The whole thing was (and is) highly controversial; Stargate claimed a bit of successes as well as many failures.
back
2 comments
> 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.
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 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.
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?
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?
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...
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 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! :)
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
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!
> 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.
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! :)
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
"Remote viewing has demonstrated it is of value and has a high rate of success... We do not evaluate our product. All evaluations are done by the professional intelligence analysts who assign the project. Collection of intelligence through remote viewing is not an experiment. It is a successful collection method. The army effort is not research and development, it is operational collection..."
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R0011002...
Obviously people lie but a compelling report.
Hey, nice find! You don't need to rely on liars tho - if you're worried about it - just try for yourself. Tho you probably know it's real!
> just try for yourself.
More probably the conclusions from the project manager are positive exaggerations because it would directly benefit from the continuation of the project but let's consider the possibility that RV works! This would be a fantastic evidence of psychic/paranormal phenomena that would make anyone reconsider other paranormal/spiritual claims that we're previously dismissed. Which creates a dilemma because if I'm non-receptive to paranormal phenomena it will not work and there's no point in trying and if I'm receptive then it's unwise because divination is sinful according to the majority of religions.
I imagine there's a "reality" be it real or fictitious where RV and other forms of divination works but ain't widespread enough to be scientifically acknowledged because those really capable of it knows it leads to eternal damnation so they don't practice it or share it publicly. In this same "reality" it's possible that the CIA as other intelligence agencies successfully used divination to acquire intel but discontinued it as they did with Blackbird because nowadays the have much better ways like software backdoors, spy satellites and even OSINT. And to note at best RV produces subjective intel which is non-optimal.
An interesting point on religion and surely behind some of the push back. Mostly tho it's simply conflict with materialism priors. But the prohibition on psi among world religions is by no means universal: it's mostly Abrahamic; Hindu and Tao take a much more nuanced take. As do folk religions and native traditions, that are typically much more engaged.
Even so, prohibitions sometimes contain truths: the Jewish one against pork could prevent parasites. What if forbidding psi is similarly well intended? Opening awareness can be gnarly (the yoga and seeker paths in India know this), and it might happen that "when you see them, they see you" adding to difficulties. Even so, many things are difficult at first. But worthwhile things take effort.
That said tho: it's not as if religions are the paragons of virtuous behavior they may wish to be seen as, so it may not do to simply accept prohibitions on faith alone. And remember prohibitions evolve with time, even religious ones. Also, you cannot discount the possibility that not wanting to democratize access to the divine, or even spiritual, is simply about centralizing power and control.
Your point on advances in other collection is well taken tho! But some factual errors require correction: you don't need to be 'receptive to psi' to have it work, just try (unless faith precludes you to, and I don't suggest violating what you believe); also it's not 'subjective' in the sense you want - it's people looking at data, and they're interpreting it. That's the subjectivity, and that's like every analysis ever.
It helps to consider it just another sensor, or sense organ, or skill. It's not supposed to be sole source. It's not pretending to be infallible. Can you sink 100 3 pointers in a row? Not even the best NBA can all the time, every human skill is dynamic and on a bell curve. Regarding philosophical prohibitions, consider like access to data to help you make better choices.
How about an analogy? You are a person looking at a wall. Along the wall walks a caterpillar. It goes from left to right. Standing where you are, you can see its objective. Some tasty leaf sprouting from a gap a few feet away. The caterpillar senses it, but does not see as clearly as you - if for no other reason than your 3D perspective - from on the wall, it can really only grasp a small way in front. What the caterpillar doesn't see is a large vertical crack, impossibly to pass, that breaks its path just ahead. You tho, do see that crack. Because of your perspective. You see the little guy heading towards it, whereas if he just took 30 degrees to the right he'd be able to go around it. From where he is tho, he can't see it. So without the knowledge of another perspective, without other data, the little guy is gonna waste more time. And might even run into trouble in the big crack!
That's like psi. Dive in! Unless your beliefs about risk preclude that - in which case I'd say, be more careful, because those prior beliefs could cause you to have ideas which would get in the way and might be challenging for mental health.
Anywho, thanks for your fun reply! :)
Thanks for the conversation. It's fun to talk about different things and explore new ideas even if hypothetically.
To clarify, for a Christian the issue wouldn't be that doing A is forbid or that the belief of it being wrong would be challenging for mental health. The issue would be simple that doing A is wrong.
But sadly your OG link was borked! The actual link is:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001100290005-5.pdf
Page 12 (final page)> 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.
> 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.
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?
I want to believe
Try for yourself! :)
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.
If it actually provided good intel they would still be doing it, and not releasing info about it in FOIA requests.
No, the point is it lasted as long as it did, which is quite a while.
According to people whose funding or careers depended on the program showing promise/success?
When that success and funding could only be guaranteed by delivering accurate intel product to government customers at a variety of agencies?
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"?)
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 and follow the FAQ to try a session. See how you go!
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.
> 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
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?
> 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 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.
Hahah, more likely that to save admitting RV was real they'd need parallel construction to launder the RV data. But I applaud your inventive fantasy gymnastics in protecting your prior beliefs from the dangerous ideas of psi/RV.
> 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.
Do so but only after you try for yourself. The reason is laid out clearly in my just now cousin comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42723354
A reminder to all here, please don't keep arguing sans experience, when that's the key thing to inform you. Just get the experience, and report back if you care to share! :)
If it worked, you could hypothetically find a webcam in a known location and rip the stream.
Without watching the stream as it is being ripped, you would do your remote viewing thing.
Do that for a period of time, making notes and timestamps. Then, go back and compare the notes against the stream.
The fact that something so monumentally earthshaking to our knowledge of physics/biology/etc. has not had anyone do this very simple exercise in our modern era suggests it is charitably self-delusion, and uncharitably intentionally propagated bunk and hokum.
You kids get off my lawn!
Yes, I am fun at parties.