5 ms·

> was (and is) highly controversial; Stargate claimed a bit of successes as well as many failures. Hm, I wouldn't say RV is controversial - only possibly in th

> was (and is) highly controversial; Stargate claimed a bit of successes as well as many failures. Hm, I wouldn't say RV is controversial - only possibly in the sense that heliocentrism was controversial in the 15th and 16th centuries: i.e., to the folks who had not been exposed to the data showing the Earth orbits the Sun. Specifically tho, this sentiment and similar in other comments, are common misrepresentations or misconceptions. Here are the key stats from the same ("Stargate") document archives - by 1983: 85% of 700 RV missions gave accurate target information. 50% of 700 RV missions produced usable intelligence. 50% does not mean the "success rate was chance", because the odds of randomly producing actionable intelligence for a mission based solely off an opaque 6 digit number (ie, the "Coordinate" in Coordinate RV), are far lower than 50% of the time. These stats are from a FOIA'd briefing transcript by Lt. Col Buzby, the Project Manager of INSCOM (United States Army Intelligence and Security Command) RV project "CENTER LANE". The full quote is: In summary, over the past 5 years INSCOM has conducted 89 collection projects for a number of different US government agencies. Our successes must be examined from two perspectives. (Chart change) Over 85% of our operational missions have produced accurate target information. Even more significant, approximately 50% of the 700 missions produced usable intelligence. Page 8, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700330003-6.pdf More context: "Stargate" was the program name for the final declassified RV program which absorbed many previous programs such as Center Lane (early 80s), Grill Flame, etc. More facts: Hal Puthoff has suggested in a recent interview with Eric Weinstein and Jesse Michels that the RV programs were not discontinued when declassified in 1995, but rather "went dark" (became unacknowledged special access programs). The "debunking" report accompanying the 1995 declassification was most likely ritual cover for this.

