5 ms·

An Evaluation of the Remote Viewing Program: Operational Applications (1995) [pdf]

37 points by mmastrac 2y ago

xtrapol8 2y ago
[flagged]
pulkitsh1234 2y ago
Final Recommendation/Conclusion (from the document): As an admitted neophyte in this area of endeavor, I categorize the field as a kind of religion, i.e., you either have "faith" that it indeed is something real, albeit fleeting and unique, or you "disbelieve" and attribute all positive results to either chicanery or pure chance.' Practicioners in the field, including those funded under government contracts, would argue with these observations, perhaps vehemently; some would argue further that the phenomenology has been verified beyond question already. This reviewer disagrees; albeit, these observations are not intended to discard the possibility of such phenomena.
- helpfulContrib 2y ago
  [dead]
- rpaddock 2y ago
  "including those funded under government contracts..." Anyone interested in Remote Viewing needs a copy of the four volume set The Star Gate Archives, covering 1972 to 1995. https://www.lfr.org/book-store https://www.lfr.org/book-store That is Ed May's site. Ed was the project manager for many years. Every year some new politician would show up and question the funding. They knew if they showed the politician how it worked they would go back to DC thinking it was just some trick. So each new politician they taught them the protocol and let the politician do it themselves. They got funding for another year.
kimi 2y ago
I find parapsychology a very interesting field: the kind of scrutiny that is applied to its experiments is so much higher than with anything else in the social sciences - and usually the bar gets higher and higher until someone gives up, who is convinced remains convinced, who is not convinced remains unconvinced . That's fascinating. For context: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Utts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Utts
- nopassrecover 2y ago
  Good take and thanks for a link I hadn’t come across in this space
- api 2y ago
  I bet a lot of social sciences and psychology research would crumble if subjected to this level of scrutiny and default-skepticism. The harder sciences would probably fare better but you’d still find a lot of wishful thinking, dodgy borderline effects, p hacking, and fraud. You’d probably winnow science down to a very solid core, which would be a good thing but would leave you with a lot of math, physics, chemistry, etc. and a lot less other stuff.
  - vacuity 2y ago
    I think we should accept that there is room for science and then there is room for philosophy. For instance, I find it doubtful that the answer to the question "is racism okay?" involves the reasoning "empirically, there [are|aren't] factors of intelligence/behavior/ability that denote one race from another". We can't discover facts out of thin air or from orthogonal facts, and it only serves to delude us by not acknowledging that. Before good and bad, harm and benefit, something isn't science, by definition, if it crumbles under reproduction or basic skepticism. Moral discussions, including whether this alternate culture of thinking about science is good or not, are intertwined but separate.
    - krapp 2y ago
      Race isn't a good example because the science comes down pretty firmly on the side of race being a social construct, not biological fact, for which the physical traits that denote race are not particularly significant. An argument that racism isn't okay because race doesn't even really exist seems perfectly valid, given that most modern arguments for racism are based on intentional misrepresentations of science.
      - vacuity 2y ago
        I think we pretty much agree, but it's not a scientific result to say that race is a social construct and that racists leverage science incorrectly. Someone isn't acting in the role of a scientist by making those refutations. I want to make that distinction because otherwise, people have misconceptions about what it means for something to be scientifically validated. Not to say that scientists are trying to deceive people by involving science, but in some sense deception is the result, and I feel like (no strong evidence though) that leads to its own problems.
causality0 2y ago
Weird how psy was everywhere in the mid to late 20th century. It showed up in science fiction constantly, as if it was just going to inevitably pop up.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  It does allow for trivial parallel construction: "that? oh, we got that from our psy squad" [this century, we have both The Men who Stare at Goats and First Squad: The Moment of Truth releasing in 2009, but we do seem to have had a distinct shortage of Bigfoots and Bermuda Triangles ever since smartphones became widespread]
- xerocole 2y ago
  It did. Thought control (the advanced and fully formed secret governance of power among us) doesn’t allow this secret to be explored. My comments and accounts keep getting banned for expressing these unfashionable ideas (even without the provocative bits.) We are not alone in our own minds!
  - causality0 2y ago
    If we were being secretly controlled the world would be less of a shit show.
    - xerocole 2y ago
      Unless they’re an even bigger shit show. Mobs of extortionists, networks in the tens of thousands, mostly bumbletard screwballs. A few elite who are as their gods. Power is more easily developed by condemned men serving decades to life in prisons than smart successful savvy persons who live a prosperous life. They themselves are mostly pyramid schemes of extortion (these days, I am assured it was not always so.) The things these do for fun and for profit cannot be paid for with money or be accomplished by anyone in their right minds. You know how Americans and power are, always taking things too far, without regard for consequences.
      - 2y ago
xerocole 2y ago
[flagged]
- MrLeap 2y ago
  So what have you experienced specifically? It should come as no surprise that telling people that "the powers that be are reading your thoughts and erasing your memories" is met with incredulity. That's a pretty big claim that doesn't mesh with the experiences and worldview of almost everyone. I'm going to be frank, it sounds like paranoid schizophrenia. I hope you're doing okay stranger.
  - xerocole 2y ago
    Well I am advocating that much of what society calls “schizophrenia” is in fact disembodied third parties messing with our minds. I have no doubt there is truly a malady of the mind which causes developmental problems, however experiencing auditory hallucinations or strange behavior in society is not schizophrenia. Richard Feynman wrote about his odd benign experiences in “Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!” (parts about sensory deprivation chambers, lucid dreaming, and hypnagogia.) And so do many, many others. These are not completely fully formed thoughts, they are odd hints made by intelligent people who themselves have no idea what is going on. Speaking of the voices in our head is among the greatest taboos of our society. Looking back through history (recent and ancient) the clues have always been present. In movies, music, and other media cultural references are covertly made. History is full of wild stories inevitably talked over. Anything anyone can say can be dismissed as unreliable third party account. How can “science” explore where a superior intellect interferes with results? That is what is required to make Power work. It is by no accident, rather decades of intense training. What common people experience is curated! My past accounts have been banned, censored, and karmatically brutalized (I know, can’t take a hint) for speaking of these topics in non offensive ways, yet resistance is deep. Specifically over a decade ago I was press ganged into a thought control hooligan army. My morality and stubborn will made this problematic, however I have been indoctrinated and this cannot be taken back. I do not have great “Power” however I do have great insight and look for opportunities to play my part. I want to let out the horrors and insanity that underlies this phenomenon, yet those are very no-goes for HN. I doubt this reply will last long. My purpose is not to impress you (that is impossible) it is to leave a trail of these tellings that others know it is not a settled matter. Thanks for your reply, I understand your position.
xerocole 2y ago
[flagged]
- xerocole 2y ago
  [flagged]
novia 2y ago
The entire time the remote viewing program was funded, the United States was actually remotely viewing their enemies and any location of interest they wanted, from space, with photos [1]. This was only recently declassified. Funding the remote viewing program allowed the United States to bait other nation-states into funding their own paychic bullshit units, while being able to be completely misunderstood if anyone ever compromised their communications and heard them talking about "remote viewing." It also allowed for parallel construction, as another commentor in this thread mentioned. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-9_Hexagon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-9_Hexagon

