. Hussein was a CIA operative. They may not have killed him - even though there is footage, it was cut before he was hanged.

Queen Elizabeth II was also said to have a body double.
Japanese facial recognition experts say there are at least 2 Putin body doubles they have been able to identify through their research.

So I think RV could give you a lot of data to distinguish the differences before approving the original actual person.

Dopplerganger. Classic intel agency tactic to maneuver people by putting similar looking people into key places temporarily.

How you would tell the difference with RV, well, obviously you'd have to test people with known examples to see if they have an affinity for spotting such deceptions.

I know I have at least one, possibly two. I'm not running them.