5 ms·

I always thought this was interesting. May 15, 1987: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R001700010001-2.pdf https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/do

by noworld 9mo ago

I always thought this was interesting. May 15, 1987: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R001700010001-2.pdf https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00789R0017000... May 17, 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident

FuturisticLover 9mo ago
This is so shocking, considering the similarities. Reality is indeed stranger than fiction.
namanyayg 9mo ago
What does the first pdf mean? (And does it remind anyone else of an ee cummings poem or is it just me)
- finalarbiter 9mo ago
  The first PDF is the results/notes of someone attempting remote viewing. Given the dates, I agree with the above poster that the similarities are impressive.
  - the_af 9mo ago
    The PDF mentions a ship and some sort of unexpected catastrophe (in vague surrounding, horoscope-like terms) but it also mentions "high-powered lasers", Bikini atoll, H-bombs, and the drawings of the alleged ship superstructure look nothing like those of the USS Stark (some of the notes mention a "flight deck" like an aircraft carrier's; while the USS Stark does have a flight deck this is a mostly irrelevant detail about this class of ships). Plus this was done for the CIA, so unsurprisingly any "viewing" would be primed to refer to military hardware and events; imagine if they mentioned McDonald's, ice-cream, and an upcoming football match. If you exclude H-Bomb, high powered laser, disregard the shapes don't match the USS Stark, and fixate on the coincidences -- pattern-matching, something the human brain has evolved for survival -- of course the similarities will seem impressive. This is "cold reading 101", a known trick. The average tarot reader knows how to do this. Interestingly, we don't know of any other predictions that widely missed the mark. So if predictions 1 to 10 were made, most wildly inaccurate, but one of them vaguely/partially resembles something that happened some days after, that's not convincing to demonstrate anything but a random result. Let's say another prediction stated "calm waters, US dominance, safe passage, successful mission, happy sailors". How would we assess the accuracy of the predictive method?
- noworld 9mo ago
  The first PDF is the record of a remote viewing session from 2 days before the USS Stark incident, and it is eerily similar to the incident. The feelings and "atmosphere" (can't think of a better word for it) sound like what you might expect on a ship being attacked by a random missile. For example: 1. The drawing on p. 7 looks like the superstructure of a warship. 2. The next few pages might describe what it feels like to wonder if your ship is actually under missile attack. 3. On page 10 it records "aircraft--large, multiengined; distant; orbiting; distraction controlled, directed. 'Under orders.'" This USNI article has a little more detail on the AWACS plane detecting the incoming attack: https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2017/june/assault-stark https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2017/j... There are other similarities, but the CIA report predates the attack, which is especially strange.
  - FuturisticLover 9mo ago
    Yeah, Remote Viewing should be a real-time event. This is Precognition.
    - therobots927 9mo ago
      Why does it need to be real- time? If rv is possible then it’s naive to assume that time is somehow “special” vs 3D. It’s possible that time is not unfolding linearly, that is only an illusion. “Remote” could involve accessing information from along the time dimension.
      - FuturisticLover 9mo ago
        I guess that makes sense. My tiny brain is still processing all the information. Thinking beyond 3D or space/time is impossible for me.
        dylan604 9mo ago
        Long ago I was told of looking at a timeline so that time "travels" from left to right is the normal view, but now rotate that timeline so that it appears as a dot to you. You now see all events of the timeline, but without reference to "when" they happened. Lots of scifi plots are also described as such
perfmode 9mo ago
Interesting indeed. Thanks for sharing.
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 9mo ago
There just as much completely unrelated to the incident in that as there is related. Also, what guarantee is there that whomever created that document didn't just date it two days prior to acquire more funding for doing spooky things?
- noworld 9mo ago
  I don't think there's a "guarantee" that it wasn't backdated, but there isn't any evidence of that either.
  - the_af 9mo ago
    Since backdating would be one of the ways to fake this, the onus lies in those that claim the prediction was legit. That's how evidence works for extraordinary claims. Alas, scientific rigor is a harsh master.
    - noworld 9mo ago
      "extraordinary claims/extraordinary evidence" isn't scientific rigor, it's adding qualifiers to make the evaluation of the claim and evidence more subjective.
      - the_af 9mo ago
        It's literally how the scientific method works. There's a reason RV is considered pseudoscience. It speaks volumes you don't see any problem with the lack of proof that the documents weren't backdated, and get defensive when people tell you this must absolutely be ruled out if we're ever to even start considering your alleged evidence.
anthk 9mo ago
https://archive.org/details/cia-readingroom-document-cia-rdp96-00792r000500610009-7 https://archive.org/details/cia-readingroom-document-cia-rdp... More info: http://shpenkov.com/pdf/microleptonsEng.pdf http://shpenkov.com/pdf/microleptonsEng.pdf Odd patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/RU99109282A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/RU99109282A/en I don't understand this at all. It's like trying to understand QM before Maxwell. This is even more surreal: https://remoteview.substack.com/p/a-phenomenological-model-of-radiation https://remoteview.substack.com/p/a-phenomenological-model-o...