37 points by mmastrac 2y ago

[flagged]

Final Recommendation/Conclusion (from the document): As an admitted neophyte in this area of endeavor, I categorize the field as a kind of religion, i.e., you either have "faith" that it indeed is something real, albeit fleeting and unique, or you "disbelieve" and attribute all positive results to either chicanery or pure chance.' Practicioners in the field, including those funded under government contracts, would argue with these observations, perhaps vehemently; some would argue further that the phenomenology has been verified beyond question already. This reviewer disagrees; albeit, these observations are not intended to discard the possibility of such phenomena.

helpfulContrib 2y ago
[dead]
rpaddock 2y ago
"including those funded under government contracts..." Anyone interested in Remote Viewing needs a copy of the four volume set The Star Gate Archives, covering 1972 to 1995. https://www.lfr.org/book-store https://www.lfr.org/book-store That is Ed May's site. Ed was the project manager for many years. Every year some new politician would show up and question the funding. They knew if they showed the politician how it worked they would go back to DC thinking it was just some trick. So each new politician they taught them the protocol and let the politician do it themselves. They got funding for another year.

kimi 2y ago

I find parapsychology a very interesting field: the kind of scrutiny that is applied to its experiments is so much higher than with anything else in the social sciences - and usually the bar gets higher and higher until someone gives up, who is convinced remains convinced, who is not convinced remains unconvinced . That's fascinating. For context: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Utts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Utts