bnlxbnlx 2y ago
Am I understanding you correctly in that for you this isn't controversial, because it's clear from today's/some future's standpoint that RV does work? Do you have any other sources on that? I would imagine someone replicated this...
- keepamovin 2y ago
  You'd like additional data to the above? Sure! Many people are doing it all the time, and so can you. Head over to https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing and try the pinned FAQ (read through it, and get to A quick, easy and fun way to try remote viewing for the first time is through our [beginner's guide].) to do a session for yourself. See how you go! :)
  - bnlxbnlx 2y ago
    Interesting, I went a little down the rabbit hole. And it's not what I'm actually looking for. I'm looking for controlled studies with a falsifiable hypothesis and a detailed section on the study design :) I've spent some time looking for such studies and I didn't find anything (convincing). So if anyone has something to share, I'd appreciate that
    - keepamovin 2y ago
      That's the problem tho: you don't be convinced because you're not rational on this topic. Prior data - no way around it except first hand experience. So you have to try - otherwise your ego/intellectual will invent decorative fantasies to call issue with any new data that challenges that. Understandable, no attack on your - but if you really want to get to the truth on this - channel it into trying for yourself first. That's the only way. Then once you have sufficient prior data, you'll be able to actually look at the evidence (stuff, academic) if that actually interests you!
energy123 2y ago
How come nobody can replicate this in less opaque settings? Anyone can get 100% accuracy by guessing trivial things that are always true regardless of the nature of the target. Without more information these numbers aren't meaningful
- keepamovin 2y ago
  > Anyone can get 100% accuracy by guessing trivial things that are always true regardless of the nature of the target But trivial things that are always true does not describe the information sought by government customers from these programs, to which the above data refer. > How come nobody can replicate this in less opaque settings? You can, right now! You can try it yourself, see my other comments in this thread for resources.
  - energy123 2y ago
    > information sought by government customers from these programs, to which the above data refer. Those numbers aren't described with the level of rigor needed to be considered evidence. No examples, no methodology, etc. We don't know what "usable intelligence" means. You have taken the liberty of interpreting that in a particularly generous way. > You can, right now! I mean under controlled conditions. Why didn't any of these people in /r/remoteviewing sign up for the JREF $1 million prize? Or at least contact parapsychologists (e.g. Dean Radin or Daryl Bem) who would have been happy to facilitate rigorous public experiments? The best we have from experiments is statistical effects, e.g. guessing a coinflip correctly 51% of the time over large numbers of trials. Not the kind of large, obvious effects that "50% useable intelligence" or "85% accuracy" is hinting at.
    - keepamovin 2y ago
      And you will always take the liberty of interpreting any 3rd-party data in a particularly conservative way until you correct your prior data deficit with first hand experience. That's the key issue. So you need to try if you are serious about getting the truth. Think of it like doing the required pre-requisite work to understand a new topic. This is the same. Why would you enter a competition you believe was a rigged attempt to disprove what you know through first hand experience to be real?
ddalex 2y ago
I want to believe
- keepamovin 2y ago
  Try for yourself! :)
kimi 2y ago
> Hm, I wouldn't say RV is controversial I would say it is, because as always with anything on the "para" edge, those who are convinced remain convinced and those who are not keep on saying it's a fraud. This applies to you, dear reader.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- keepamovin 2y ago
  No, not really true. Your phony descriptions do not apply to me, and need not apply to anyone or anything, dear misrepresenter! It’s okay, you just don’t know about it. You should get some experience tho,?#! ODU/?VA?!!. Vector in! :)
rep_lodsb 2y ago
So what's the theory of how RV actually works? If it's possible to get "actionable intelligence" by this method, I think it would imply that the scientific materialist worldview is completely wrong. Because how could information that e.g. only exists in some other person's mind direct the remote viewer to a target, unless the information itself was somehow more "fundamentally real" and interpretable than the complex interplay of matter and energy that must go on inside of the human brain that holds it, assuming "matter" and "energy" and "brains" are real? I'm not saying that this is impossible, but if it's true, we would have to throw out much - perhaps all - of present day scientific consensus. One comment I've seen on Reddit seems to offer an alternative explanation: >RV functions as a kind of precognition-on-demand. Think about it like the opposite of memory. Instead of setting your intention to view information from a memory in the past, you are setting your intention to view information from an experience you will have in the future, which is the act of checking feedback. If you have no real world feedback, then you have no verifiable real world data in your session. Still outside of mainstream science, but I think there are some theories of quantum mechanics where the future can affect the past? If that were the case, being informed that the target was "Mars, 1 million years ago" might inspire one to come up with a narrative like that and transmit it to your past self?
- keepamovin 2y ago
  Wow, your openness to explore this is truly commendable! When you dove in with that "if it's possible, that means that" YES! That's the kind of courageous willingness to explore, unburdened by "religiously held" biases blinkering inference, that humanity needs to advance. Personally, I have no idea what the theory is, but it's an interesting question. I guess it might be beyond the reach of our current theoretical understandings to explain it. Which, from the point of view of advancing understanding of reality, makes it particularly interesting data - that you can obtain at no cost yourself. I guess we wouldn't have to discard our consensus, but rather see present understanding from a more rigorously (and purely) "Scientific" point of view: as mere temporary models, beads in a evolving chain of understanding, to be discarded and adapted (not worshipped or imposed). That's true science. Maybe our coherent predictive theories represent a good description of "top layer" physical reality, but fail to describe a possible "substrate layer" where consciousness an information play integral roles. In a like way to how physical properties and descriptions change when moving media, from air to water, or space. PEAR lab research "retrocausality" (fairly conclusively showing that future image stimulus could affect present biosigns). I think that's another effect of the underlying thing, but it's not the whole thing. How can you view the past? How can RV work when no "remote human" is involved?

bnlxbnlx 2y ago

Am I understanding you correctly in that for you this isn't controversial, because it's clear from today's/some future's standpoint that RV does work? Do you have any other sources on that? I would imagine someone replicated this...

keepamovin 2y ago
You'd like additional data to the above? Sure! Many people are doing it all the time, and so can you. Head over to https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing https://reddit.com/r/remoteviewing and try the pinned FAQ (read through it, and get to A quick, easy and fun way to try remote viewing for the first time is through our [beginner's guide].) to do a session for yourself. See how you go! :)
- bnlxbnlx 2y ago
  Interesting, I went a little down the rabbit hole. And it's not what I'm actually looking for. I'm looking for controlled studies with a falsifiable hypothesis and a detailed section on the study design :) I've spent some time looking for such studies and I didn't find anything (convincing). So if anyone has something to share, I'd appreciate that
  - keepamovin 2y ago
    That's the problem tho: you don't be convinced because you're not rational on this topic. Prior data - no way around it except first hand experience. So you have to try - otherwise your ego/intellectual will invent decorative fantasies to call issue with any new data that challenges that. Understandable, no attack on your - but if you really want to get to the truth on this - channel it into trying for yourself first. That's the only way. Then once you have sufficient prior data, you'll be able to actually look at the evidence (stuff, academic) if that actually interests you!