by noworld 9mo ago

FuturisticLover 9mo ago

This is so shocking, considering the similarities. Reality is indeed stranger than fiction.

namanyayg 9mo ago

What does the first pdf mean? (And does it remind anyone else of an ee cummings poem or is it just me)

finalarbiter 9mo ago
The first PDF is the results/notes of someone attempting remote viewing. Given the dates, I agree with the above poster that the similarities are impressive.
- the_af 9mo ago
  The PDF mentions a ship and some sort of unexpected catastrophe (in vague surrounding, horoscope-like terms) but it also mentions "high-powered lasers", Bikini atoll, H-bombs, and the drawings of the alleged ship superstructure look nothing like those of the USS Stark (some of the notes mention a "flight deck" like an aircraft carrier's; while the USS Stark does have a flight deck this is a mostly irrelevant detail about this class of ships). Plus this was done for the CIA, so unsurprisingly any "viewing" would be primed to refer to military hardware and events; imagine if they mentioned McDonald's, ice-cream, and an upcoming football match. If you exclude H-Bomb, high powered laser, disregard the shapes don't match the USS Stark, and fixate on the coincidences -- pattern-matching, something the human brain has evolved for survival -- of course the similarities will seem impressive. This is "cold reading 101", a known trick. The average tarot reader knows how to do this. Interestingly, we don't know of any other predictions that widely missed the mark. So if predictions 1 to 10 were made, most wildly inaccurate, but one of them vaguely/partially resembles something that happened some days after, that's not convincing to demonstrate anything but a random result. Let's say another prediction stated "calm waters, US dominance, safe passage, successful mission, happy sailors". How would we assess the accuracy of the predictive method?
noworld 9mo ago
The first PDF is the record of a remote viewing session from 2 days before the USS Stark incident, and it is eerily similar to the incident. The feelings and "atmosphere" (can't think of a better word for it) sound like what you might expect on a ship being attacked by a random missile. For example: 1. The drawing on p. 7 looks like the superstructure of a warship. 2. The next few pages might describe what it feels like to wonder if your ship is actually under missile attack. 3. On page 10 it records "aircraft--large, multiengined; distant; orbiting; distraction controlled, directed. 'Under orders.'" This USNI article has a little more detail on the AWACS plane detecting the incoming attack: https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2017/june/assault-stark https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2017/j... There are other similarities, but the CIA report predates the attack, which is especially strange.
- FuturisticLover 9mo ago
  Yeah, Remote Viewing should be a real-time event. This is Precognition.
  - therobots927 9mo ago
    Why does it need to be real- time? If rv is possible then it’s naive to assume that time is somehow “special” vs 3D. It’s possible that time is not unfolding linearly, that is only an illusion. “Remote” could involve accessing information from along the time dimension.
    - FuturisticLover 9mo ago
      I guess that makes sense. My tiny brain is still processing all the information. Thinking beyond 3D or space/time is impossible for me.
      - dylan604 9mo ago
        Long ago I was told of looking at a timeline so that time "travels" from left to right is the normal view, but now rotate that timeline so that it appears as a dot to you. You now see all events of the timeline, but without reference to "when" they happened. Lots of scifi plots are also described as such

perfmode 9mo ago

Interesting indeed. Thanks for sharing.

ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 9mo ago

There just as much completely unrelated to the incident in that as there is related. Also, what guarantee is there that whomever created that document didn't just date it two days prior to acquire more funding for doing spooky things?

noworld 9mo ago
I don't think there's a "guarantee" that it wasn't backdated, but there isn't any evidence of that either.
- the_af 9mo ago
  Since backdating would be one of the ways to fake this, the onus lies in those that claim the prediction was legit. That's how evidence works for extraordinary claims. Alas, scientific rigor is a harsh master.
  - noworld 9mo ago
    "extraordinary claims/extraordinary evidence" isn't scientific rigor, it's adding qualifiers to make the evaluation of the claim and evidence more subjective.
    - the_af 9mo ago
      It's literally how the scientific method works. There's a reason RV is considered pseudoscience. It speaks volumes you don't see any problem with the lack of proof that the documents weren't backdated, and get defensive when people tell you this must absolutely be ruled out if we're ever to even start considering your alleged evidence.

anthk 9mo ago

https://archive.org/details/cia-readingroom-document-cia-rdp96-00792r000500610009-7 https://archive.org/details/cia-readingroom-document-cia-rdp... More info: http://shpenkov.com/pdf/microleptonsEng.pdf http://shpenkov.com/pdf/microleptonsEng.pdf Odd patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/RU99109282A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/RU99109282A/en I don't understand this at all. It's like trying to understand QM before Maxwell. This is even more surreal: https://remoteview.substack.com/p/a-phenomenological-model-of-radiation https://remoteview.substack.com/p/a-phenomenological-model-o...