nopassrecover 2y ago
Good take and thanks for a link I hadn’t come across in this space
api 2y ago
I bet a lot of social sciences and psychology research would crumble if subjected to this level of scrutiny and default-skepticism. The harder sciences would probably fare better but you’d still find a lot of wishful thinking, dodgy borderline effects, p hacking, and fraud. You’d probably winnow science down to a very solid core, which would be a good thing but would leave you with a lot of math, physics, chemistry, etc. and a lot less other stuff.
- vacuity 2y ago
  I think we should accept that there is room for science and then there is room for philosophy. For instance, I find it doubtful that the answer to the question "is racism okay?" involves the reasoning "empirically, there [are|aren't] factors of intelligence/behavior/ability that denote one race from another". We can't discover facts out of thin air or from orthogonal facts, and it only serves to delude us by not acknowledging that. Before good and bad, harm and benefit, something isn't science, by definition, if it crumbles under reproduction or basic skepticism. Moral discussions, including whether this alternate culture of thinking about science is good or not, are intertwined but separate.
  - krapp 2y ago
    Race isn't a good example because the science comes down pretty firmly on the side of race being a social construct, not biological fact, for which the physical traits that denote race are not particularly significant. An argument that racism isn't okay because race doesn't even really exist seems perfectly valid, given that most modern arguments for racism are based on intentional misrepresentations of science.
    - vacuity 2y ago
      I think we pretty much agree, but it's not a scientific result to say that race is a social construct and that racists leverage science incorrectly. Someone isn't acting in the role of a scientist by making those refutations. I want to make that distinction because otherwise, people have misconceptions about what it means for something to be scientifically validated. Not to say that scientists are trying to deceive people by involving science, but in some sense deception is the result, and I feel like (no strong evidence though) that leads to its own problems.

causality0 2y ago

Weird how psy was everywhere in the mid to late 20th century. It showed up in science fiction constantly, as if it was just going to inevitably pop up.

082349872349872 2y ago
It does allow for trivial parallel construction: "that? oh, we got that from our psy squad" [this century, we have both The Men who Stare at Goats and First Squad: The Moment of Truth releasing in 2009, but we do seem to have had a distinct shortage of Bigfoots and Bermuda Triangles ever since smartphones became widespread]
xerocole 2y ago
It did. Thought control (the advanced and fully formed secret governance of power among us) doesn’t allow this secret to be explored. My comments and accounts keep getting banned for expressing these unfashionable ideas (even without the provocative bits.) We are not alone in our own minds!
- causality0 2y ago
  If we were being secretly controlled the world would be less of a shit show.
  - xerocole 2y ago
    Unless they’re an even bigger shit show. Mobs of extortionists, networks in the tens of thousands, mostly bumbletard screwballs. A few elite who are as their gods. Power is more easily developed by condemned men serving decades to life in prisons than smart successful savvy persons who live a prosperous life. They themselves are mostly pyramid schemes of extortion (these days, I am assured it was not always so.) The things these do for fun and for profit cannot be paid for with money or be accomplished by anyone in their right minds. You know how Americans and power are, always taking things too far, without regard for consequences.
    - 2y ago

xerocole 2y ago

[flagged]

MrLeap 2y ago
So what have you experienced specifically? It should come as no surprise that telling people that "the powers that be are reading your thoughts and erasing your memories" is met with incredulity. That's a pretty big claim that doesn't mesh with the experiences and worldview of almost everyone. I'm going to be frank, it sounds like paranoid schizophrenia. I hope you're doing okay stranger.
- xerocole 2y ago
  Well I am advocating that much of what society calls “schizophrenia” is in fact disembodied third parties messing with our minds. I have no doubt there is truly a malady of the mind which causes developmental problems, however experiencing auditory hallucinations or strange behavior in society is not schizophrenia. Richard Feynman wrote about his odd benign experiences in “Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!” (parts about sensory deprivation chambers, lucid dreaming, and hypnagogia.) And so do many, many others. These are not completely fully formed thoughts, they are odd hints made by intelligent people who themselves have no idea what is going on. Speaking of the voices in our head is among the greatest taboos of our society. Looking back through history (recent and ancient) the clues have always been present. In movies, music, and other media cultural references are covertly made. History is full of wild stories inevitably talked over. Anything anyone can say can be dismissed as unreliable third party account. How can “science” explore where a superior intellect interferes with results? That is what is required to make Power work. It is by no accident, rather decades of intense training. What common people experience is curated! My past accounts have been banned, censored, and karmatically brutalized (I know, can’t take a hint) for speaking of these topics in non offensive ways, yet resistance is deep. Specifically over a decade ago I was press ganged into a thought control hooligan army. My morality and stubborn will made this problematic, however I have been indoctrinated and this cannot be taken back. I do not have great “Power” however I do have great insight and look for opportunities to play my part. I want to let out the horrors and insanity that underlies this phenomenon, yet those are very no-goes for HN. I doubt this reply will last long. My purpose is not to impress you (that is impossible) it is to leave a trail of these tellings that others know it is not a settled matter. Thanks for your reply, I understand your position.

xerocole 2y ago

[flagged]

xerocole 2y ago
[flagged]

novia 2y ago

The entire time the remote viewing program was funded, the United States was actually remotely viewing their enemies and any location of interest they wanted, from space, with photos [1]. This was only recently declassified. Funding the remote viewing program allowed the United States to bait other nation-states into funding their own paychic bullshit units, while being able to be completely misunderstood if anyone ever compromised their communications and heard them talking about "remote viewing." It also allowed for parallel construction, as another commentor in this thread mentioned. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-9_Hexagon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-9_Hexagon