4 ms·

It's notable that the DIA/CIA only pursued remote viewing as seriously as they did because the amount of "correct guesses" the remote viewers were making were w

It's notable that the DIA/CIA only pursued remote viewing as seriously as they did because the amount of "correct guesses" the remote viewers were making were well above random chance.

neilv 2y ago
According to people whose funding or careers depended on the program showing promise/success?
- keepamovin 2y ago
  When that success and funding could only be guaranteed by delivering accurate intel product to government customers at a variety of agencies?
  - neilv 2y ago
    Is that what happened? And if intel from the magical box program was deemed correct, who determined that, and how do we know it wasn't parallel construction to improve the program's credibility, or even a tool to fabricate intel to influence a decision. (For example of the latter: "Mr. President, Black Toaster confirms the target location, but we'd have to deploy within the hour, on your order"?)
    - keepamovin 2y ago
      When your intelligence product customers keep ordering from you, you know you're onto a good thing. However, if you believe parallel construction was needed, I suppose you are also acknowledging the intel was good. If you have concerns the Stargate archives are disinformation to disguise a true source, you can interrogate this belief that RV is mere parallel construction by trying it yourself. Just head over to https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing and follow the FAQ to try a session. See how you go!
      - neilv 2y ago
        I'm asking what credible evidence backs these assertions of success. I'm also noting some reasons that we should be skeptical, based on realities that we do know have happened in other matters, including among the broad parties involved here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
        keepamovin 2y ago
        > Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Extraordinary conservatism leads to extraordinary ignorance, which we can see in your responses. This is not a personal attack on you, just an expected consequence of how you are hampered assessing evidence by your priors. You will not see evidence even if shown to you, and demand more pretending there's no evidence or it's insufficient, which is no reflection of the evidence, as your assessment is simply blinded by your priors. It's simply confirmation bias in action: you already replied to a thread where evidence of long funded successful program was presented, but were blinded to it. Nothing to be ashamed of, and understandable - but I need to point it out. I think you're open and curious - so I'm helping you. Go try for yourself (that's the way to change the prior data you have), and then a whole world of new perspective will open up for you: https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing There's no other cure for the malady that plagues you - you'll keep inventing problems with new data endlessly to protect your existing data (which is merely insufficient), a behavior which if you stopped to think about it - I really wish you would - you'd realize is an abuse of the people who are talking with you and of the data they show you - the only way for you, or any plagued by this, to cure yourselves is to get first hand experience yourself. As I've posted the above a couple of times did you have a chance to try it yet? How did it go?
      - krisoft 2y ago
        > if you believe parallel construction was needed, I suppose you are also acknowledging the intel was good. No. It says if the information was good (which we don’t know) it can still be explained by the program being a facade to launder sources and it wouldn’t be a proof of RV working. > Just head over to https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing and follow the FAQ to try a session. See how you go! I would rather read a proper experiment with controls published in a peer reviewed journal. If it works it can’t be hard to demonstrate that in a rigorous manner.
adastra22 2y ago
If it actually provided good intel they would still be doing it, and not releasing info about it in FOIA requests.
- seanw444 2y ago
  No, the point is it lasted as long as it did, which is quite a while.

It's notable that the DIA/CIA only pursued remote viewing as seriously as they did because the amount of "correct guesses" the remote viewers were making were well above random chance.

neilv 2y ago

According to people whose funding or careers depended on the program showing promise/success?

keepamovin 2y ago
When that success and funding could only be guaranteed by delivering accurate intel product to government customers at a variety of agencies?
- neilv 2y ago
  Is that what happened? And if intel from the magical box program was deemed correct, who determined that, and how do we know it wasn't parallel construction to improve the program's credibility, or even a tool to fabricate intel to influence a decision. (For example of the latter: "Mr. President, Black Toaster confirms the target location, but we'd have to deploy within the hour, on your order"?)
  - keepamovin 2y ago
    When your intelligence product customers keep ordering from you, you know you're onto a good thing. However, if you believe parallel construction was needed, I suppose you are also acknowledging the intel was good. If you have concerns the Stargate archives are disinformation to disguise a true source, you can interrogate this belief that RV is mere parallel construction by trying it yourself. Just head over to https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing and follow the FAQ to try a session. See how you go!
    - neilv 2y ago
      I'm asking what credible evidence backs these assertions of success. I'm also noting some reasons that we should be skeptical, based on realities that we do know have happened in other matters, including among the broad parties involved here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
      - keepamovin 2y ago
        > Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Extraordinary conservatism leads to extraordinary ignorance, which we can see in your responses. This is not a personal attack on you, just an expected consequence of how you are hampered assessing evidence by your priors. You will not see evidence even if shown to you, and demand more pretending there's no evidence or it's insufficient, which is no reflection of the evidence, as your assessment is simply blinded by your priors. It's simply confirmation bias in action: you already replied to a thread where evidence of long funded successful program was presented, but were blinded to it. Nothing to be ashamed of, and understandable - but I need to point it out. I think you're open and curious - so I'm helping you. Go try for yourself (that's the way to change the prior data you have), and then a whole world of new perspective will open up for you: https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing There's no other cure for the malady that plagues you - you'll keep inventing problems with new data endlessly to protect your existing data (which is merely insufficient), a behavior which if you stopped to think about it - I really wish you would - you'd realize is an abuse of the people who are talking with you and of the data they show you - the only way for you, or any plagued by this, to cure yourselves is to get first hand experience yourself. As I've posted the above a couple of times did you have a chance to try it yet? How did it go?
    - krisoft 2y ago
      > if you believe parallel construction was needed, I suppose you are also acknowledging the intel was good. No. It says if the information was good (which we don’t know) it can still be explained by the program being a facade to launder sources and it wouldn’t be a proof of RV working. > Just head over to https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing and follow the FAQ to try a session. See how you go! I would rather read a proper experiment with controls published in a peer reviewed journal. If it works it can’t be hard to demonstrate that in a rigorous manner.

adastra22 2y ago

If it actually provided good intel they would still be doing it, and not releasing info about it in FOIA requests.

seanw444 2y ago
No, the point is it lasted as long as it did, which is quite a while.