energy123 2y ago

How come nobody can replicate this in less opaque settings? Anyone can get 100% accuracy by guessing trivial things that are always true regardless of the nature of the target. Without more information these numbers aren't meaningful

keepamovin 2y ago
> Anyone can get 100% accuracy by guessing trivial things that are always true regardless of the nature of the target But trivial things that are always true does not describe the information sought by government customers from these programs, to which the above data refer. > How come nobody can replicate this in less opaque settings? You can, right now! You can try it yourself, see my other comments in this thread for resources.
- energy123 2y ago
  > information sought by government customers from these programs, to which the above data refer. Those numbers aren't described with the level of rigor needed to be considered evidence. No examples, no methodology, etc. We don't know what "usable intelligence" means. You have taken the liberty of interpreting that in a particularly generous way. > You can, right now! I mean under controlled conditions. Why didn't any of these people in /r/remoteviewing sign up for the JREF $1 million prize? Or at least contact parapsychologists (e.g. Dean Radin or Daryl Bem) who would have been happy to facilitate rigorous public experiments? The best we have from experiments is statistical effects, e.g. guessing a coinflip correctly 51% of the time over large numbers of trials. Not the kind of large, obvious effects that "50% useable intelligence" or "85% accuracy" is hinting at.
  - keepamovin 2y ago
    And you will always take the liberty of interpreting any 3rd-party data in a particularly conservative way until you correct your prior data deficit with first hand experience. That's the key issue. So you need to try if you are serious about getting the truth. Think of it like doing the required pre-requisite work to understand a new topic. This is the same. Why would you enter a competition you believe was a rigged attempt to disprove what you know through first hand experience to be real?

ddalex 2y ago

I want to believe

keepamovin 2y ago
Try for yourself! :)

kimi 2y ago

> Hm, I wouldn't say RV is controversial I would say it is, because as always with anything on the "para" edge, those who are convinced remain convinced and those who are not keep on saying it's a fraud. This applies to you, dear reader.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
keepamovin 2y ago
No, not really true. Your phony descriptions do not apply to me, and need not apply to anyone or anything, dear misrepresenter! It’s okay, you just don’t know about it. You should get some experience tho,?#! ODU/?VA?!!. Vector in! :)

rep_lodsb 2y ago

So what's the theory of how RV actually works? If it's possible to get "actionable intelligence" by this method, I think it would imply that the scientific materialist worldview is completely wrong. Because how could information that e.g. only exists in some other person's mind direct the remote viewer to a target, unless the information itself was somehow more "fundamentally real" and interpretable than the complex interplay of matter and energy that must go on inside of the human brain that holds it, assuming "matter" and "energy" and "brains" are real? I'm not saying that this is impossible, but if it's true, we would have to throw out much - perhaps all - of present day scientific consensus. One comment I've seen on Reddit seems to offer an alternative explanation: >RV functions as a kind of precognition-on-demand. Think about it like the opposite of memory. Instead of setting your intention to view information from a memory in the past, you are setting your intention to view information from an experience you will have in the future, which is the act of checking feedback. If you have no real world feedback, then you have no verifiable real world data in your session. Still outside of mainstream science, but I think there are some theories of quantum mechanics where the future can affect the past? If that were the case, being informed that the target was "Mars, 1 million years ago" might inspire one to come up with a narrative like that and transmit it to your past self?

keepamovin 2y ago
Wow, your openness to explore this is truly commendable! When you dove in with that "if it's possible, that means that" YES! That's the kind of courageous willingness to explore, unburdened by "religiously held" biases blinkering inference, that humanity needs to advance. Personally, I have no idea what the theory is, but it's an interesting question. I guess it might be beyond the reach of our current theoretical understandings to explain it. Which, from the point of view of advancing understanding of reality, makes it particularly interesting data - that you can obtain at no cost yourself. I guess we wouldn't have to discard our consensus, but rather see present understanding from a more rigorously (and purely) "Scientific" point of view: as mere temporary models, beads in a evolving chain of understanding, to be discarded and adapted (not worshipped or imposed). That's true science. Maybe our coherent predictive theories represent a good description of "top layer" physical reality, but fail to describe a possible "substrate layer" where consciousness an information play integral roles. In a like way to how physical properties and descriptions change when moving media, from air to water, or space. PEAR lab research "retrocausality" (fairly conclusively showing that future image stimulus could affect present biosigns). I think that's another effect of the underlying thing, but it's not the whole thing. How can you view the past? How can RV work when no "remote human" is involved?